Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 July 13

Help desk
< July 12	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 14 >

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.

July 13

Infobox doesn't accept official website template

I'm not sure where to go with this, so I'm starting here. It seems that Template:Infobox toy doesn't work with Template:Official website. See the results of my edit here when I tried to add the website template to the Zhu Zhu Pets article. How can this be remedied? Dismas|^(talk) 02:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be anything you can do by changing how you code it, so your only recourse is Template talk:Infobox toy and/or Template talk:Official website. The latter has more watchers and more activity. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hrm. Yeah, I didn't think that Infobox Toy had many watchers. I guess I'll try the OW template talk. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 02:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

{{Infobox toy}} expects a raw url and adds formatting. {{Official website}} produces an already formatted link. The raw url can be pulled from Wikidata with {{#property:P856}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, given the small number of eyes on Wikidata entries and the rather haphazard way they are maintained, i won't use {{Official website}}, nor a pull from wikidata either. When i find either I replace them with a proper directly coded URL, and I stronly advise others to do the same. DES ^(talk) 02:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC).

What do you get when large numbers of editors disregard a community consensus because they disagree with it? Chaos. And chaos is what we have. If a template exists in the template namespace, it has community consensus by definition. Anyone is free to try to change a community consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Anyone can create a template, that doesn't give it community consensus. Except in those relatively few cases where a wide discussion of a template has been held, and genuine consensus formed, most templates have no particular consensus behind them, they are hand tools which soem editors use, adn others do not. Almost no templates are mandated for use in specific circumstances. No one is required to use the {{Official website}} template. One way to change any consensus it has is to stop using it, and remove it from where it is used. If in a given case that removal is reverted, and discussion upholds the revert, then it has consensus -- on that page. Eventually one might deduce a site-wide consensus, if alllor most such decisions go the same way. But the mere existence of a template only proves that no one has obtained consensus to delete it yet. DES ^(talk) 03:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that the correct way to achieve that end is to get explicit consensus for it at Village Pump or the template talk page, and then update the template doc to indicate that it's deprecated. Evangelizing non-use in other talk spaces, in venues not intended for such discussion, is not the way. Anyone can create a template, but it doesn't survive for seven years undeprecated without community consensus. This is the only way I know of to make the community consensus readily accessible to all editors, and, without it, community consensus is a matter of opinion. I'm open to correction by written policy or guideline (or even multiple very experienced editors, in some cases), but sorry if I don't take your word for it because you started with the word "nonsense". ―Mandruss ☎ 03:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Most templates are not looked at by most editors most of the time. The mere existence of a template cannot be looked at as evidence that it has wide consensus, particularly when some features of it (The connection with wikidata) have not existed for the full life of the template, and are not well known even to many users of the template. While a site-wide RFC would be one way of establishing consensus to use or not use a template or other feature, incremental decisions by individual editors are also a common way in which such decisions wind up being made. What I felt (and still feel) was "nonsense" was the contention that the mere existence of a template demonstrates consensus for its use and for its current features ("If a template exists in the template namespace, it has community consensus by definition." above). DES ^(talk) 15:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I would add that the wikidata connection was added to that template a bit over a year ago, after a discussion at Template talk:Official website#Wikidata which seems to have involved only two editors, hardly a wide consensus. DES ^(talk) 15:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't explained how "such decisions" are communicated to the masses, so that we're all on the same page. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The url can be given directly to {{Official website}} in a parameter (it would still break in {{Infobox toy}}). This will override a url in Wikidata but can cause the hidden category Category:Official website different in Wikidata and Wikipedia or Category:Official website not in Wikidata. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

reflinks link needed

Does anybody have a link to the relinks that works? The one I have doesn't seem to be working: https://tools.wmflabs.org/fengtools/reflinks/. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Got it, here. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Complete replacement of article

Hi and thank you for your help, An existing article on Wikipedia purports to outline a theory I wrote and have published in a number of reputable journals and books. The theory is well-known in relevant groups, has been cited in research papers on numerous occasions and is used by health professionals and educators. However the description of the theory in the current Wikipedia article, while well-meaning, is woefully inadequate, incorrect in several places, does not mention most of the theory, uses an incorrect title for the theory and is poorly referenced. Numerous people have asked me to correct this article as it is embarrassing to myself and does a disservice to the good reputation of Wikipedia. I have now written an article that gives an accurate and objective account of the theory, includes critiques of the theory by others and a number of references. I have worked hard to integrate many of my publications on the theory, some of which I know are difficult to access in various parts of the world (there are already people waiting to see it up on Wikipedia).

My question is this: it is not possible for me to simply go in and edit the existing article because it is fundamentally flawed in every respect and the sections listed in that article are not appropriate. In other words, I would like to simply replace it with the article I have written. I cannot find anything in the guidance materials that tells me how to do a complete replacement like this although I assume it would require an administrator. I would appreciate your help in this matter. For obvious reasons I have not cited the article here.

203.23.212.158 (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be much easier to give a helpful response if you would tell us what article this is about. But in general, a plan to write a completely new version of an article, and replace the current version by it, is doomed to fail. Other editors will restore the version that you don't like. If you believe that there are errors in an article, you should discuss them on the article's talk page. What you need to look for before making sweeping changes to an article is not an administrator, it is consensus of editors. Maproom (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

We usually discourage conflict of interest editing, but I can definitely see the reasoning behind your position. It would definitely help if you linked the article you are talking about, and is the article you have written saved on Wikipedia anywhere at the moment (e.g. as a draft)?

Technically speaking, there is no restriction on going into an article and changing every single word in it. The other option, if the content you have written is already on Wikipedia somewhere, is to delete the original page (which would require an administrator) and move the new page to that title (which requires an autoconfirmed account). But just because something is technically possible does not mean it should happen. Article talk pages exist to discuss large changes or conflicts over content and probably should be used to discuss this change, to get consensus. I can think of some other ways to try to help you, but I need to know which article you're talking about. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks - this was helpful. I will do what you suggest - save my article to Wikipedia (not sure yet how to do that but will give it a go) and then provide the information about the existing article. will let you know when I have done this.

202.74.185.90 (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I have completed my article draft in my sandbox and am ready to make this available in order for my question to be more effectively answered but not sure how to make it available to you. Appreciate some help with this. Brightfire4 (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You have created your draft at User:Brightfire4/sandbox. The article you want to replace by it must be Cass Identity Model.

I know nothing of the field, and have only one comment. Your draft entirely lacks in-line references. A Wikipedia article should include in-line references, each immediately following the statement it supports. For example, when you write "The theory was first published in the Journal of Homosexuality in 1979", it should be followed by an reference, like this "... in 1979". Maproom (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Thanks for this information. Will follow this up.

Brightfire4 (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Reiki page

Reiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

I'm not very experienced but do like to contribute.

I would like the "Reiki" page to have more formal moderation. A LOT of information from different contributors got "cleaned out" and several gung-ho Wiki contributors seem keen that no information gets put back on, other than from the paradigm of skeptic medical science or non-applicable linguistics (there's a whole new section about Japanese symbols that are similar to, but not the actual symbols, of Reiki - apart from an interesting side-note on how some people misinterpret the symbols, I don't see how it's applicable). It's quite disheartening.

Reiki is a spiritual tradition and I understand that some see all spiritual topics as nonsense - but that's not the point. Reiki is a human tradition that has just as much right to be described as any other part of human culture. Reiki has a lot of history and knowledge that most practitioners would agree to. Several practitioners had been on the page and were writing bits down and piecing things together. It was lovely. Generally different Reiki lineages don't mix or share knowledge. It was a great example of Wikipedia doing its job. But now, most of this has been deleted. The page seems to have been hijacked by editors who don't know anything about Reiki and are determined that no one should. It's being persecuted!

For example, agreed by most practitioners in America and Australia and England is that Hawayo Takato brought the 3-level Reiki system to America (I've only spoken to maybe 20 in England and America and too many to count in Australia, but most of these people were from different lineages, so, that they concur is a significant indication that a more "Wiki friendly" audit would find similar). This information about Hawayo Takata has been deleted. Why? That at least is easily verifiable. A lazy "clean up" has gotten through.

Information regarding the different lineages of Reiki would be really useful knowledge. There's few "reliable resources" on Reiki. Can't this just be acknowledged at the beginning of the page? Could someone "Reiki friendly" be assigned to watch the page and help Wiki newbies who have good info but low skill safely add their knowledge. I really feel Reiki has gotten a rough deal here.

Another worry is that information that isn't connected to the topic (e.g., the addition of symbol translation of the name - the name of Reiki is widely agreed by practitioners, even from different lineages of the practice, as being slightly different to actual symbols used in Chinese and Japanese language - I can't quote the source on this as my personal material isn't "quotable" and most info on Reiki is passed down teacher to student). It's offensive to get the symbols wrong, as the whole practice is based on the symbols. This can be verified if you talk to any number of practitioners but it would be difficult to find literature on it. Instead, there's over 10 references about the dangers of Reiki as a pseudoscientific healing modality to vulnerable ill people.

Can we make a Reiki page that's a bit more about Reiki? I was about to write a new subheading about Reiki history but thought, why bother, it'll just get deleted.

Please Help!!

TrishApps (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Two chunks of text were recently deleted from the article because they had no supporting references. Wikipedia prefers all statements, and particularly all controversial statements, to be supported by citations of reliable published sources. So, while "different Reiki lineages don't mix or share knowledge", they should not expect their beliefs and opinions to be reflected in the article. Maproom (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know nothing about Reiki (although I do have one edit to the page correcting a misspelling in 2013), so come to this as a neutral.
You appear to misunderstand the way Wikipedia works - you, yourself, state "There's few "reliable resources" on Reiki". That is the fundamental problem, not other editors' attitudes.
Wikipedia only includes information that can be verified in published reliable sources. Your last additions were entirely unsourced, and written in an unencyclopedic tone, and so were, quite correctly, removed. Your previous edits were to remove information that was sourced, and so was, quite correctly, reinstated.
If you write a history of Reiki, citing published reliable sources, it cannot simply be dismissed (although there may be some discussion about whether a source is reliable), but to claim "I can't quote the source on this as my personal material isn't "quotable"" is to misunderstand how we work. - Arjayay (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think User:TrishApps may be referring to the many edits in March and April which removed three-quarters of the article, particularly a batch around March 30 and April 1. Rwessel (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Arjayay, I should have pointed out the dates for easier reference. As Rwessel said, I am referring to the March/April cull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrishApps (talk • contribs) 09:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The March/April deletions were made by SummerPhD, with edit summaries such as "not reliable sources, see talk" and "unsourced". I am sure her reasoning still applies. Maproom (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

hi you should look at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine). thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

and also WP:FRINGE - we present non scientific clap trap as non scientific clap trap - we dont present its unproven and disproven claims as if they had any basis in reality. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The original poster said that they would like the article to have "more formal moderation". It is possible to request lightweight moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard or formal mediation at requests for mediation. However, either of those moderation processes are voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No amount of mediation can exempt an article from WP:RS, so there's really nothing to discuss. If proponents of Reiki want material such as history to be included in the WP article then it is up to them to see to it that such histories are written and published in independent reliable sources. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

BROWNY IFEANYI IGBOEGWU AKA AGBALANZE

Draft article

Browny Ifeanyi Igboegwu aka Agbalanze was born on August 30th 1976 in Onitsha (The business hive of West Africa) Anambra state to Late Ide F.M.C Igboegwu KSM (Knight of Saint Mulumba) and Lady Augustina Igboegwu. He had secondary school education at the prestigious All Hallow Seminary Onitsha. He went on to further and is a Graduate of University Nigeria Nsukka UNN, Enugu State in Public Administration Right from the cradle, his love for movies has been close to his heart and that is why in 2005, he decided to take the plunge from the business industry to the Movie industry. In 2009, he met his heartthrob, Becky and they got married in a colourful wedding in 2010 in Asaba, Nigeria’s Nollywood capital The popular saying that talent makes a way for the man has been so true in his life that he has featured in various blockbuster movies well loved by Nigerians and Africans at large like Bank job, Agwumba, Okuko, Days of Sorrow, The University, Strike Force, Agony in the temple, Heart of love, Royal Pain, Eye of the eagle, Silent war, a latest blockbuster, Sons of gods and a host of others He is also the Anambra state chapter chairman of the Actors Guild of Nigeria and the executive National Secretary, Conference of chairmen, Actors Guild of Nigeria where he uses his deep understanding of the movie terrain to provide authentic and purposeful leadership. AWARDS He has received numerous awards within and outside the country from his alma mata to various organizations both small and big, within and outside the movie circle to celebrate his outstanding achievements and his strides towards the continued sustenance and progress of the Nollywood movie industry in Nigeria. 2013 City People Award, Best Supporting Actor (English) 2012 Dream foundation’s outstanding media personality award PHILANTHROPY Interested in children welfare and he is the head of the board of trustees for Brownbourg foundation of his Brownbourg Koncept media agency. His activities include visiting of various orphanages almost monthly and handing out relief materials. His recent visits were to the Divine mercy orphanage and Anglican orphanage both in Asaba, the Delta state capital and home of Nollywood. Also, he has a project called, Street to Star project with is foundation dedicated solely to developing new talents in conjunction with other professional movie academy’s spread across the length and breadth of the country.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barajoeburns (talk • contribs) 10:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Barajoeburns. This is not the place to write a draft article: please read your first article, and I suggest you use the article wizard to create your draft. Please note that everything in a Wikipedia article should be cited to a reliable published source, and almost everything should be cited to what somebody who has nothing to do with the subject has written. You need to find places where people unconnected with Agbalanze have written about him, and had their writing pubished in reliable sources such as major newspapers or books from reliable publishers. If there are no such sources, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about him at present. --ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

How do I set up a page?

My name is Terry and I would like to set up a page for an actor in Nigeria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barajoeburns (talk • contribs) 10:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Terry: please see my reply to your draft just above. Please also note that setting up a page is not what happens in Wikipedia - it sounds as if you are thinking in terms of a social media site or directory. What we do in Wikipedia is to write neutral articles about notable subjects, based on what independent people have already written about them. Promotion of any kind is forbidden. --ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

See also:

• Wikipedia:WELCOME
• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:How to write a great article

and then

• Wikipedia:Notability
  • Wikipedia:Notability (people)
    • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Of course do not skip reading a welcome message, which user TheRedPenOfDoom left on your talk page.

--CiaPan (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Royal Tank Regiment Tactical recognition flash

The Tactical Recognition flash shown on the Royal Tank regiment page is reversed the colours should be brown red green from left to right how can it be changed. i am the regimental Secretary for the RTR and would appreciate it if it was correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.181.181 (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

[1] seems to support you. File:Royal Tank Regiment (tactical recognition flash).PNG was uploaded by User:Hammersfan in 2006. The user is still active (edited 18 minutes ago) and will get a notification of this post. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This has now been changed Hammersfan (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast to upload a new image. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Check date values in: |param1=, |param2=, ...

Hello,

After a recent edit to improve a citation over at Mari Alkatiri (diff) I got a malformed accessdate error for the date "July 13 2015". It referred me to Help:CS1_errors#bad_date which was not entirely helpful.

I couldn't determine what was wrong so I went and looked at the code at Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation. The documentation for the Lua formatDate function (here) tells us that it works the same way as the {{#time}} function (documentation here). But when in my sandbox I tried {{#time:U|July 13 2015}} and

{{#time:U|today + 2 days}} it gave me 1436745600 and 1436918400, respectively, and no errors -- and these timestamps should satisfy the

979516800 <= access_ts and access_ts < tomorrow_ts

check in the code, which makes it seem impossible that this should be an invalid access date.

In a less technical sense I also don't see how "July 13 2015" could possibly be malformed. Does anyone have any ideas?

Thanks in advance Eniagrom (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that it should be 13 July 2015 instead of July 13 2015 as the month always comes after the date in the accessdate parameter. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@The Average Wikipedian:: There is no requirement to use DMY dates in |accessdate=. If you know of someplace where such a requirement is voiced, please tell us so that we can fix it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable formats include "13 July 2015", "July 13, 2015" and "2015-07-15" but not "July 13 2015". DES ^(talk) 15:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

July 13 2015 is missing a required comma per MOS:DATEFORMAT.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) July 13, 2015 with a comma is allowed. Help:CS1 errors#bad date includes: "date formats listed in WP:BADDATEFORMAT". Below is one of the examples there. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptable date formats (except in external titles and quotes)

Acceptable	Unacceptable	Comments
July 3, 2001	July 3 2001	Comma required between day and year

Thanks guys, this is a case of me overcomplicating something that was in fact simple. I appreciate it. Eniagrom (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"Further reading" But what happens to the documents?

While reading up on the Social Enterprise page, I went to click on some of the links listed for Further Reading. I was saddened to find that many of the documents no longer exist to the link. Why can't these pages forever exist in Wikipedia when they perhaps disappear or are relocated in their reference sites? The internet is ever changing, but I thought Wiki(corporations) were able to collect history in that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.210.223.200 (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. All of the external links in the Social enterprise article seem to be working. That said, if you stumble accross one that doesn't work you can always tag it for attention with and check the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive for an archived version. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

To answer the more generic question, Wikipedia does not copy pages from other websites, because almost all are copyright, and that would be a copyright violation.
Furthermore, many external links are to regularly updated sites - would we want to keep an outdated copy, even if a site was not copyright? There are, however, archives, such as the Wayback Machine which may be able to help you, although most such archives store page by page and many internal links do not work.
Unlike references, which we keep, even if the original document has gone (see LINKROT), dead External Links should be removed, if you cannot find the new address of the organization. - Arjayay (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Bing Translator rejects all Wikipedia pages (also Google)

Bing Translator won't work on any Wikipedia page. You get a message such as "translation of insecure pages is not supported". Is there a workaround? I do NOT mean copy and paste the text into a box. I already know how to do that. I mean where you paste in the URL and then the translator shows you the entire web page so everything looks like the normal original page except the words have been translated.

For many https websites you can paste in the URL, then go in and delete the "s" after "http", click 'translate' and it'll work, but not on Wikipedia.

The "URL" method is far superior than copy-and-pasting the text because you can navigate through the entire site in translation (on most sites); see all the images; keep all the formatting (impossibly garbled in text-only); don't have a word-count limit; multiple layout options (Bing only)... these are huge benefits.

This is on Internet Explorer 11 and Firefox 28 in Windows 7.

Google SOMETIMES works and sometimes not. For me that's moot since Bing has hugely useful features that Google lacks and which I use for hours daily (mainly, side-by-side windows). It's random. Sometimes it works and you get a message saying "Translated in Safe Mode. This may cause problems with some websites, especially those that use plugins like Flash" but sometimes it doesn't work at all. At one point people said Google was testing the Safe Mode for some users but not everyone, which corroborates my irregular experiences: http://webscripts.softpedia.com/blog/Google-Translate-Is-Testing-a-Mysterious-quot-Safe-Mode-quot-374785.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auenwald (talk • contribs) 16:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It works for me (Chrome v.43 under Windows 7, in case that makes a difference) - I put the URL of the Help Desk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk in the left-hand box in Google translate, select Italian as the target language, click on the link that appears in the right-hand box, and it takes me to the Help desk translated in to Italian, with working links that take me the translated versions of other pages. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Google works for me, too (Internet Explorer 11, Windows 7). I translated the Huzzah Creek article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huzzah_Creek) into German. Deor (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, Bing reports that "translation of secure pages is not supported". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I expanded the original post with further details such as browsers tested. (Did I format this reply right? it's my first time in the forum.) Auenwald (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If there are replies then we dont edit the original post but post new information below the replies, with an extra colon in front to increase the indentation level. Spaces at the start of a line cause special formatting so you shouldn't have added a space before "Preceding unsigned comment ..." Apart from that it looks OK. Google Translate works for me on https in Firefox 39.0 on Windows Vista. What do you see on the above links the Help desk translated in to Italian and German? They look fine to me (ignoring poor language skills in German and none in Italian). Can you update Firefox? Bing Translator doesn't support https and there is no http version of Wikipedia (there was until recently) so use Google Translate instead. Wikipedia redirects http to https and Google Translate can handle the redirect so it's possible to enter http for Wikipedia, but you get a tanslation of https. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Please see main post - I answered most of your questions in edits before I saw the reply.

So the next question is why "http" no longer works for Wikipedia when it used to? I don't understand the rationale in making a website less usable than it was before.

I asked at Bing why they can't translate https while Google can (10 days ago) and got zero replies. Auenwald (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Only supporting https has pros and cons. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 138#HTTPS by default for a discussion, but it's an archived page so don't post new comments there. It's still possible to comment at https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/06/12/securing-wikimedia-sites-with-https/. I don't know who reads the comments. I haven't seen the Bing Translator issue mentioned before. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It explicitly states on the Bing Translate help page "To protect your privacy, Translator does not translate https sites and sites that require login information." Nanonic (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"To protect your privacy" - that statement is pure disinformation, devoid of any meaning. What privacy? How? How, specifically, does translating harm privacy? In what ways is translating a website different from viewing websites? - These are few of the questions that would need to be explicitly answered in order for "protect your privacy" to be a productive piece of information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Auenwald (talk • contribs)

I'm not going to say I fully agree with the policy, but this does inherently give the translating web site access to the contents of the (supposedly) secure page, so it's no longer actually secure, even if you get the little "lock" symbol in your browser (because that's going to be driven by the secure connection to Bing). To what extent this is a problem I can't say, but I think limiting the restriction to places requiring a login would seem a reasonable compromise. Rwessel (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The connection to Bing Translator is not secure. The privacy statement is by Bing/Microsoft and not Wikipedia. I don't know exactly what they have in mind but it could for example include that third parties with access to the traffic between you and Bing can see pages you have viewed and been interested enough to request translation. In an oppressive country that might cause you problems. And in some sites a url may contain a query part which reveals something about you. There could also be issues if people enter passwords or personal information to a site in Bing's translated and unencrypted version instead of the original site. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

how can i edit spelling error in display page heading/title?

Edward Laroque Tinker page header contains a spelling error. His middle name is spelled Larocque. I tried edit feature, but it allows edits only to text not to display header/title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.196.62 (talk • contribs)

@69.193.196.62: To change the article name, you would need to move the page, but this requires having an account that's at least 4 days old, and has at least 10 edits. I've moved the page for you, it now exists at Edward Larocque Tinker. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox align problem

Why the alignment in the templates has spoilt (templates such as Template:Panathinaikos sections) --Odythal (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Please describe the perceived problem and name your browser. Template:Panathinaikos sections looks OK to me in Firefox but I haven't seen the template before and don't know whether anything has changed. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks fine for me in Chrome. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine for me too though it would look better, IMO, if the title were centered and the icons were centered over the text descriptions. Dismas|^(talk) 18:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't align the words and the icons in the center. The tag align:center doesn't work. It happens to all similar templates, for example: Template:AEK Athens sections, Template:Aris Thessaloniki sections. Few days ago they were OK --Odythal (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This is apparently caused by [2], discussed at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Alignment of infobox labels. I'm not good with CSS but the current solution appears to be either to not use class="infobox" or to add center code to each cell. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Nacra

The info on Nacra , is completely wrong .

1. Nacra was founded by Tom Roland
The Nacra 36 was designed & built only by Tom roland
 Same with the Nacra 5.2 . The sq.meter class and boat were Fred roland 100%
After Tom Roland sold the Nacra name ( not the 36 or rights to build )
That came up with the Nacra 5.8 for the sole purpose of no longer paying desire rights

Per unit on the 5.2

  For more info ! Like the facts.     — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.225.69.92 (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC) 

Wikipedia requires published sources for new information. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Template contains useless redlinks that can never be created

Template:Navies in Africa contains redlinks for countries that by the fact that they are landlocked and have no significant lakes cannot and will never have a navy. However the template itself doesn't contain an actual list of countries so how can one remove the useless redlinks for countries such as Lesotho, Chad, Botswana, etc? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It uses the general {{African topic}} to make a navbox with all African countries. Similar templates for some other continents have options to omit selected countries but apparently not Africa. You could drop the use of {{African topic}} and instead manually add piped links for each wanted country to an ordinary {{Navbox}}. If you haven't made a navbox before then this may be difficult. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Surely it would be better to fix the African topic template so that countries can be omitted, the same as the other continents? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I don't know how often it's relevant but you can post a suggestion to Template talk:African topic, or try to do it yourself. I guess you just have to wrap each country line in {{#if:{{{CC|♦}}}|...}} like Template:Asia topic, where CC is the country code already in the line. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Request edit

{{request edit}} Hope this finds you well. I’ve been trying to get to an appropriate contact at Wikipedia to change a client’s Date of Birth. It’s been difficult to change due to the new policies, if there is any way of pointing me in the right direction that would be great!

Most press gets their info from her Wikipedia page and her DOB is wrong in all articles on her. Would be great to change from 1984 to 1985. We have a book releasing at the end of the month and would be great to change before next week! Rosanna Pansino

Proof: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3662971/

Thank you in advance for any help you are able to offer on this!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.200.76.2 (talk)

IMDB is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Do you have a better source? Also note that there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. Finally, have you declared your conflict of interest as required by the terms of use?--ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

But to answer your specific question: neither the date appearing in the article, nor the date you are mentioning, appears to be sourced to a reliable independent published source; so I see that FreeRangeFrog has very properly removed it. --ColinFine (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Note this is being handled through OTRS, I replied to the original edit request on the talk page just to remove it from the category. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

How to edit

Hi there Im from the Otahuhu leopards committee and Im trying edit a generated wiki Facebook page with wrong information on it.

Im an amateur on here and when I go to edit, nothing happens -Please help - The information incorrect and it is of great concern to our club. The link is below - PLEASE HELP - THANK YOU!!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Otahuhu-Leopards/142640812420185#

csmatamua 23:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csmatamua (talk • contribs)

@Csmatamua: We have no connection to Facebook. They are allowed to use Wikipedia content as much as anyone else and we can't control exactly how they do that. You'll have to take your complaint to them about what is shown on their pages. If you have an issue with the information on the Otahuhu Leopards article, then please either edit the article yourself or explain on the article's talk page, Talk:Otahuhu Leopards just what is wrong with it. Dismas|^(talk) 02:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The user has already made 20 edits including 8 self-reverts. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)