Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 January 3

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.

January 3

Flickr uploads

How do I upload a picture from Flickr onto Wikipedia aside from just downloading the image and re-upping it?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

See WP:FLICKR. Dismas|^(talk) 01:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Page that needs editing that I cannot figure out how to do!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pizzone_(food)&redirect=no

This is a bit offensive and incorrect. I am from the town of Pizzone in Italy and this has nothing to do with the town AT ALL!

The page title should be corrected to "P'zzone", the way Pizza Hut spells it. I could care less if it redirects from there!

A Wikipedia search should not give this disambiguation for this search!

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:9E00:98C:B404:BCAA:87A7:2845 (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there - Many times, people search for terms based on how they hear them. People can and do search for Pizzone with the intent of finding Pizza Hut's food. Disambiguation links and the top of articles don't have to be related to the article's subject at all - they're there in the event that someone visiting the article may have meant to find another subject. In this case, I think there's a good case for the disambiguation link. However, I did go ahead and change the spelling in the link to P'zone (as you suggested), and also removed the link altogether since there is no article at the moment on the food item. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

...looking into this more however, there does seem to be discrepancy with the redirects themselves. P'zone currently redirects to Calzone, while Pizzone (food) redirects to Pizza Hut. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on Conflict of Interest Policy

A family member who knows people with Wikipedia articles (I will not disclose names for privacy reasons) has told them I edit Wikipedia. They, in turn have asked me to add promotional material to their pages. I was also asked to correct information on the pages but was not given a source. I refused to make any of these edits, citing Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Policy. Am I right to refuse to make those edits? Please help as I would like to clarify my understanding. Thanks. pcfan500 (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course you were right not to add promotional content, that has nothing to do with COI its basic content policy WP:NPOV .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It's also conflict of interest. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest mentions family and friends. You can use {{Request edit}} on the talk page but if you don't want to reveal the connection due to privacy of your account then it's problematic. You could suggest that the family member creates an account and tell them the code to place on the talk page. WP:SOCK#LEGIT mentions privacy but not in this situation. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!! pcfan500 (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

How to DELETE a book?

How do you delete a book after it has been saved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jecullison (talk • contribs) 03:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Only administrators can deleted pages. I see at Special:Contributions/Jecullison that it's probably a book in your userspace so you can place {{db-u1}} on it to request deletion. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Tampering with the Dominican International School's page.

I would like to remove very derogatory remarks at the top of our school's page 1, saying it sounds like advertising, and 2) saying that there are no references. How could a school give references if they are writing about their own history. I am the author of this page. The school had problems with students' defamatory remarks edited into these pages. Please remove these caps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merenvin (talk • contribs) 07:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

They are not intended comments about the school, but rather about the page. Sentences like " Visitors to the school will encounter teachers from many different parts of the globe." is written the way that it would be written in a publication by the school intended to get someone to attend, rather than in an encyclopedic way. As for no references, while there certain could be primary references to school web pages about things like the list of AP classes, better would be secondary references from the China Post or the Taipei Times. For the pages about the Foreign Schools, you may want to look at American School in Japan which is better for references (but not wonderful). I'm an alumnus of Taipei American School. That article is somewhat better organized and seems more encyclopedic in tone, but also has issues with references being needed.Naraht (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The "remarks" are indeed derogatory (of the article, not of the school), but they are true. If you want them removed, you could improve the article by adding some references, removing the promotional language, and making it read more like an encyclopedia article than an advertising brochure. Maproom (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

From what Merenvin wrote, they may well be associated with the school, thus having a potential conflict of interest (WP:COI). Rwessel (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Merenvin. I'm afraid it sounds like you have a misapprehension of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and its articles must be based entirely on published information, and almost entirely on information published by sources unconnected with the subject. You say "How could a school give references if they are writing about their own history"? The answer is that if there are no published sources for the history then the history must not appear in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Art Uytendaal

I am trying to fix Art Uytendaal. As I said before I have no idea how to do this. You say that you will delete this after one week. I would be pleased if you could give me some more time and I will, hopefully, get someone to help me add what you require. Thanking you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tongalapark (talk • contribs) 09:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added two references to the article, and I tried to remove the "no references" notice, but I must have done it wrong as the notice is still there. I trust that if anyone considers deleting the article because of its lack of references, they will notice that it does in fact have references and not delete it.

But it would be good if you could help with more references. I know nothing at all about horse-riding, and the references I added may not be the best. What you need to do is find reputable published third-party (i.e. not Art's own books) sources that support the statements in the article, and add them after the statements that they support. Help:Referencing_for_beginners explains how to add them.

I should point out that as you are connected with the subject of the article, you should not really be editing it at all, see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. But you have, in my opinion, done an excellent job of writing a neutral article without promotional language. Maproom (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have now removed the {{prod blp}} tag. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Book of Martyrs

Second January 2015 CE3

Please REVERSE Wikipediea'S REDIRECT to Foxe's Book of Martyrs' from the article Actes and Monuments.

1. Even when severely disabled by the effects of advanced Parkinson's, I checked in at the AM page--often with an indication that I was working on projects---my availability was reduced, but I saw no discussion about the protocols,permissions and procedures that characterized discussion in Summer 2011 AM: Talk Page Archive p.2.

URGENT 2. because I have three times written my objection to their misuse of the AM article--for which I authored rhe subtantive portion. Chiswick Chap, who rescued my tangled Wikipedia tech ERRORS, and then allowed space for the AM article by merging [his?] current page on 'F BkofM', had set me to wrementss fo proof do nit apply to marytyrolgiesork on AM, as a historical antidote to all that mythistory,

The 2014 decision seems to have been made on the, let's call it what the people called it! basis--nevermind that evidence shows limited use of that title. In Foxe's own time, many people may have called it by that name, having heard no other.

A 450 year old secret about Actes and Monuments is that it is not the 'Book of Martyrs' and even extant copies of that we can produce mostly only after 1850 This matters because the book was 'supposed' to be known as ...BkofM article in percaricus position.....

I do not want to see my words misconstrued. An academically balanced, informative and widely reference article has efffectively been deleted without cause.

URGENT because I've done the FAQ, checked several indices and archives for history, talk pages for articles, people, and watchers. I reminded myself about WIKIpedka principles, policy (particularly communication). dicationn

URGENT The'Redirect' to "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" away rom the historically and textually anchored analyses of specific editions of texts that the the late Professr, Patrrick Collinson called a "highly unstable enitity, Actes and Monuments is news. 12:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope this is a fair summary of the issue. In 1563, Foxe wrote a book which he called Actes and Monuments. Later writers copied and expanded his work, publishing it as The Book of Martyrs. It, or at least these later editions, are commonly known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Wikipedia has one article covering all the editions, titled Foxe's Book of Martyrs. The article includes a rather confusing section about the title of this book or sequence of books. Actes and Monuments is a redirect to Foxe's Book of Martyrs. In 2010 there was some discussion of this on the article's talk page. The contributions to that talk page are not in chronological order. Maproom (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I observe that the question above was posted from IP address 70.79.64.106. This is also the source of the request posted at the top of the talk page for Foxe's Book of Martyr, over the name "Devoraah G. Greenbberg". In that request, Dr. Greenbberg requests "immediate removal from this site of my contributions". Dr. Greenbberg: your request will not be accepted. In making your contributions (for which Wikipedia is duly grateful) you released the copyright of them to Wikipedia, and you have no power to withdraw the permission you gave. (Whether the two topics Actes and Monuments and Foxe's Book of Martyrs should be merged into a single article, and whether the material you contributed about the former is now confusingly included in the latter, I am not qualified to judge.) Maproom (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

hi helpdesk

hi helpdesk

please help me to create our company wikipedia page for "AK Clinics"

what are things i need exactly for this to get it published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akclinics (talk • contribs) 13:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

What you need most is evidence that the company is notable in the sense in which that word is used here: it must have been written about in reputable, published, independent sources. Unfortunately, a Google search suggests that such evidence may be impossible to find. Maproom (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Please also read the conflict of interest policy. You refer to "our company Wikipedia page". No Wikipedia page belongs to any particular editor or group of editors. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory, and has encyclopedic articles, not profiles. Creating "your own" company page is discouraged, because COI editing is usually biased and does not follow neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, your user name matches too closely the name of the company with which you are associated, and so appears to be what is known as a role name. See the user name policy. Please consider changing it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles with large unfinished sections

Dear editors: Occasionally I come across articles that have been created in mainspace in obviously unfinished form. Here's an example: London Academy of Diplomacy. It is recently created, and may be about a notable topic. Should articles like this be (1) marked as under construction and left alone for a while to see if they will improve, (2) tagged for their current weaknesses (in this case promotional, essay-like, unreferenced), (3) or userfied right away with a note to the creator? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It depends upon the condition and timing and your luck in finding easy accessible sourcing. Articles that have recently been worked on can be userfied or moved to draft space and their creators notified and coached. while those that were created a while ago by now dormant SPAs or those that are purely promotional would probably be beneficial to the encyclopedia to remove.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like Cryptic took care of this while I was out today. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Translating from German

Hi, I'm swimming in all the information about how to translate a German entry into English. I'm looking specifically at this entry:

de:José Neto (Musiker)

I don't understand the tagging. . . and template instructions. I would appreciate any and all help. Thank you.

Thank you,

Barbara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.168.97 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are referring to tagging of translations, you can use {{Translated page|de|José_Neto_(Musiker)}} to indicate a translated article. Just 1) create the translated article and its talkpage and 2) put that template somewhere on top of the article's talkpage to attribute its original German contributors. But you'll need to have an autoconfirmed account for a new article. GermanJoe (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

A new account can create articles. It doesn't have to be autoconfirmed. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

In addition to tagging the talk page as instructed above, please provide copyright attribution in the edit summary when you create the page here, including a link to the German article. For example:

Content copied from [[de:José Neto (Musiker)]], the existing German Wikipedia article on this topic, from this revision: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Neto_%28Musiker%29&oldid=127014167

The URL was obtained by clicking on "Permanenter Link" under the tools menu ("Werkzeuge") on the left hand side of the page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Huge Reference Section - can it be collapsed?

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is up to 487 References. It would be inappropriate to cut out a bunch, and as this is a developing topic the refs keep growing. I'm concerned about the time required to scroll past the refs to get to the external links, templates and categories and bibliography. Also, think about the extra paper and ink to print the refs when you just want the article. Is it permitted it put the References in a collapse box? Is there a policy or practice on this? Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Legacypac. Yes, the practice is to never hide references; that they are an extremely important part of the article and not any sort of side note. They are the scaffolding of verification, and that original research is not being conducted, and that neutral point of view is being attempted, and that appropriate weight is being given, and that the topic is notable, etc. In short, they are at the heart of everything we attempt to do to ensure encyclopedic, trustworthy content makes up our articles and are what allows our readers to determine that for themselves. In my view the references are vastly more important than any external links, templates and categories and bibliography that are below them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

See Template:Reflist#Perennial suggestions which links to previous discussion. --  Gadget850 ^talk 18:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Only trying to improve the presentation and usability. Legacypac (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that it is still a quickly emergent topic for which every item is sourced to a different news account. When there are some arching overviews published, a single source will be able to replace multiple news releases and reduce the ref clutter some. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input: want to delete space between reference

In other words, want to delete refs. <ref></ref>

User:Haridam, I have removed your addition of blank <ref> tags on List_of_étude_composers and posted some introductory help on your talk page. Regards, CaptRik (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Converting templates to use {{Infobox}}

I am hoping to convert {{Infobox Tornado Year}} to use {{Infobox}} so I can merge it with another template, but in its current state, I am not aware of how to do so. Is there a specific procedure that was used when the template {{Infobox}} was first created, perhaps? I could easily complete the desired merge if only the template were changed to use {{Infobox}}, but in its current state, the code appears to be too complex for me. Dustin (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Can threads be archived without responses? I do not want this to be archived. Dustin (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Dustin V. S. they certainly can. I will suggest you ask at WP:VPT, since the people who post there might know.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm being patrolled?

A day ago, a got a message saying, User:SupremeRulerVic was patrolled by DragonflySixtyseven. I don't know what this means, can someone help? SupremeRulerVic (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It means that DragonflySixtyseven has checked that your userpage does not contain any prohibited/illegal content. It's a routine check that all newly created pages undergo. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

People often ask that. I asked it myself once. It would be good if the message could make it clear that it is pretty much meaningless, and can safely be ignored. Maproom (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

As an administrator I'm Wikipedia:Autopatrolled and don't get patrol notifications. What exactly does it say? The patrol log entry [1] seems clear that it's about the user page and not the user, but it can of course still leave doubt about whether a page being patrolled is significant. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This may be something that should be restructured/rekerjiggered to feel less bitey; I could certainly imagine taking personal offense to the idea that someone decided they needed to "patrol" to make sure I wasn't up to no good. 97.93.100.130 (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell only article pages (and apparently new user pages) get patrolled. i don’t believe my new category pages and redirects get patrolled. Also in my experience user:DragonflySixtyseven does 99% of the patrol work on Wikipedia. The message simply says PAGE-NAME was patrolled by.... Ottawahitech (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That must be MediaWiki:Pagetriage-notification-mark-as-reviewed2 or MediaWiki:Pagetriage-notification-mark-as-reviewed-flyout (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Notifications?uselang=qqx should show it). I see how that can be confusing when $2 is the user page of the notified user. It should be possible to check whether $2 is a user page and say something like "The page [[$2]] was patrolled" in that case, instead of just "[[$2]] was patrolled". A change from "reviewed" to "patrolled" was decided at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 114#Distinguishing between New Pages Patrol reviews and AfC reviews. "patrolled" could be linked to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/patrolled pages but I'm not sure help links in notifications are good. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

In my case it was a subpage of my user page, a far-from-ready draft of an article. I can see that it makes sense to patrol such subpages, in case they contain copyvio or libel. And it makes sense to tag patrolled pages, or to maintain a list of them somewhere, to avoid duplication of effort. But there is no reason to notify the user whose space it is in. Notifying users of a patrol has two effects: it confuses and disconcerts them, and it trains them to think "notifications are meaningless and should be ignored." Maproom (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please, help me ??

I need an external link for the 2014 Boston Society of Film Critics Awards, so that I can use it as a reference in an article. I know it's silly to ask here. But I really need it. PLEASE. DtwipzBTalk 22:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want a link to that article, it looks like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Society_of_Film_Critics . You could have seen that from the URL box at the top of your browser window. Maproom (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope you mean that you're going to use it as a reference in an article somewhere else than in Wikipedia; because Wikipedia articles cannot use other Wikipedia articles as references. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Nah, I need the external link for the 2014 Boston Society of Film Critics Awards ceremony. I can't find the particular webpage for it, so I was asking if anyone of you can find it and put it here. DtwipzBTalk 23:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh. That's a reference desk question, not about Wikipedia itself. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The first Google hit on Boston Society of Film Critics Awards is http://www.bostonfilmcritics.org/ which has links to current and past winners. Is that not what you want? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)