Help desk
< March 6	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 8 >

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.

March 7

Author requesting deletion

Hi, can someone please have a look at the AfD nomination for Yoshiki Ohmura and advise the nominator. I'm not entirely sure if CSD G7 applies here as the nomination has been the only edit under that account and not knowing if that really is the subject himself. Thanks, MT Train^Talk 00:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Author means the creator of the article. It was nominated by the subject and not the author so WP:CSD#G7 is irrelevant. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE may be relevant but a deletion debate is required. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) G7 does not apply as he did not create the article. The subject would not be likely to be considered notable by the Motorsport project. Eagleash (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for clarifying. MT Train^Talk 03:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wikitext glitch

in this article: [1] the wikitext tells me that under it says open, there should be a table, but when i go to the article itself, it turns out there are 2 tables under where it says closed. the longest table(by length) should go under open and the shortest table (by length) should go under it says closed. i don't know why there are 2 tables under one sub heading when there should be 1 on each sub heading. Can anybody put the tables where they should be? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancho507 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such problems with misplaced tables are almost invariably because the table was not properly terminated. There is a simple correction. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of “towns in Indiana”

The spred sheet is missing a few. Princeton and Vincennes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:802:8000:9A92:451C:9871:8E21:35BF (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton, Indiana and Vincennes, Indiana are cities, not towns. As such, they are listed in List of cities in Indiana, and not List of towns in Indiana. Rojomoke (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AIRWOLF

I never heard how Airwolf was re-stocked with weapons after use and re-fueled

when not on long flights. I know refueling tankers were made available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.187.61.149 (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a fictional good guy asset, Airwolf only needs either of these things when the plot requires a cliffhanger. Everyone knows that. Britmax (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Associating my business with a product

How do I associate my business to a product listed on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.125.165.137 (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly, you don't. Wikipedia may not be used for promotion of any kind. Sorr.y --ColinFine (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I am the only seller of tue product? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinik (talk • contribs) 13:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no difference. Britmax (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ 200.125.165.137 It would help us Wikipedia editors to know what unique product this is. We are well placed to consider its notability and take positive action. --Aspro (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

create page

how i can create page on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratik111 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Your first article. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative logos

I have done a fair amount of work with logos but I just ran into a situation that I have never run into before.

It involves this article: Girlguiding_Ulster

One small issue is that the logo is freestanding on the page, not included in a proper INFOBOX but that's likely not to be relevant to the main question.

If you check out the organization's main page: Girlguiding Ulster

The logo in the upper left corner matches the logo in our article about the organization.

However, the organization claims (for OTRS agents ticket:2018030710009191) that there are two orientations of the logo. One as shown here, and a second one in which the words are identical but the shapes are mirror flipped. The contention is that the logo should be oriented so that it points toward the center of the page, so that the logo we have in our article is the one on the official page, and would be used if on the left side of the page but they would use the alternative logo on the right side of the page.

One "solution" would be to move the logo to the left side of the page but that doesn't seem like a proper placement, and if this page is improved with a proper INFOBOX, those almost always go on the right side. Technically, it would not be difficult to upload the alternative logo, but two things concerned me. First, we typically confirm that the logo matches what is used on the official page and it troubles me to use a logo on the Wikipedia page that does not match what's on the official page. The second issue is if the alternative logo is uploaded, and for some reason due to updates to the article, it makes more sense to have it on the other side, how would anyone know they should swap out the logo for a different logo.

Maybe I'm making this too difficult, and I should just upload it but I'd like to have some feedback on how this should be handled.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick, the description they provided is consistent with publicly verifiable usage on their Twitter account where the logo changes depending on upper left/upper right/lower left/lower right usage so that it consistently points to the center. I'd say that's probably plenty to justify changing the logo, while keeping the positioning standard upper right. GMG ^talk 17:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My 2¢: Many groups, organisations and corporations have logos and other assets upon which they impose strict requirements (size, placement, etc.) when used for branding, in order to make their product, publication, etc. conform to their own style. That is not unreasonable, but this is not such a case - the logo is being used per fair use rationale without requirement that the page (including the logo) conform to any style. (Similarly, for example, the Wikipedia page Apple Inc. has several instances of the Apple logo on it bounded in a box, which does not give sufficient clear space to comply with Apple's branding guidelines.) Therefore, if there is any reason at all why it is deemed easier or better for the Wikipedia page to have the logo on it in the "wrong place", so be it. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any time we can update to a logo that is more correct, and there isn't a compelling reason not to do so, then it is usually an uncontroversial improvement to the article, even if it means we are sometimes doing the bidding of editors with a clear conflict of interest. Probably fully half the requests at WP:FFU are paid editors trying to get us to update old logos for companies. The requirements of Apple may be such that it presents a compelling reason not to. I don't see that this in any way does. GMG ^talk 17:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is I have done it although I'm not totally happy. I am not troubled by the COI issue. While I take COI very seriously, when it comes to logos it is quite understandable that we would get contacted by people wanting the correct logo and those people will more often than not have a conflict of interest. What troubles me is something I just need to get over — I believe I've uploaded hundreds of logos, and in every other case, if someone were to question the logo I would be able to point to an official page of the organization containing the logo. I can't in this case. I'll try to shake it off.

Thanks for the feedback.S Philbrick (Talk) 18:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SP, if you look at their Tweet from Feb 13, it shows this exact usage, with the logo in two corners of the page, and flipped depending on which side it's on. GMG ^talk 18:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but it isn't a confirmed account, so doesn't seem to qualify as official.S Philbrick (Talk) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I. Don't know how twitter works. I actually don't know how to tell if an account is confirmed or not... and should probably in hindsight keep my mouth shut on all things tweet related. GMG ^talk 21:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really an expert, but a green check mark means twitter has confirmed the identify of the account.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes.com

Is snopes.com a reliable source that we can use in WP articles as we do with NYT or theGuardian? Τζερόνυμο (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Τζερόνυμο. Snopes has been discussed multiple times with a general agreement that it is reliable. See for example this discussion and this discussion. GMG ^talk 17:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you GMG!Τζερόνυμο (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Research contributions from 501(3)(c)

I work for a non-profit research organization. We produce information on a range of issues, have a public record of credibility, and would like to share some of the information gathered over our history with the Wikipedia community.

We do not, however, wish to violate any rules re: affiliation / objectivity. None of what we wish to share is in promotion of a product (we don't sell anything), an organization, or agenda. Our researchers are professional scholars, who span across a host of disciplines and value the sanctity of quality information.

Are their clear guidelines for how we might invite our researchers to upload data and findings onto Wikipedia without violating any of the platform's formal terms or community standards?

Thanks in advance for your responses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.164.254 (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anon. It looks like you may be a good fit for our GLAM project (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums). You may consider starting by sending an email with further details to glam

wikimedia.org. GMG ^talk 18:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting a cross-wiki spammer

I did try to add a person to global lock on Meta and and what i got: 17:58, 7 March 2018 Abuse filter (talk | contribs) blocked (talk) with an expiration time of 31 hours (account creation disabled) (Automatically blocked by the abuse filter. Rule matched: «xal.wiki trolls»)

Can anyone help? 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:6865:BC4E:E389:AFCF (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the only meta admin I know. (Who I'm sure is going to at some point get tired of being pinged to things like this.) GMG ^talk 18:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New option for reading difficult diffs

Quick note to say that folks who regularly deal with diffs may be particularly interested in the Beta Feature for visual diffs. Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and scroll about halfway down the list to find it.

Here's the main reason why you might be interested:

In the old diff mode, none of the text changes, such as the removal of the word not, are marked at all, because the paragraphs were re-arranged. Here, they're highlighted. The toggle box at the top lets you switch back and forth, so you can use both for the same diff. Some changes are easier to spot in one mode, and others in the other mode, so the system is set up to let you use both. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Table help

Need help fixing this table. Template:Oil and gas companies of China Can't figure out how I messed it up. Thanks in advance. Muzzleflash (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Muzzleflash. Fixed it. One little missing bracket was all it was. GMG ^talk 19:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time Zone

For Bouvet Island : UTC all the year .The rest is correct . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.13.222.239 (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia "Verifiability" policy requires that information in the encyclopedia be verifiable in reliable, published sources. Please explain what reliable source you found this information in. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walter_Keeton and Walter Keeton (footballer)

Hello,

Either those 2 are the same person, or 2 clones (same names, birth and death dates), either there is a problem somewhere. As I know absolutely nothing about them, I let you try and solve this. Good luck :) --Hsarrazin (talk on wd) 22:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it states in Walter Keeton, the cricketer was also a footballer, as confirmed by a couple of reliable sources.[2][3] I will merge the articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing interwiki links in Wikidata

Editing the interwiki links has become more and more difficult during my Wikipedia career of over ten years old. Previously it used to be as simple as writing the source code of an interwiki link on the page. But now I have to struggle with Wikidata, which I understand extremely little about.

Case in point: Donald Duck pocket books and fi:Aku Ankan taskukirja are about the same thing. But the former has interwiki links to Cebuano and French, and the latter has an interwiki link to Sami. Both have different entries on Wikidata. I tried to link them all together but got an error message that an item already exists in Wikidata, and I may try to merge them. But I don't have the faintest idea how to merge anything on Wikidata. The user interface certainly didn't provide any clue how to do so.

In the end I deleted every entry to Wikipedia on the Wikidata item that fi:Aku Ankan taskukirja links to and added them to the item that Donald Duck pocket books links to. Now the former shows up empty and the latter has all five wikilinks. But this didn't affect Wikipedia. Donald Duck pocket books still shows interwiki links only to French and Cebuano, and fi:Aku Ankan taskukirja only shows an interwiki link to Sami.

What did I do wrong here? Or is it just the case that Wikipedia will only pick my edits to Wikidata up later? JIP | Talk 22:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's the latter. Wikipedia was simply slow to pick the edits up. But still, why is Wikidata so bloody difficult to use? Why does it say "You may wish to merge the entries" and provide absolutely no clue about how to actually do so? JIP | Talk 23:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are "Merge" entries under "More" on each page of Wikidata. But I agree that it is hard. The big problem is that that a Wikidata lemma can only link to one article in a particular project, so if articles in different language Wikipedias have different scope (in particular, if one in one language corresponds to more than one in another) there is no satisfactory way to link them using Wikidata. --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:JIP, where exactly do you see the suggestion "You may wish to merge the entries"?

It may make sense to add a link to instructions for doing this there. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a box "Wikipedia" at the top right corner. When I try to add a link to an article that already links to a Wikidata entry and click "Publish", the box turns pink and gives an error message like this:

Could not save due to an error.

The save has failed.

The link svwiki:Kinesiska köket is already used by item Q27477249. You may remove it from Q27477249 if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic.

Note: sv:Kinesiska köket is actually about Chinese cuisine. I just tried some random article to demonstrate the effect. I didn't intend to actually link Donald Duck pocket books with Chinese cuisine. JIP | Talk 19:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:JIP. I filed this as task T189388. Maybe it will be improved some day. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]