Help desk
< September 30	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 2 >

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.

October 1

I am not a coder, but I think I have a major addition to an entry that dates the "oldest surviving wooden structures in Massachusetts"

I just purchased a circa 1674 Inn in Ogunquit maine. It is the oldest structure in Ogunquit and has a very unique history. I would love to contribute but don't know where to start. website is blackboarinn.com - it appears that this structure might be the 32nd oldest in Massachusetts (which means in the United States).

Very good. Hardly any of us are coders; no problem. What is sometimes difficult is to find the right place to mention something. For this subject Talk:List of the oldest buildings in Massachusetts is probably the best place but more asking and searching might find a better venue. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good way to start would be to contribute a photograph of the building to Wikipedia Commons, so that it can be used in this and other (foreign-language) Wikipedias. You will need a photograph which you are free to donate - perhaps one you have taken yourself. The process of uploading and donating it involves some boring form-filling, but no coding skill. Maproom (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I create an article, why does the title come out in italics?

And does it matter? Most article titles are not in italics, I note, but when you put in an article name in search, and it comes back and says "there is not (so and so) but you can create it", and I do, the titles come out in italics - examples,Chandos Anthem No.1 /Jubilate in D Major "O, be joyful in the Lord", The Myth of Persecution. Is this something I should care about, and if so, how do you keep it from happening? Thanks, Smeat75 (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Book automatically puts the title in italics because book titles should be italicized. In order to bypass this, I believe the code to put in is | italics = no but you can check that at Template:Infobox book. Well, that explains it for the second article. I can't work out why it happens on the first. Dismas|^(talk) 02:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Handel is part of Infobox Composer, which also makes titles italic. RudolfRed (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answers, I guess if those infoboxes turn titles into italics it must be OK, I just wondered if I was doing something wrong.Smeat75 (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How that is done, and in what circumstances, is described at WP:ITALICTITLE. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how to publish a page from my user space

HI - I have create a page I would like to publish in my user space - how can it become a published Wikipedia page? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristin Renee Sharpe (talk • contribs) 09:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could put {{subst:submit}} at the top of it to submit it for review. However, it would be best to read Wikipedia:Your first article first, as in its current form it would likely be rejected. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the problems with promotional, unencyclopaedic language and a lack of inline citations, parts of the article are directly cut and pasted from this page. The article would certainly not be accepted in its current form, and even in your user space it is at risk of deletion, or partial deletion, as a possible copyright violation. - Karenjc (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating and properly referencing a page

I just wrote inquiring about publishing a page which, infact is not quite ready. It was pointed out that the material may be subject to copyright penalties as it was 'cut and pasted' from our site : the school for gods. I actually pasted it from the original word file on my computer since I work for the company and have a company email from the same. I was wondering how the identical material should be referenced - just by siting where else it appears? I can clean up the 'promotional language' on the page and make it purely factual, but don't know how to reference. thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristin Renee Sharpe (talk • contribs) 12:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the process for donating copyrighted material, but you also need to read about conflict of interest. Material on an organisation's own website is often too promotional for Wikipedia. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Referencing for beginners too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with edits to our wikipedia pages

Manuel Saez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Manuel Sáez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Good morning!!

I hope you may be able to provide me with a bit of help. I am writing on behalf of Manuel Saez, he has articles about himself and business on wikipedia.

It has come to our attention that another Manuel Saez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_S%C3%A1ez) has edited our site(s) we believe, in bad faith. After looking at a bit of history, we found that:

GreenMutant submitted an Article for Creation for Manuel Saez in April 2012 and his request was rejected. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GreenMutant)

After some edits his Article for Creation was accepted in May 2012.

We found that edits were made to our site which included deleting links in our article, therefore making it an Orphan (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuel_Saez&diff=575089147&oldid=495521086)

In addition to our English language page, we also had a Spanish version page which has been deleted.

When a google search is done for Manuel Saez, a link to our wikipedia page is shown with a photograph of the other gentleman

We have no issue with the fact that there is another Manuel Saez (accent over the a). The issue that we have is that their edits have compromised the integrity of our page and in fact have removed valuable information. Manuel, being from Argentina, also has many followers in Latin America and overseas. It is a big problem for us that the spanish language version has been deleted.

I'd appreciate your feedback on how we should go about resolving this conflict.

All my best,

Traci181.109.16.220 (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC) I have removed the leading spaces which broke the formatting of your text - David Biddulph (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article had an edit yesterday, which removed information, but it was re-added 30 minutes later (possibly a mistake or test edit). There has been nothing else over the last few months suspicious. What exactly was removed?

This is an encyclopedia after all, and so anything opinionated (POV) or uncited would have been deleted according to the relevant policy anyway.

Also, anything to do with the Spanish Wikipedia would have to be taken up over there as English Wikipedia has no say over anything not on English Wikipedia, as each is self governing.

Finally, per conflict of interest: you, him, and anyone close to or involved with Manuel are strongly advised not to edit the page yourselves. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 14:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this user may want to look at WP:OWN, as the article is not "yours" and is freely editable. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. I think you might be misinterpreting the edits. I certainly don't see the bad faith you are asserting. With regard to the "diff" link you've provided regarding content removal, those website links were properly removed, as we don't employ inline external links, as they can be easily abused for promotion, etc. The orphan tag has nothing to do with external links, rather it is a notice to the community that no other Wikipedia pages linked to the article at the time. The tag was later removed, ostensibly because another user found Wikipedia pages that linked to the article. In response to this comment: "When a google search is done for Manuel Saez, a link to our wikipedia page is shown with a photograph of the other gentleman" you'd have to take that up with Google. Although Google might link to the Wikipedia article, Wikipedia has nothing to do with the photo that Google is displaying. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find that English-langauge Wikipedia has two articles, Manuel Saez and Manuel Sáez. The former, about the Argentinian businessman, lacks proper references, without which it is at risk of being deleted. Neither of them is "your" article, nor Mr. Saez's article, they are both Wikipedia's articles; see ownership. Maproom (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It lacks proper references because they were deleted in may or June of 2012 by, I believe, GreenMutant. They are in fact Wikipedia's articles but we feel there is enough room for both Mr. Saez's without the need to compromise one article over another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.83.99.161 (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the article's history, all GreenMutant did was remove an incorrect link to the wrong Manuel Saez. No references were deleted. The references are still there. Most of them are just not very good - a lot of press releases and blogs. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced search question

Hey all, Template:Infobox television contains a "format" parameter, and I'm interested in seeing which television articles are currently using it. I'm only interested in television articles, not radio or film or whatever else. Is there a way to do an advanced search for something this specific? I'm trying to figure out how many articles will be impacted if this (poorly-defined) parameter is deleted from the Infobox. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"What links here" will show you all articles which reference that template. I'm not sure how you could reliable distinguish TV articles from any other (but why would non-TV articles be using this template anyway?) --ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: Thank you for responding! The "What links here" tip is helpful, thank you. I wasn't aware that you could do that with Infobox templates. I'm still trying to narrow down the pages that use the "format" parameter specifically, as some TV articles do, and some don't. In my head I'm imagining there's some magical Boolean search string that will tell Wikipedia, "Search for all articles that use the Television Infobox. Include pages that use the "format" parameter, where the parameter contains at least one character." Currently, I feel that an advanced search will be fruitless because I can only search for the word "format" in quotes in the Article space, and that could yield a million results. And some pages might use "format =" or "format=" or "format =". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: I can't think of any neat way to do this. One way would be to [ask an admin to] edit the template itself so that articles using the "format" parameter are listed in, say, Category:Articles using Infobox television with a format parameter. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tech feature request: high-res images for mathematical formulae

This is a feature request relating to Wikipedia's back-end page generation code. Sorry I couldn't find a place to file those so I have used the help desk - please pass on the request to the appropriate people.

When an article contains a mathematical formula, the TeX code is rendered into a bitmap to display in the browser. Today high-resolution displays are becoming common and they often apply a scaling so that one CSS pixel is not one physical pixel. Typically, the size of every page element is doubled, with images also being scaled up.

To take advantage of the higher-res display, you can provide image files at double the usual resolution. So if the HTML <img> element specifies width=100 height=80, your PNG file will in fact be 200x160 pixels big.

I suggest doing this for the images which represent mathematical formulae. Then they will look crisp on high-res displays, matching the article text (currently the scaled-up bitmaps look a little blurry). On non-high-res displays the browser will need to scale down the image, but I believe this will not cause any noticeable loss of quality.

Admittedly the new larger images will take more bandwidth, but I think this effect is small since the images are highly compressible (and higher-res versions are more highly compressible than lower-res ones). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Avis (talk • contribs) 16:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably something better discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Astronaut (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be relieved to know this has come up before. You can already swap to SVG formulae in your preferences, assuming your browser supports that. I guess one day we'll make SVG the default for all users, logged in or not.

As for using srcset, it seems no-one has got round to it yet, but it's on the todo list. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 20:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is it wp:or OR it is an extension of Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue

When there is a disagreement between 2 wp:rs, we have to cite both of them in the article. However, sometimes it is clear that one of those wp:rs is wrong. The question is whether we can apply an extension of Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and to remove the wrong one, or it is a wp:or to apply any editor judgement.

An example: There is an argument concerning Plan Dalet. One of the wp:rs claims that the purpose of this plan is "purpose A". However, it is clear from the Plan Dalet text that this is not true. ( The plan content is clear and agreed by both sides). Can the editor apply an extension of Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue policy and remove the wrong opinion? Ykantor (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, it would be better to avoid doing anything that would appear to be original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was an example only. This is a general question concerning the vague border between wp:or and Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. thanks. Ykantor (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can definitely NOT remove the "wrong" opinions in this case.

The example does not demonstrate any vague border between wp:OR and WP:BLUE. WP:BLUE is not even applicable in this case as that only conserns cases so uncontroversial that no source is needed. This example on the other hand conserns an intense controversy as seen in the article: Plan_Dalet#Controversy_about_the_intent_of_Plan_Dalet. To remove the "wrong" opinions would be a very serious policy violation. --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that (Plan Dalet) the plan text is clear and agreed by both sides? If so, there should be one interpratation only (in my opinion). Ykantor (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idiot (me!) accidentally hits "patrolled button; how to undo?

I was on a talk page that had a link that said something referring to clicking on it if it had been "patrolled". I clicked it, for some strange reason thinking it would lead to a page describing what that meant. Oops! Is there a way to undo that? The page was User talk:Hemmo360 --Larry (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never fear! Patrolling is a way of noting that a page is suitable for Wikipedia. Talk pages are, for the overwhelming majority of the time, suitable. You've done the user a favour, and having looked over the page, I would have patrolled it if you haven't. More information on what that strange button, and when you should click it, is available here. drewmunn talk 17:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Larry (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

trouble using "move" function

The instructions for moving a page say "You move the article using the "move" button (you can see it by clicking the downward-pointing arrow to the right of the "edit" button)." However, there's no downward-pointing arrow on the page I'm trying to move (The Hormone Foundation). How do I solve this problem?

Hormonehealth (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is because your account is not autoconfirmed yet. Your account was created on 2013-09-24, so meets the age requirement. Just make 6 more edits with the account and it will be autoconfirmed automatically. Then you can move the page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can person's entry be deleted if it endangers them?

My daughter once acted in some porn films and there's a Wikipedia entry for her under her stage name. However the entry provides personal info such as full name and birth date which perverts have used to track her down and harass her. Can this entry be deleted? She's been out of the business over 5 years and is no longer relevant. If she is harmed as a result of info in her entry, can Wikipedia be held liable? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwoodhull (talk • contribs) 18:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your daughter should see WP:Requests for Oversight, which is actually suppression, and send the email as described there. Since she is an adult, that request should come from her. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Vwoodhull: You may meet with some resistance, as the prevailing attitude is that if a person is ever notable and worthy of an article, they are always notable. Also, Wikipedia is not censored. Just mentioning that so you can get your counter-arguments ready. :) You might be able to have the article deleted via AfD, but you would have to successfully argue that she was not notable to begin with, which is easier if she was a minor player, but far more difficult if she was known. Further, such methods are only temporary, as anyone can re-create the article or re-submit the information if the information is supported by reliable sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On further reading, I agree that it does appear that Vwoodhull was asking to have the article deleted. Cyphoidbomb was correct in saying that is not done by so-called oversight (really suppression), and that if her daughter is not notable, then AfD is the route for deletion of the article. I had been interpreting her post as asking to have her full name and birth date suppressed in accordance with reasons 1 and 3 of the WP:Requests for Oversight policy. That leaves two options. First, her daughter can request to have the private personal information suppressed, which will leave the article without the private material. Second, any autoconfirmed editor can request deletion of the article via the Articles for Deletion process. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question - why would we remove details such as a real name, and a date of birth? Almost every actor listed on Wikipedia has a stage name, and is listed with their real name as well. In almost as many cases a date of birth is included too. Why would we suppress a real name and DoB in this instance, which seems to go against the concept of an encyclopedia? In this question I am making assumptions - that there are (reliable) sources providing her name and DOB, and that she is notable enough for an article to exist in the first place. Obviously as there is no clue as to who the actress is I don't know if that's true, but I wondered nevertheless. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that we wouldn't. We wouldn't remove George Clooney's DOB simply because he gets a lot of creeps showing up at his home. If an actor is notable, and if their real name and DOB is properly sourced, the information could be included at Wikipedia. Further, how could anybody keep it off Wikipedia? If an editor can source and submit a DOB once, they can source and submit it again. The only real approach in this situation is to argue that the article subject is not notable and have the entire article removed. Or request deletion for some other legitimate reason. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia does have a certain presumption in favour of privacy where full names and contact details are concerned. See WP:BLPPRIVACY. "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." As Chaheel Riens points out, the notability of the OP's daughter is unknown to us, as is the reliability of sources supporting her real name and date of birth in the article - it could be a case of misuse of primary sources, for example. At the very least, if she objects to the publication of her full date of birth then, according to the policy I quoted, we should list the birth year only, not the full date. The same applies if she turns out to be only borderline notable. If it was re-added, it could be removed again under the same rationale. The name of where the subject lives is not full "contact details", but it may amount to it if, for example, she lives in a one-horse town and we are also publishing her real name. So again, unless this information is widespread publicly elsewhere, the OP's daughter may be able to request its removal under BLPPRIVACY, even if she cannot get the article deleted for lack of notability. Vwoodhull, I would suggest you or your daughter read WP:BIOSELF, which suggests ways you can progress this enquiry further. - Karenjc (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good info! I appreciate the edification. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PORNBIO might be relevant here, particularly if someone were to seek AfD on the grounds of notability. Astronaut (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long image name

I made an error in an image upload. The name is far too long, and I don't know how to shorten it. Here's what I mean:

File:This is the Signet Ring of Phi Sigma Kappa, showing the "Triple T's" that is the symbol of the organization.jpg

The name should be "The Signet Ring of Phi Sigma Kappa"

Is this editable by me, or does it require administrative support?

Jax MN (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It requires an administrator or special user right to move files. I have moved it to File:Signet Ring of Phi Sigma Kappa.jpg. File names usually don't start with "The". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please note that your intended use in Phi Sigma Kappa#Turbulent Times might be problematic under WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]