Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 October 20

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 20

WP Atlanta Braves

I have recently created WikiProject Atlanta Braves and set it up to operate under the WP 1.0 bot. For the bot to start rating articles I need an administrator to add the parameter 'braves=yes' to Template:WikiProject_Baseball. I have already updated the template documentation to account for this. I posted an 'editprotected' tag entry on the talk page (as directed) over a week ago and have yet to receive a response from an admin. Looking at previous entries on that talk page, a response was given either within a few hours or, at most, a few days. I may have made a mistake with using the 'editprotected' template. I'm really not sure what I should do at this point to reach a response from an administrator. This is the only location I know of that may reach the applicable audience. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You have to only write {{editprotected}}. You wrote {{tlx|editprotected}}. I guess you copied it from an answered request, but it is code an administrator can change {{editprotected}} into when they reply and admin attention is no longer needed. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That is precisely what I did. Thank you very much for your help. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR achievement ribbons

Resolved

EdChem (talk · contribs), who created File:Four Award Ribbon x10.png for WP:FOUR has retired (has not edited since March 7, 2011). Can someone create a 25 and a 50 award ribbon for our project?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have made and . I hope these are what you were looking for. And thank you for awarding me a WP:FOUR award a few months back. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--108.69.72.226 (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Is Wikmedia helping Wikipedia?

Hello,

I made a donation to Wikmedia(UK) [or Wiki UK Ltd with paypal@wikimedia.org.uk] yesterday based on a header-banner on a Wikepedia page whilst browsing requesting donations for which I believed it was saying to keep wikipedia encyclopedia informations free for the public internet users - which would only still be possible if they had assistance from public donatations. The donation request pages cited the slim number of servers and employees wikepedia operated with respect to Google etc.

I am concerned that the header-banner on the wikpedia page I was browsing may be misleading and in fact has no link with wikipedia organisation.

Would you please help to clarify matters.

Kind regards

Jeeva

email: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.112.166 (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helping the project with a donation! There's no need to worry - Wikipedia is one of the projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation. You can click those blue links to find out more. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Right. Wiki UK Ltd, d/b/a Wikimedia UK is listed at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Lord ??? comforteth his troops

Gentlefolks:

I distinctly remember (I'm 72 - some salt may be required!) seeing a photo of a painting depiction an English Lord astride his black stallion behind his troops as they went forward into battle. The impression given that 'comfort' did not mean to the characters depicted in the painting what it now means to us.

I would like to make a copy of this painting... and I am virtually certain I saw it on a Wikipedia page... to the right of the main body of the article.

Can you help?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.46.77 (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(I have removed your email address to protect your privacy). For the old meaning of "comfort", literally "with strength", see wikt:comfort. I'll have a try at finding the picture for you and will post again here if I am successful. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you remembering the panel in the Bayeux Tapestry that shows a leader "comforting" his troops with a spear? This google search may lead you to the page you have in mind. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Creative commons image

May we add to an article a photograph released under a Creative Commons license? Here it is: [[1]] - please point out whether there are any other issues I am missing. Garald (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the "non-commercial" stipulation of that image's licensing is not compatible with Wikipedia's requirements. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Deprecated#Non-free Creative Commons licenses. You might try contacting the image's owner to see if he would be willing to change the CC licensing to a version that would permit the uploading of the image to Commons. Deor (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I don't think so. There are various types of Creative Commons licenses, and in the right margin of this photo I see three symbols plus the text "Some rights reserved". The sticking point is the , which means that the image can only be reused for noncommercial purposes, which excludes Wikipedia. If uploaded, such images are liable for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#F3. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Add a third link to the two existing links of magnetic "Toys" in the "Magnet" article

In the (protected) "Magnet" article I wish to make a small addition.

From:

Toys: Given their ability to counteract the force of gravity at close range, magnets are often employed in children's toys, such as the Magnet Space Wheel and Levitron, to amusing effect.

To:

Toys: Given their ability to counteract the force of gravity at close range, magnets are often employed in children's toys, such as the Magnet Space Wheel, Magnetic Tower of Hanoi, and Levitron, to amusing effect.

Please advice. Thanks, Uri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uri-Levy (talk • contribs) 11:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You should discuss this on the Magnet Talk Page. There, editors who maintain that page can evaluate the addition you want to make. I am not sure that Magnetic Tower of Hanoi belongs in Wikipedia. All of the sources appear to be self-published or primary sources. GB fan 12:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

IPA Rendering

Hi, I have a problem, no matter what I do, the English Wikipedia article on the International Phonetic Alphabet, and all pages using IPA, continue to display IPA characters in the Doulos SIL font, despite I've tried using all different typefaces on all my browsers. What to do?

Cheers, Victor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.182.160 (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Altina Schinasi

After this article was approved it was removed with the following comments:

• This article's citation style may be unclear.
• This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it.
• This article's tone or style may not reflect the formal tone used on Wikipedia.
• The neutrality of this article is disputed.
• This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

There is no indication as to why the article needs to be wikified. The Talk page only cites the standards for biographies of living persons and has no other guidance as to how to improve the article. As Ms. Schinasi is deceased, I am unsure how the biographies of living persons applies. I am also unclear on how the article could better adhere to said policy.

I would appreciate any suggestion on how to improve this article as I would like to post a revised version that meets Wikipedia standards.

IeWilson IeWilson (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "approved" and "removed" - some copyright material was removed from the Altina Schinasi, but the article is still there. Each of the maintenance tags you mention contains blue links to pages which explain what they mean. I suggest you also look at the five pillars of Wikipedia.

As for whether the subject is living or not: the principles of biographies of living people apply to all articles about people; it's just that we need to be more careful that they are followed in the case of living people. --ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

How to remove quality flags on a Wikipedia page

A page I recently edited has three flags from early 2009 that warn about 1) missing citations, 2) factual accuracy, and 3) may require clean-up. The issues mentioned on the talk page seem to have been resolved since then. What is the process for removing these warnings from the page? Can any user do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.214.131 (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, any user can do this. Try to give a clear explanation in your edit summary so that other editors can see your reasoning. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Just edit the page, simply remove the {{citations needed}} or similar tag, and save, with a clear edit summary. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 18:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Companies in Atlanta

Can you add HD Supply to your List of companies in Atlanta? It looks like it then links to another Wiki page so I don't know how to make this edit.--Afbcampbell (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

 Already done, I think. You do mean HD Supply, right?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 17:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

AND vs PHRASE

When I search Wikipedia, I noticed that it may fail to find something that I think it should be able to find. I believe that this is because it is searching everything I type in the search box as a phrase (since when it fails to find what I searched for, in the message it shows my search query in quotes), instead of as an AND operation, meaning that all of the words simply need to exist in the page. But I see no way in the search settings page in my account to change this behavior. In my humble opinion, all users, registered or not should be able to pick the type of search they wish to perform and registered users can save a certain type of search as their default in their search settings page. Or is there a way to change the search method it uses and I just missed it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giant Waffle (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see Help:Searching. If your question is not answered there, feel free to come back. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 19:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example of a two-word search. The result list shows that the software has treated this as an AND search and not as a phrase. Here is the same search with quotes, yielding just one match. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Column width on a table

Very frustrated. For the Hamptons Collegiate Baseball Wiki site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamptons_Collegiate_Baseball), under MLB Draft History, it drives me crazy that the table is dumping things down to a second line rather than having "Toronto Blue Jays" or "Sag Harbor '08" on ONE LINE. What's more frustrating is the table further up on the page (Teams etc.) doesn't seem to have this problem AND when I preview the changes for this table, it looks terrific (!) but when I save changes, it reverts back to the old version

I feel like I've tried everything but obviously there's an answer. Please help.

Lastly, why the heck does the line for Division Champions extend all the way across the page but the Atlantic Collegiate Baseball League Champions line does not??? Baffling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpmauser (talk • contribs) 19:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There were unclosed <div> tags further up the page. I have removed them, and I think the page is OK now. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

monobook.js editing tools not a working

I've tried to install some editing tools to my monobook.js page but none of them want to work. Yes, I've dumped cache, restarted browser, uninstalled and reinstalled the tools, dumped cache, restart browser many times. Yes, I'm using the monobook skin setting. Using Firefox 3.6.23 sigh. Brad (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to add a closing parenthesis and semicolon to the first line, i.e. instead of this:

importScript('User:Cameltrader/Advisor.js'

put this:

importScript('User:Cameltrader/Advisor.js');

--Redrose64 (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks but now the tools work in preview mode but not after saving. Brad (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

. Like a dummy I forgot that I had tried getting the custom.js to work to fix the problem. Once monobook was fixed the custom.js was still there so I cleared it. Brad (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you actually mean common.js, not custom.js - assuming that you're using Monobook skin, you can put custom javascript into either Special:MyPage/common.js or in Special:MyPage/monobook.js but it's pointless to put the same code into both. Note that you can put different code in both, and if both pages exist, the common code is loaded before the skin-specific code. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Has Preview got mucked up or is it me?

Today I had to reconstruct a complicated edit. What I have been used to doing is previewing, then going back in my browser to make changes. Today I find that takes me back to an unchanged version of the page in edit mode; my edit is lost unless I instead go forward by editing in the edit window under the preview. That's what I've been doing for the remaining edits today, but it feels unnatural and I don't like concatenating my edits in that manner, so it's going to be hard to break the habit of going back to tweak the same edit and then looking at it again. Is this a bug, a feature, or is it my browser playing silly bugger? Firefox 3.6.18, Win 7. I'd have put this at the Village pump (technical) but there's nothing there about it, either, and so it may well be me . . . (Yes, it just did it again with this edit, gave me a blank new section edit window) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Me too. This has been happening since the MediaWiki 1.18 upgrade in early Oct (Windows XP, Firefox 3.6.23, Monobook). What I do find is that going to preview, then using the "back" button always behaves; but when going to preview, then clicking something, then going back twice will sometimes lose the edit. The risk of losing the edit increases with every click further from the initial edit screen. This particular one remained OK when going three pages away, but lost it on going four pages away. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been happening for me consistently with preview + "back" button, no further forward clicking. But that does confirm it's at Wikipedia's end. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

spammy external links in wikipedia whose language I ignore

Recently I noticed that IP 195.136.61.162 in 2006 worked on dozens of wikipedias in different languages. The IP added in each instance the external link www[dot]zlotehotele[dot]pl to articles about Poland and polish cities. The said external link is spam in whichever case, since it advertises a service for hotel searching. I know portuguese well, so I cut this spam off in https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vars%C3%B3via. But what can I do in http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A8%D9%88%D9%84%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%A7, where this external link still is unchanged after more than 5 years? I know no arab, but this link is clearly spammy in wikipedia regardless of the context. I could easily cut it off too myself, but I would have to write the summary in some other language, for instance, in english. Is it all right to do this? That would take care of the matter pretty fast. Or should I rather leave a message in the talk page to that article with a request for someone fluent in arab to cut it off? This request would have to be in a foreign language again, let's say in english. Is it all right to make entries in a wiki in a language foreign to that wiki? On the other hand this way could take again 5 or more years to take care of the matter, untill someone decided to show. By the way, the talk page to that page in question is itself full of crap: take a look http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%86%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B4:%D8%A8%D9%88%D9%84%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%A7 and follow the links Garsd (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Cross-Wiki problems (as in, problems that stretch across many Wikipedias) can be brought up at Meta. I don't often use Meta, but the main discussion page seems to be here. If anyone can help you, someone there can. --Jayron32 22:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'm impressed when people whose language is not English post in English, so I don't normally offer corrections; except when I see a word that is likely to be misunderstood. The word "ignore" is a false friend: in English it never means "not know", (as it does in French, and perhaps other languages): it means "deliberately not take notice of" or "pretend that something is not there". English readers who do not know these other languages will be likely to misunderstand you. --ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point, well made, Colin. The "ignore" was definitely confusing to me. Garsd, the IP address is registered to Exatel S.A. in Poland; I'd guess the language is Polish. My very limited knowledge of Polish makes me think that "zlotehotele" may mean "Golden Hotels". Wikipedia:Translation links to a number of pages, including lists of very kind people willing to do translation – perhaps someone there can provide you with translations of "deleted spam link" (or similar) for use in edit summaries. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I make the occasional edit on other projects, usually the in same kind of situation, and I generally use an English edit summary rather than trying to hash something together in the native language which nobody will get, so far its never been problem (and I just removed the link from the page in question)--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Creating a new entry on a person who hasn't received much attention

I have just published a website on a little known figure from the San Francisco Beat era (www.shigmurao.org). Shig Murao's 15 minutes of fame has to do with his having been arrested at City Lights in 1957 for selling a copy of Allen Ginsberg's Howl to an undercover San Francisco police officer.

Much of what I discovered is based on original research, but isn't something anyone seems likely to challenge.

The date of his death, for instance: Shig's nephew didn't have the date, but he requested a copy of the death certificate, which I have. Is that acceptable, and how can I cite it? (Or his birth date, which I also got from his nephew, though I don't have a copy of his birth certificate.)

I have also collected many examples of a zine Shig published, have scanned several issues, and have compiled a catalog of issues. I believe a few published sources have mentioned that he produced such a zine, but there are no details in any published materials I know of.

One of the key events in his life was a dispute with Lawrence Ferlinghetti, which resulted in Shig leaving City Lights. I have sent my account to Ferlinghetti, who deemed it a fair account, but no one has ever written about the dispute before.

How do I deal with this sort of stuff? Do I simply have to avoid referencing anything that hasn't been previously written about, even when I have the original source material?

I have begun to sketch out an entry in my sandbox.

RichardReynolds (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't write anything unless you can back it up with references. It would be horrible to write a detailed, thoughtful article and then have it deleted in a week because you hadn't established notability. Wait till you are sure of your material before you start doing any serious writing. There are quite a lot of google hits for Shig Murao, but I'm not sure how reliable the sources are. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. - firstly, 'a person who hasn't received much attention' is almost by definition not going to meet the Wikipedia notability requirements to merit an article. And secondly, articles need to be based on published reliable sources - we don't allow the use of original research. So, sadly, your little-known man is going to remain unknown on Wikipedia unless and until he becomes well-known elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to ask yourself why this person "hasn't received much attention", and read carefully the Wikipedia guielines on notability, particularly this. Wikipedia isn't the place to redress this, WP is intended as a tertiary source, that is it collates and references reliable, verifiable secondary sources. It is not a place to publish primary research. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me just note that people go to Wikipedia for information that sometimes could not be found on google. If it can not be found on google, no books, nothing, then Wikipedia should be the first to feture it. Just something to think about.

Please reply on my message boards! Larsona 14:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia should never be the first to feature it: that would be directly contrary to the principles of verifiability and notability. It is possible, though unlikely, that Wikipedia could be the first online site to feature something, if it had been discussed in printed sources but never before mentioned online. --ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Is Shig worthy of being included in Wikipedia? In researching my project I found that Edsel Ford Fong, an abusive waiter at a San Francisco Chinatown restaurant called Sam Wo's, which Shig used frequent, has a Wikipedia entry. If Fong deserves a Wikipedia entry, Shig is certainly worthy, if only for having been jailed for selling Ginsberg's Howl at City Lights in 1957. Shig's role in that incident has been well documented, but if I'm to include anything beyond that it's going to be tough. The only comprehensive published piece on his life is a brief memoir published in the San Francisco Chronicle by Gordon Ball, a filmmaker and historian who edited Ginsberg's journals. There are a couple of other pieces published online, one by the San Francisco Historical Society, the others by a Japanese woman who has been researching Shig for her own biography. Would those be considered acceptable references? RichardReynolds (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)