Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 September 13

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.

September 13

user page deleted

I'm tryn to figure out why file nukefie was deleted.. I created the account on 9-12-14. Thanx. you may email your response to [expunged] Nukefie (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

if you click to where the page was, you will find the explanation: 23:52, 12 September 2014 User:FreeRangeFrog (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Nukefie (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Tranclusion and references

I have two sections in article A which I wish to transclude into 2 separate articles B and C. The problem is that the sections share some references. Is there any way I can use transclusion, so that article B and C won't have broken references, as well as not repeating references in article A? I should add that one problem with repeating references is that some bots unify repeated references. This has already happened when I tried. Kingsindian (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify whether both sections of A are to be transcluded into both B and C or is it one section goes to each of B and C? Also, where are the references in article A, in the first section, the second section, or somewhere else? SpinningSpark 03:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It might be better to just name the article instead of making an "A-B" case out of it. The article is Operation Polo. I wish to transclude the lead into Hyderabad_State_(1948–56), history section. I wish to transclude the Operation Polo#Communal Violence section into article Hyderabad_State#After_Indian_Independence_.281947.E2.80.9348.29. So the sections are separate, one goes from A->B, one goes from A->C. The references are currently in the "communal violence" section of Operation Polo. Kingsindian (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Putting aside the references issue for a moment and just dealing with the transcluding two seperate sections issue: the easiest thing to do is to cut the two sections (S1 and S2 say) out of article A and turn them into templates, say T1 and T2. Then article A has T1 and T2 transcluded back into it, article B has T1 transcluded, and article C has T2 transcluded. It is possible not to use templates by placing the <onlyinclude> tags surrounding S1 and S2 within {{#if}} statements in article A. A parameter will need to be passed in the calling transclusion for the if statement to be able to identify which article is calling, e.g {{T1|B}} for instance. See Mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions#.23if for details on if statements but I would not recommend using them as it will result in code clutter in article A that many other editors will not understand.

On the references issue, my first comment is that references are generally not required in the lede because the lede is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article where, presumably, everything is already referenced. It would greatly simplify things if Hyderabad_State (1948–56) was organised in this way, then no special measures would need to be taken to deal with references. If you insist on having references in the lede, then again this can be taken care of with if statements. The if statements in T1 and T2 would choose between a full reference <ref name=foo>...</ref> and repeated reference <ref name=foo/>. SpinningSpark 10:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have two comments:

• Is it considered a good practice to create templates containing article text? Wikipedia:Template namespace says: "Templates should not normally be used to store article text."
• Unfortunately, in the lead for controversial areas, I have seen references used widely. There are even some cases where people kept tagging stuff to ensure that there were references in the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I saw this page Wikipedia:Transclusion#Pages_with_a_common_section, which seems to say that it is considered ok to do what you suggest, using the template namespace. Kingsindian (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Kingsindian: You may be right that putting article text in template namespace is frowned upon. Note that you cannot create sub-pages in mainspace either as the technical ability to do this has been turned off on Wikipedia. You're back to using messy parser functions in the article, or else try to cut out a part of the article as a standalone page (which is probably your best option). Errata: "includeonly" above should have read "onlyinclude" which I have now corrected.
• On references in the lede, editors do occasionally tag ledes with citation needed, but they are wrong and should be reverted (unless the information appears only in the lede). SpinningSpark 08:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, I have another idea, I could make a template called "refTagFullorNot", which takes a reference, and a parameter to either display the full reference with ref and /ref, or the abbreviated ref name=whatever/ ? Perhaps this has already been done?
• I am afraid that point of view will not survive long in the area where I work most (WP:ARBPIA). It will likely get me banned in an instant. Every sentence in the article, and especially the lead, is fought over relentlessly. From MOS:LEAD, I see that citations in the lead are neither necessary nor forbidden, so they also have their own justification. Kingsindian (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've transcluded a portion of Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events in 2014 into the 2014 timeline section of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant using the onlyinclude tags with no problems.~Technophant (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I am pleased to announce success. I did by separating out the references using this Help:Footnotes#List-defined_references and enclosing it in reflist. The source document now has two reflists templates, one after the other, but they simply stack with no problems. I made the shared references a separate transcluded markup section called "SharedRef". I then included the shared section in both articles, which now also have two reflist templates (by transclusion), with no problems. Thanks for all the help. Kingsindian (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Kingsindian Good job! I like how you did that. I could use your ideas to help improve the formatting issues I'm having with ISIL.~Technophant (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

See Help:Labeled section transclusion for an easier way to transclude parts of a page. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Conflicts with myself

For the last week I've been having a problem where about 1 out of 10 times when editing I'll have an edit conflict with myself. If I go to the History it will show that the edit was made, however 'my version' will show the previous revision and the 'stored version' will be the edit I'm trying to make. I just cancel at that point because the edit is already made. I'm using Google Chrome for Linux (Version 36.0.1985.125) and Linux Mint 16 as an OS. I'm also using Logitech wireless keyboard and mouse, wish has some odd issues that could be related.~Technophant (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That's usually symptomatic of your mouse having been clicked without your knowledge or volition, thus saving your edits for you. I've seen it happen on Windows, and even on an aging Mac with a wonky trackpad. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. So possibly an accidental double click on the save box?~Technophant (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

the system registered a click or a double click, whether or not you did. it could be human error, or more likely if it just started, a hardware glitch. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I also experience this, and I believe I understand the cause (in my case; I don't assume that others make the same mistake). I make an edit, click Show Preview, it looks right, click Save Page, take a sip of coffee, look back to the screen and notice that I am still in the editor, and click Save Page again. Maproom (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Article vandalized

Comparison of file hosting services

Have been vandalized

Specifically footnotes around footnote 11 have been replaced by commercial links

Cheers Jorge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.85.163 (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Jorge, you'll have to be more specific about what you think is vandalism. The references around 11 are all supporting the entry for a particular line in the table. It would be ideal if some of them were from independent sources, but the information they support is about a particular product, so it's not unreasonable that some at least should be from that company's website. --ColinFine (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Australian International Three Day Event

Australian International Three Day Event (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am the Event Director of this event - and have just come across this wicki site about our event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australian_International_Horse_Trials_Logo.png Firstly, this Logo is not current, and much of the info on this page is not correct. We have an official facebook page https://www.facebook.com/AI3DE

We have an official website www.australian3de.com.au

I need to update the Wicki ant this facebook page with the correct information. How do I do this?

Best regards Gillian Rolton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aus3de (talk • contribs) 12:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

For the logo, you will need to upload a copy of your current logo, with an acceptable copyright release. There is some information about this at Wikipedia:Uploading_images.

For the inaccuracies in the article, please list what you believe needs correcting, preferably with references to a reliable published source (unfortunately Wikipedia does not regard Facebook as reliable) on the article's talk page, Talk:Australian_International_Three_Day_Event. Maproom (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes in titles of the articles

How can we correct the spelling mistakes which appear in the title of the articles of wikipedia?Anwerroshan (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

it would need to be WP:MOVEd to the correct spelling. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

But before you do that, you should ensure that your proposed new spelling is correct. Moves like this [1] are unhelpful, and make work for other people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Teodoras Daukantas

Dear Help Desk, I have created a Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia page . The page "Teodoras Daukantas " is of my antecedent great uncle. I attempted to upload an image of Lithuanian Cabinet Defense Minister Teodoras Daukantas to Wikimedia Creative Commons under Google images "fair use" copyright guidelines, I was denied the upload .

I have a source image for Teodoras Daukantas that I would like to upload @ http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.5ci.lt/WhoIsWho/images/Photo/daukantas.JPG&imgrefurl=http://ieskok.penki.lt/default.aspx?Lang%3DLT%26Element%3DWhoIsWho%26Who%3DShow%26TopicID%3D153%26ID%3D212&h=122&w=80&tbnid=4KjXXCUEix-Y7M:&zoom=1&tbnh=122&tbnw=80&usg=__D9fyBxPbjh2eoKaoi05Iafg-ynA=&docid=3Imkz-kxn-QPkM&itg=1&client=firefox-a&ved=0CEYQyjc&ei=-nIUVPDSLoaGyAT7_oG4DA .

Question: I need to know if my Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia page "Teodoras Daukantas" is acceptable and how can I justify uploading a copyright image of Teoodoras Daukantas under a "fair use" guideline ?

Thank you, please!

Zckjsrbn 16:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons never accepts images on a "fair use" basis. en:Wikipedia sometimes accepts such images, see Wikipedia:Non-free content for details. Maproom (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't read Lithuanian; but if the text with that photograph says it was taken in 1906, then it is in the public domain, and you need not worry about copyright, just upload it with a free licence, and explain that it is out of copyright. Maproom (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

In 1906 he would have been 22: Judging by the hairline and distinguished pose, he was a lot older in the photo. More likely it was taken when he was Defense Minister (1927-28) or later. That is beyond the time (1923) of automatic PD in the United States. Even if it was before 1923, use on Commons would depend in part on Lithuanian copyright law. —teb728 t c 22:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, the article Teodoras Daukantas is likely to be deleted, as it currently provides no evidence that he is notable, in the sense in which that word is used on Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If he was the Defense Minister of Lithuania, that's right there a clear claim of notability under WP:POLITICIAN. Heck, even if he'd just been a rank-and-file member of the Seimas he would qualify as notable; that's cut-and-dry. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Coton de Tulear

The first photo at the top right of this info page is NOT a Coton. It is listed as being a Coton in a dog show. The breed of the dog in the photo is a Maltese. Cotons do not have the two top knots with bows in their hair nor do they have a part down the back of the dog. This photo should be removed from the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coton_de_Tulear

http://www.alikatia.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/P1010158.258173105_std.JPG

I have attached a photo of my Coton de Tulear taken during a show. This is a photo we took ourselves and there is no copyright affiliated with it. It may be used in Wikipedia.

Sincerely, Linda Brookes President, Canadian Coton de Tulear Club 142.46.168.17 (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Linda. The place to raise questions like this is on the article's talk page Talk:Coton de Tulear. I see that somebody raised the same question in 2006, but no action was taken then. If you are sure it is not the right breed, you are welcome to edit the page and remove the offending picture - make sure you leave an edit summary explaining why, so that your edit doesn't get mistaken for vandalism.

As for the photo you offer: there is indeed copyright affiliated with it. http://www.alikatia.com/yahoo_site_admin has an explicit copyright notice (and even if it didn't, we would have to treat the photo as copyright in the absence of an explicit release under a suitable licence). If you would like to donate the image to Wikipedia, so that you or somebody can put it in the article, that would be very welcome, but you need to license it explicitly using the procedure in donating copyright materials: it's not enough for you to say "you may use it in Wikipedia", because one of the policies of Wikipedia is that as far as possible anything in Wikipedia may be reused for any purpose, as long as it is attributed properly. --ColinFine (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)