Help desk
< August 25	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

August 26

Uploads

I set up an account to contribute to Wikipedia on the 18th of Aug. Trying to upload my document and I got this message: You cannot move pages because your account is too new or is blocked from editing. If you would like a page to be moved and you are not blocked, you can list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

I assumed my account is more than 4 days old -today being 25th Aug? Can't seem to figure out how to request to be moved too. Is my account blocked? Your help will be greatly appreciated. Aliceako (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must also make a total of ten edits. Perhaps to get those ten edits you can try adding sources to some articles in Category:All articles lacking sources. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to an effort to move User:Aliceako/Freedom Centre International (FCI) Welling to the main article space, I should warn you that it needs a significant amount of work before it should be moved. The first priority should be the issue of notability and references. Dismas|^(talk) 00:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox_album in artist article italicising title

Resolved

The title of the article Diesel Boy is displaying in italics, presumably because the article contains {{Infobox album}}. What's the correct fix? 2.26.139.138 (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added |Italic title = no to the {{Infobox album}}s. Goodvac (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I know! 2.26.139.138 (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading scanned images

Is it wrong to upload images scanned from books and leaflets I have bought, to Wikimedia or Wikipedia? Does it violate copyright laws? --Gregorvitch (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately it does. Unless the published material or specific image is released under a free license or is in public domain (usually because of age). -- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also you can ask about copyright questions in Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. There are more people there more familiar with copyright laws.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making it clear.

Resolved

Gregorvitch (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for archived page deletion

Hello,

May I request you to urgently look upon the following page: [1]

This is an old archived page. The problem is that this page is showing up in one of the top Google searches whenever the name "(Redacted)" is being typed in. As a result, my potential customers and clients are being affected and my own reputation is being negatively impacted because of the same.

I'm sure that you'll agree that a an ordinary viewer or customer has got nothing to do with an old archived debate between Wikipedia editors and an author over whether to include a person or not.

I, therefore, request you to do something about this matter. Would be grateful if this could be permanently deleted or at least hidden from the google searches.

Regards, (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.106.42 (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please contact an Oversighter directly for suppression of pages for privacy reasons. Ways how to are listed here: Wikipedia:Requests for oversight (click on the [show] buttons on the right side of each option). I have also redacted your name here to avoid more problems.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've noindexed the page and sent a request to google to remove it from their searches. Jarkeld (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images in BLP

I have read and follow the guideline from Wikipedia:Images, "[i]mages must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic."

Yet I see three images of Seth Green at various ComicCon and four images of "candid" Olivia Wilde and have to wonder:

"What guideline prohibits stuffing a BLP with current/previous/wanted/pretty images that add nothing to the understanding of the topic yet are (technically) related to the topic?"

71.234.215.133 (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really good question - since they are free images, in theory, they can stuff in as many as possible - however, from an editorial guidelines point of view, there is absolutely no encyclopaedic or informational value from basically stuffing an article with headshot after headshot for purely decorative reasons. Take that Seth Green article - sure a headshot is great for the info-box but what purpose do the two additional ones service? it's simply just two more shots of a smiling guy's head. They add nothing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Camaeron Scott: "...from an editorial guidelines point of view, there is absolutely no encyclopaedic or informational value...". What editorial guideline? As far as I can tell, WP does not have an editorial guideline against such stuffing. Please tell me the guideline so I can pare Seth Green and Olivia Wilde down and know I am following WP guidelines when I do it. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Scott has pared the Green and Wilde articles I used as examples of BLP image stuffing without addressing what guideline(s) gives him the nod to remove those images. I want to know what guidline(s) apply in these situations. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement •¤• Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature •¤• WP:NOTIMAGE •¤• Wikipedia:Image use policy#Content and possibly relevant by analogy, WP:ICONDECORATION. More generally, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Note regarding the last, that the title of that policy is a much better description alone of how it is used than what its text content says (which is pathetic). The section is often cited in discussions as a general principle, without reference to the description, and on Wikipedia, we often recognize consensus as to policy by application.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved article with German interwiki link

I discovered that an article about Thomas Wilson Paterson had been created as Thomas William Paterson (see the official list of former Lieutenant Governors of British Columbia). I have moved the English article and, although I think that I could probably perform the move in the German wiki, my knowledge of the German language is almost null. Could someone assist? If I have chosen the wrong forum, then please let me know how I should proceed. There is also an image file on the Commons named "Thomas William Paterson.jpg" which should probably be moved but it is also used in the German article. Danke. --Big_iron (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the German article. Put a file rename tag on File:Thomas William Paterson.jpg. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 11:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The move button is in the same place. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you may have tagged the image in the wrong wiki. I have put in a rename request on the Wikipedia commons for the image. If necessary, I will update both articles that link to the image after the move. Thank you for the German updates. --Big_iron (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Opening in a New Tab

I'm thinking that if an image were to open into a new tab rather than redirecting the page, my reading of Wikipedia as a whole would be improved a hundred fold.

Thoughts?

Or am I simply doing something wrong?

-204.10.127.120 (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With most browsers, right-clicking on a link will give you the option to open the link in a new tab, if that's what you would prefer. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holding down Shift or Ctrl while left-clicking an image may also open it in a new tab. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article about a company I work for

Good afternoon,

I have been asked to set up an article for a company I work for. I understand that it is more likely to be accepted if written by an unbiased author, is there a forum where can I request this in Wikipedia, and what information would I need to provide? If I decided to write something myself, where would be the best place to start? What types of sources are allowed - for example can an article about the company in an industry magazine be used as a source? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.206.168.3 (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start off with WP:COI, and also try WP:COMPANY. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And then WP:Requested articles. – ukexpat (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what type of references are allowed, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Articles in industry magazines would normally be good sources. doomgaze (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise some common "problems" which you might want to let your employer know: the page wouldn't be "owned" by the company, and anyone can edit it. If there is 'negative' coverage about the company which is found at reliable sources, that can be included - and removing such sourced material can lead to a block from editing. References cited from the company itself (press releases, their website, etc) are not suitable as they are not independent. If the company does not meet the notability criteria here (especially the criteria for businesses here), the article is likely to be deleted. if the company meets Wikipdia's notability criteria, the odds are that someone totally independent will eventually create an article. Wikipedia does not exist to promote companies (directly or indirectly) or to give 'respectability' or 'credence' to an organisation - if that is your company's reason for wanting an article, this is the wrong venue! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 13:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loud text

Resolved

A couple months back, most (but not all) of the text in the main window of Wikipedia went to bolder and bigger font for me. It only happens on Google Chrome, not Internet Explorer, but no other web sites do this on Chrome, only Wikipedia. The text on the left, very top, and in the edit windows is as usual, but the normal article text and tabs show up darker. I have checked all the options I can think of in Chrome and Wikipedia, to no avail. Do you have any ideas what happened, and how to get it back to normal? BollyJeff || talk 13:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a mouse with a scroll wheel you can change the size by holding down the control key on the keyboard and rotating the scroll wheel. This probably happened accidentally to you. If you don't have a scroll wheel, hold down the control key and press the plus or minus key. RJFJR (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you! but where is this documented? BollyJeff || talk 14:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Although it doesn't mention the scroll wheel method. Яehevkor ✉ 14:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated by the above link, this is a browser function and not a Wikipedia function. The browser probably remembers which size you viewed a specific site last time and then chooses the same size next time. I rarely use Chrome but when I'm on a page in Chrome and click the wrench icon in the upper right corner, there is an option saying "Zoom" and a number where 100% is the default. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all of you. BollyJeff || talk 16:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Ctrl-0 resets a page to 100%/default zoom. —mc10 (t/c) 22:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of primary sources for verification of the entries in a list article

I want to further clean up List of conglomerates without starting a deletion rampage. However, verifying the conglomerate status of each entry through the use of third party sources is a pain because of the huge number of entries to verify. Would it be permissible to use listings of the business areas of a company from the company website to verify its conglomerate status? The company website would definitely count as a self-published source. However, trying to find reliable third party sources for every single of the 300+ entries explicitly calling it a conglomerate is very time consuming (and I acknowledge Wikipedia being a work in progress). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see this as sufficient. Then you're using your own judgement as to what constitutes a conglomerate, which violates WP:OR. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally for list articles, especially ones that are not contentious, a source in the list is unecessary as long as a verified source in the article states the information. For example Aya Group is sourced with this. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I think most of the list should be cut because most of the articles are stubs without sources confirming the conglomerate status or without any mention of the conglomerate status in the article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps (and you may know this intimately already but...) on the removal end, see WP:BURDEN—you have the right to remove any unsourced content and it must not be placed back without an inline citation (the burden is on the person seeking to add back content)—and on the addition end, see Wikipedia:Citation tools. Two tools I find especially useful from there: Google Books Citation Tool, and using Webreflinks you can drop in multiple bare URLs inside ref tags and then use the tool to expand the citations (in some cases) to fully filled out cite web templates with automatically provided content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I am aware of WP:BURDEN. However if I started a large scale removal of entries (which I do not intend to do right now) I am pretty sure this would lead to protests and I also think a lot of the entries probably are in fact conglomerates. I think I will just try to dig up sources for those without one yet. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Irene (2011)

The article feedback on the bottom of Hurricane Irene (2011) says under the "well-written" category, the article is rated 5.5 out of 5. That's impossible. Has the page been hacked (not vandalized) or something? HurricaneFan 25 18:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me it says 4.8 out of 5. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen Nightmares

I really enjoy your shows but I wish you would edit out all the swearing like you do in some of your shows. Your new on Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares needs to have the swearing bleeped out. I won't watch it if the swearing continues. You have a wonderful show but I can't see the purpose of all the bad language that you have in it. Your very popular without it. Thanks. Judy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.181.52 (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.7 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. GB fan please review my editing 18:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration and (or against) sources

Hello everyone,

I come from the French Wikipedia and my activity here is scarce. But I need to know more about the English-speaking Wikipedia's policy on conflicts between conventions, like Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian, and the principle that we have to Cite sources. The issue we have on WP:fr is that, in French, some Romanized names in the French way have little to no existence among external sources, especially sport players whose names are Romanized in the English way on all TV captions throughout the world. Some argue that WP cannot stand with the fringe even if it helps spread out the bad romanization, others think that transliteration should be enforced like spelling even if people are astonished. so I'd like to know the way you handle that here. 82.240.207.81 (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the articles themselves, we use whatever is the standard spelling in English of the name, following the "principle of least astonishment"; but sources are cited according to the spelling used in the original sources, however startling that may be (except that if a source is not quoted in the original language, spelling within the translated quote may be translated along with language). Does that answer your query? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking about titles. You said 'standard spelling in English', but you seem to imply that the standard is defined by sources themselves. Well, in English it is true that both match almost every time. While digging further I have found Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia) and WP:Use English. The example of Joseph / Iosif Brodsky leaves me clueless, cause the two spellings are totally mixed in the article. 82.240.207.81 (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to be very inconsistent. In some cases we have relatively straightforward rules, such as using Pinyin romanisation for Chinese names related to the People's Republic, and Wade Giles for Chinese names related to Taiwan or Hong Kong. In other cases (such as Tibetan, I believe) we just use what's most common in the sources, even if romanisation methods differ from one person to another without any discernible structure. But the French Wikipedia will likely be more methodical for cultural reasons. Hans Adler 19:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes? Tell me more, I am interested. You might be surprised to know that there is no convention on transliteration. 82.240.207.81 (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a website I built and used Fortune to publish it,

I used trellix building tools to create a website and Fortune published it and it was all free, it was easy and unreplaceable. There were pictures of members that had died and such. The site is www.ducky50.nav.to and I had it on my desktop that I could open and add or change or whatever to the site and then hit a button to republish again. It was so easy and I had never did this before ever. It is RSDVictims. A rare disease and I have a support group and like an idiot not knowing, I never backed stuff up and my computer blew up, and I lost it all. I do not recall how to get this back on my desktop, I forgot my log in name and password. Can u please please help me????? I am in tears.

Judy Duckworth My email is also different as we moved and I went to the faster cable modem. It is <redacted>

I can verify anything you need, just please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.139.125 (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email redacted. We cannot help you here; go to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing and ask there. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

user talk message: how to respond

How can I respond to the writer of a user talk message saying that an edit I made "did not appear to be constructive; It was identified as vandalism" and that the change was reverted? I would like an explanation for why the edit was considered vandalism (it contained facts from a NY Times article and another Wikipedia page) and also why the change was not just reverted but information that was there before my edit, upon which I had expanded, was removed. Thank you.

96.52.132.123 (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can contact the person who reverted your edit at User talk:Ezekiel53746; however, if you read the policy on biographies of living persons, specifically the section "remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" you will notice that any possibly negative information about a BLP must be sourced. No source was stated in the article. For help sourcing the information, please see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) The edit was absolutely proper as to what it did. Unsouced negative or controversial material about living persons may not be added anywhere on Wikipedia without a reliable source used in conjunction simultaneously through an inline citation. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability generally, and the policy on biographies of living persons ("BLP") which requires the more stringent citation standards when it comes to living persons. The warning given to you at your talk page upon the removal, on the other hand, was absolutely improper and I will go talk to the user about that now (by posting to his/her talk page).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that. You are correct. If a warning was left it should have been about adding unsourced material. Honestly, I think a templated warning is even unnecessary and a written note would have been better. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My edit linked to another Wikipedia entry that did have the NY Times source for the info I added. Can I add the information with the citation from the second entry, or should I hold off for a few days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.132.123 (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use another article as a reference and you can't use a reference you have not read yourself; see WP:V. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

AdamJ.W.C. has been sniping at me over the "quality" of my photos. He has suggested a peer review, which I'm all in favour of. So, how do I organise a peer review?

Sardaka (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible that it's an area I'm not familiar with, but I know of no such thing as a peer review for images on Wikipedia that would be relevant here. There is Wikipedia:Picture peer review (part of the peer review project) but that doesn't make sense within the context here, as it is a place to seek input on images for Featured Picture Candidacy. Maybe he meant something else? Maybe a third opinion or request for comment, which both involve reviews by peers?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]