Help desk
< February 10	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 12 >

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.

February 11

Page View Statistics

This feature seems to have stopped working on 2/5/15. What's the problem? Pkeets (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pkeets: The main discussion about this seems to be at Village Pump (technical). -- John of Reading (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Telfaz11

Greeting,

Why Telfaz11 page is still marked for deletion ? can you tell me exactly what is missing?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postdepartum (talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Postdepartum, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telfaz11. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has standards for notability. Things need to be well know before they can be included in Wikipedia. Whether or not something is well known, can be proven by using neutral secundary sources. At least some sources need to be about the topic directly and go into great detail. The article Telfaz11 is nominated for deletion because some people believe it does not give enough neutral sources that are about the topic. You can improve the article by adding such sources. After a while an admin will review the article and the opinions and indicate whether consensus is to delete or to keep the article. If the article is kept, the deletion marking will be removed by the admin. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with what Taketa has said, I want to caution against using paraphrases like "well known" when talking about Notability. Even using "notable" itself can confuse people unfamiliar with Wikipedia, who tend to read it as meaning "important" (see User Talk:ColinFine/Archive 1#Your comment, particularly the comment by Jebus989 at 07:03, 23 May 2011). While notability on Wikipedia has some connection with being well known, they are not synonymous: huge numbers of notable subjects are not well-known (for example, they have been written about extensively but only in specialist journals), while there are quite a few well-known topics that are not notable, because while everybody knows about them (or at least everybody of a certain age-group or nationality) they have not yet been written about and so are not yet notable. --ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are ofcourse correct. Taketa (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just about anything linked from the primary tables in Uniform 4-polytope falls into that categoryNaraht (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using talk pages

Dear colleagues, please tell me, how much time additional information to a certain article must be in talk page before it can be added to a certain article?--Yury2015 (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no set amount of time. If the information is basic and uncontroversial, then it can be added right away. If it requires some discussion, then it's best to wait until a consensus has been reached.

That said, often things on talk pages get overlooked. So, it might be best to alert some of the more recent/regular contributors to the article of the presence of new information on the talk page. Dismas|^(talk) 10:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The talk page for thought is not busy. I suggest that you state more precisely what it is that you want to add to the article and where you propose adding it, and then leave it for two weeks to wait for responses. I note with amusement that, two sections above yours on that talk page, there is a long advertisement for gazebos, the only Wikipedia contribution of a registered editor. Maproom (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the spam.―Mandruss ☎ 11:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added that section to the article "Thought"

"We do not produce thoughts" approach

According to a number of famous philosophers - thoughts aren't produced, aren't formed by the person. Thoughts are timelessly true and are only apprehended by the person. In his work “The Thought: A Logical Inquiry” famous German mathematician, logician and philosopher Gottlob Frege writes that we don't produce thoughts, we apprehend (formulate) them. The apprehension of a thought presupposes someone who apprehends it, who thinks. A person is the bearer of the thinking but not of the thought.

"Thus the thought, for example, which we expressed in the Pythagorean theorem is timelessly true, true independently of whether anyone takes it to be true. It needs no bearer. It is not true for the first time when it is discovered, but is like a planet which, already before anyone has seen it, has been in interaction with other planets. The Thought: A Logical Inquiry, Gottlob Frege. Mind, New Series, Vol.65, No.259 (Jul., 1956), p.302"

That's the result

(cur | prev) 09:23, 11 February 2015‎ U3964057 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,915 bytes) (-1,007)‎ . . (Undid good faith revision 646621159 by Yury2015 (talk). Please do not simply reapply your edits if reverted. As per wiki-best practice, take it to the talk page.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 08:43, 11 February 2015‎ Yury2015 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,922 bytes) (+1,007)‎ . . (See Wikipedia:Five pillars In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:32, 11 February 2015‎ U3964057 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,915 bytes) (-201)‎ . . (Actually this should be removed altogether. It is apparently self-published original research, and added in the face of conflict of interest issues.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 23:45, 10 February 2015‎ U3964057 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,116 bytes) (-1,007)‎ . . (Undid good faith revision 646546256 by Yury2015 (talk). Uncited claims, clarity issues, and likely undue weight.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 20:26, 10 February 2015‎ Yury2015 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,123 bytes) (+1,007)‎ . . (Adding information) (undo) --Yury2015 (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to the article was apparently supported by a 1956 paper by Gottlob Frege. Frege died in 1925. I suggest to try to come up with a better source. Maproom (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you) Dear colleague, tell me please where can I read that kind of rule?

Thank you dear colleagues for your comments. --Yury2015 (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of rule? The rule that we don't allow references that have highly questionable dates, or something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! What dates are questionable? 10, 20, 30 - 100 years? May be than I should make the section "From the history of study of thought"? Aristotle did study thought and thinking.178.120.87.219 (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Yury2015 (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yury2015, the problem is not the date that it was written, but that it was supposedly written by a dead person. If he died in 1925, he can't have written an article in 1956, you know? The guidelines about reliable sources can be found at WP:RS. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 03:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Year in United Kingdom infobox

The "Year in United Kingdom" infobox is not displaying correctly on any page - see for example 1890 in the United Kingdom (and every other "<year> in the United Kingdom" page). It's beyond my editing competence to know how to correct it across all the pages. Camboxer (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it to the previous version for now - and notified User:Jackninja5 who changed the template on 8 February. It seems to be working OK for me - Arjayay (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages of becoming an editor

I am interested in convincing an IP editor to become a full-fledged member of WP. In order to "sell" the advantages of editor over IP, I need to know what they are. I know a watchlist is one but what are the others? Thanks. . Buster Seven Talk 14:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Why create an account? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more interested in asking why the unregistered editor does not want to register an account. It is my opinion that there are various misconceptions as to disadvantages to registering an account, and we would like to identify and refute those myths. However, other than a watchlist, there is the simple matter of a talk page. Many IP editors have dynamic IP addresses that change approximately once a week. They don't notice the change, because they edit over a period of hours and days and think that their address is static, but many unregistered editors who think that they have static IP addresses have "slow dynamic" IP addresses, and they lose a record of editing when the address changes. Back to the original question: Is there a reason why the IP thinks that it is better not to register an account? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:IPs are human too. —Cryptic 14:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wording at WP:HOW#Creating an account is a good start. -- Moxy (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon. I have yet to contact the IP editor other than thanking him/her for the editing at Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama (2015). I have been monitoring and editing the previous Timelines and the IP showed up at the perfect time. So....I don't know that they don't want to. I just want to present them with the possibility. . Buster Seven Talk 15:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Why create an account" goes into detail about the advantages, and is linked direct from the standard welcome template {{welcome-anon}}: Noyster (talk), 16:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While we all agree with what "Why create an account" says, I don't think that it goes far enough, because it appears that there still are myths that commonly deter IP editors from registering. I would like to know what those myths are so that maybe we can dispel or address some of them, so I really would like to know why the IP doesn't create an account. The two reasons that are not given in that article, which should be added (but I am not sure how to add them) have to do with editing from two locations as the same editor, and with editing from the same location as the same editor. A registered editor can edit from a location other than their home computer, such as a library, and still be the same editor. It doesn't say that. Also, an unregistered editor, editing from their home computer, can become another IP address. Many IP editors do not notice that their low-order address shifts, so that they do not have a consistent history and do not have a stable user talk page. Other than that, I think it would be useful to know what myths slow the registration of accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert makes good points. I wonder how many people just have an aversion to registering anywhere, because you usually have to give at least some identifying information such as an email address. If it's not already, it needs to be stressed that we ask for very little information, and none that could begin to identify you. For that matter, we could get specific and list exactly what information is required. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the IP editor that I am inviting to register does do so, I will ask them to view this discussion and respond if they choose. . Buster Seven Talk 22:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Association of Good Faith Wikipedians Who Remain Unregistered on Principle —Eric, aka: 71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Rudin

Resolved

– Wishfulness (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this image I uploaded ok for WP before I use it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ernst_Rudin_Wearing_Swastika.jpg? How could I verify the source/copyright of it? Wishfulness (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wishfulness. Yes, as the subject is dead and there are currently no free images of him, it meets WP:NFCC for the subject's biography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NeilN. This led me to search more & I eventually found more source info, what should be added to the image summary? http://www.ihm.nlm.nih.gov/luna/servlet/detail/NLMNLM~1~1~101426689~187058:Ernst-Ru%C2%A8din Wishfulness (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wishfulness: Updated. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a company on Wikipedia

Hi, I would like to set up a Wiki page describing an intellectual property company that offers software to chip designers. How do I set up the page? Thanks in advance, Jonah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C420:48F0:8882:123B:96C6:5511 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory, and so the first thing would be to see if the company meets the basic requirements for being the subject of an article: that third party reliable sources have found the company worth discussing in a significant manner. (and you probably should also read our guidelines for people with conflicts of interest) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding WP:BLPTALK

As I understand WP:BLPTALK, it permits, when discussing potentially BLP-violating sources, linking those sources on article talk pages so long as the BLP-violating content is not repeated on the talk page. This seems to be the relevant text:

For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating "this link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?"

Would this be a correct understanding of the policy? —Encyclopedia Bob 17:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it depends upon the link and context. if the link is the NYT it would be OK to link. if it is random blogger, even linking to it would be inappropriate. If it is a claim about person A, and the link is to Person A's website where they say "People have been saying X about me and it is not true" - probably OK. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, your example aligns with my understanding of policy. Can you point me to the section (or page) that addresses source quality? —Encyclopedia Bob 18:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO WP:BLP & WP:BLPTALK (as it is written) does not align to that outlined by TRPoD, above. There appears to be no mention of source quality in the policy itself, and IMHO this aspect should be addressed through discussion & formation of consensus on the talk page (based on WP:V etc).

IMHO removal, reversion & revdeletion of links on talk pages based on WP:BLP is in effect a supervote to quash discussion & override consensus, and should be discouraged. That it is often backed with a threat of sanction makes it doubly egregious.

I do concur, however, that we should be absolutely clear that the contentious material should not be repeated on the talk page, or on Wikipedia anywhere, without a consensus that it is compliant with WP:BLP (and other core policies). My personal preference would be to include a short disclaimer of the type "Link X is potentially subject to BLP" or similar.

I have initiated a discussion at WT:BLP, on this aspect and would welcome input there. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I will follow the discussion there. —Encyclopedia Bob 18:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that my interpetation is quite aligned with WP:BLP "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

And yes, quashing the use of Wikipedia to spread inappropriate content about living people is quite appropriate outcome. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your points regarding high-quality sources in article space seem valid (and reasonable) but my question concerned talk page links specifically. WP:BLPTALK draws a distinction between linking to unacceptable content and repeating unacceptable content. The former seems specifically permitted by example (quoted above.) Is there an overriding policy or discussion elsewhere? —Encyclopedia Bob 18:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pages on non-existent DVD releases

Why are these three pages (links below) up on Wikipedia? They are entries on DVD releases that DO NOT EXIST. These three volumes are purely the products of someone's imagination. I realize it's impossible to keep up with everything, but it doesn't do much for Wiki's credibility when pages devoted to bogus, nonexistent items like these are allowed to stand. That's how I found about these pages. Someone I know was citing their existence as proof that Wikipedia is unreliable and that anybody can post anything to it, whether true or completely made up.

For the record, the Warner Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies Golden Collection series got no further than Volume 6, released in 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tholden28/Looney_Tunes_Golden_Collection:_Volume_7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tholden28/Looney_Tunes_Golden_Collection:_Volume_8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tholden28/Looney_Tunes_Golden_Collection:_Volume_9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.26.225 (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are not Wikipedia articles. They are on a user's own personal space. I'll tag them and do other appropriate things to them. - X201 (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is bigger than it looks. I'm on a tablet so can't do the editing I need to. Can someone run with this, see if they can be speedied or listed at WP:MFD. The navbox at the bottom of these is fake too. - X201 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? It's in the userspace and it's not in any categories. Is there really a pressing need to have these pages removed? Scarce2 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When they breach WP:FAKEARTICLE they should be deleted. - X201 (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, who cares ....they are 1st hit on Google search? --CiaPan (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

apparently someone has complained before -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User pages are supposed to be non indexed so the fact that they are showing up in google is odd. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading of Wikipedia:Controlling_search_engine_indexing, only userspace talk pages are automatically non-indexed. Otherwise the magic word NOINDEX or {{NOINDEX}} is needed. RudolfRed (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Non-talk userspace is indexed by default. The pages have only been noindexed for an hour since {{user sandbox}} was added to them. It's one of several templates which automatically add __NOINDEX__. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, That seems like a weird policy choice. How did that end up coming about? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, as the author of said pages, I can say this is quite surprising and to an extent ammusing. I'm as surprised as anyone that they come up on Google, I'm not sure why that would be the case. If there's anything I can (or should) do, I'd be happy to do so. Tholden28 (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing.

@Tholden28: The three linked pages are noindexed now and you dont have to do anything about them. There are still some indexed pages at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Tholden28/. If you want to noindex them (this is not mandatory) then WP:NOINDEX shows several methods. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say thank you to the OP for reporting them. So, thank you.- X201 (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]