Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 November 9

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.

November 9

Melissa R Jackson actress wiki page

Where's my Wikapedia page

Melissa Jackson, actress- House of Darkness House of Light — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.87.77 (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

There are nine actresses named Melissa Jackson listed in IMDb (plus a Melissa L. Jackson). None of them appear to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Also the only House of Darkness House of Light I could find is a book. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3152486/ is based on the book. The Melissa Jackson at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6871282/ has it as her only listed credit. WP:NACTOR does not seem satisfied. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Strange article histories caused by making articles in one's sandbox

Dear editors: Sometimes an article that was started in a sandbox (instead of in a named user subspace or in Draft space, which work more cleanly) and then moved to mainspace has old diffs which are about a totally different article topic from earlier uses of the sandbox. Here's an example which was pointed out to me by GermanJoe: Mayam Mahmoud. My question is, need anything be done about this? The unrelated edits could be deleted, or even moved back to the sandbox history. Alternatively, they could be just ignored. These particular ones don't relate to any existing article. What is the consensus about this?—Anne Delong (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: My opinion: I think they should be moved back to the sandbox history. Anyone re-using that content in print is required to give attribution to the authors, and determining the authors will be much harder if the page history is cluttered with irrelevant entries. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Afd article recreation

Joel Wayne was deleted a little while ago, then recreated. User:Wgolf tagged it for speedy deletion, but that was removed by the article's creator. Where should I report this? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Monthly contest

I amnot anle to sign up in wikipedia to provide my article to wikipedia for monthly contest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janak Adhikary (talk • contribs) 09:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

If you are referring to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month/Participants, you made this edit in October in which you removed all the existing content from the page, so your edit was reverted. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

If you are referring to the article you attempted to create, Janak adhikary it was deleted under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, as indicated on your talk page. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

University Of Gibraltar - Content being deleted.

Dear Helpdesk,

On a number of occasions we have tried to add content to our Wiki page both internally and/or using an external company.

For some reason our content keeps being deleted/changed, no explanations are being given and we are concerned as to the reasons why this is happening.

We are trying to include the information from our webpage itself, but the person deleting the information is saying its Spam and sockpuppetry which we know its not.

I am currently the Director of ICT for the University and hope you can shed some light on what is the problem if any.

Thanks,

Christian

• (cur | prev) 21:31, 3 November 2015‎ Joseph2302 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,739 bytes) (-40)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 688200989 by JulianByrnePDG (talk): The tense change made sense, partial revert. (TW)) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 21:30, 3 November 2015‎ Joseph2302 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,779 bytes) (-8,866)‎ . . (Reverted 2 edits by JulianByrnePDG (talk): Spam and sockpuppetry. (TW)) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 08:59, 3 November 2015‎ JulianByrnePDG (talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,645 bytes) (+8,906)‎ . . (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 09:12, 30 October 2015‎ JulianByrnePDG (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (3,739 bytes) (-40)‎ . . (Updated tenses, as the University has now opened.) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)
• (cur | prev) 16:45, 19 September 2015‎ Joseph2302 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,779 bytes) (-842)‎ . . (Reverted 5 edits by Lui emmitt (talk): WP:NOTADIRECTORY, remove unencyclopedic spam. (TW)) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 15:38, 19 September 2015‎ Lui emmitt (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,621 bytes) (+39)‎ . . (→‎Courses) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 15:38, 19 September 2015‎ Lui emmitt (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,582 bytes) (+66)‎ . . (→‎Courses) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 15:37, 19 September 2015‎ Lui emmitt (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,516 bytes) (+42)‎ . . (→‎Courses) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 15:36, 19 September 2015‎ Lui emmitt (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,474 bytes) (+7)‎ . . (→‎Courses) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 15:36, 19 September 2015‎ Lui emmitt (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,467 bytes) (+688)‎ . . (→‎References) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 20:42, 10 September 2015‎ The Quixotic Potato (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (3,779 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (Typo fixing, typo(s) fixed: estabilished → established using AWB) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 19:26, 31 August 2015‎ Cherrylimerickey (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,780 bytes) (+964)‎ . . (Undid revision 678517250 by Joseph2302 (talk)reverting & adding source) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 21:48, 29 August 2015‎ Joseph2302 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,816 bytes) (-841)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Cherrylimerickey (talk): Unsourced. (TW)) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 01:20, 29 August 2015‎ Cherrylimerickey (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,657 bytes) (+841)‎ . . (undo | thank) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Celecia (talk • contribs)

If the edits made on behalf of the university were those by Lui emmitt and JulianByrnePDG then I'm not an all surprised that the spam was reverted, as the material was totally unsuitable for an encyclopedia. If you want to publicise your institution, do it on your own website. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to use for promotional purposes. You need to read Wikipedia's view on conflict of interest too. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

... and just to add that it is not your Wikipedia page, it is a page recording what other reliable independent published sources have said about your institution. Dbfirs 14:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is University of Gibraltar. The listing above of changes is almost impossible to read. As the two previous editors have said, this was an inappropriate attempt to insert promotional material. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I've turned it into a bulleted list, so that it's easier to read. Rojomoke (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Using an external company? What do you mean? Did you pay them? - Supdiop (T🔹C) 16:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Read the conflict of interest policy. You should not be trying to add promotional material. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, read the dispute resolution policy. If you really think that you should be allowed to add promotional material, discuss its removal on the article talk page. You have not discussed your edits on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Lightning Point

I have been having problems with an editor who keeps changing his/her user name to make the same incorrect Category edit on the Lightning Point article (obviously so it would appear that more than one person is affecting the changes - including reverting my corrections, so that the incorrect category will, again, be on the page). Lightning Point is an Australian-made series, so the correct category for this series is "Australian television series endings". The category which the editor is continually adding is "American television series endings" (this is now the third time that my edit has been reverted by the user). I have tried, with regard to the first two edits to mention (on the talk pages of the editor's two first user names - he/she now has a third user page), that the series is an Australian one, and therefore the category "American television series endings" is inappropriate for the page - that the category "American television series endings" is only appropriate for American-made television series (not for other countries). Instead of taking note of what I am saying, the editor (after a change of user name) immediately reverts my edits, so that the incorrect category is once again listed for the series. Having to repeatedly revert the editor's incorrect additions is becoming monotonous, wearisome and tiresome. Could somebody (hopefully an Administrator) please keep a watch on this and see if they can convince the editor that the category is incorrect. Thank you. I think that the editor does not understand and is getting mixed up with the meaning of "American television series endings", thinking that it means when a television series (including a television series which has been made in non-American countries) finishes being broadcast in the United States. I would be grateful for any help people can give with regard to this. I am now only reverting the incorrect additions - I have given up on writing to the editor's talk pages, as I have come to the conclusion that I am wasting my time doing so. Thank you for your help. Figaro (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Figaro: This appears to be a possible case of sock puppetry, worthy of reporting to WP:SPI, something you can use WP:Twinkle to achieve. You can turn Twinkle on in your preferences. Please feel at liberty to make a report confident in the fact that the SPI folk will take it from there, but do provide evidence to them in your report or it will be pushed back to you. Fiddle Faddle 14:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Do be careful not to get into a fight over this. It can await resolution of any SPI report before the article is corrected. I am taking your word for it that the version you consider to be correct is correct. Resolution is not usually immediate because the folk there are volunteers, as are we all. Fiddle Faddle 14:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and your wise words. I appreciate it very much. Thank you for your understanding. All the best. Figaro (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I have just discovered that the problem has now stopped - thank goodness! Figaro (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

How to shorten/simplify diff links?

For example, I want to make this diff link short/simple. Would you please do it for me? Post shortest form of it. I want to learn. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the shortest is {{diff2|689790083|this}}, which renders as this. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Short/simple for what purpose? The size in the wiki source is unimportant. If you want a short url then https://en.wikipedia.org?diff=689790083 works but I don't know whether the servers will always accept this form, and others may be annoyed that they cannot see which page it goes to before clicking. http://enwp.org?diff=689790083 also works but via a redirecting domain I don't think is controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation so anything could potentially happen to it later. If you want it for an edit summary then Special:Diff/689790083 produces a clickable link there which a url doesn't. If you want short wikitext at the English Wikipedia then {{dif|689790083}} gives [1]. It uses a redirect from {{dif}} to {{diff2}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Very useful notes. Thank you very much. --Zyma (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

ThinkorSwim Talk page

Talk:Thinkorswim

Issue: Hello, the entry for Thinkorswim is severely out of date, but due to my affiliation with the parent company of the product - i've suggested changes to the talk page. That said, it doesn't look like the page gets much visibility in the system due to low traffic and low interest. Please advise on getting proper updates made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BowlerjimC15 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding the template {{request edit}} will add it to a list of pages requiring help from another editor because of a conflict of interest. See Wikipedia:Edit requests for general information. Unfortunately, I have to note that the list is backlogged but it will get more attention than a low trafficked talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Business information that gets pulled into Google search from Wikipedia

Hello! I am trying to figure out why a Google search for my business, the Newseum, is showing the name of our former CEO and not our current CEO. I spoke with Google and they told me that the information in the search is populated by Wikipedia. However, our Wiki page has been updated with our current CEO's name for months, ever since he took over in July. His personal Wiki page also indicates he is CEO of the Newseum. I am not sure where else on Wikipedia this information might be pulled from. I don't expect you get a lot of questions like this and may not have an answer, but if there's anyone with insight as to what edits I could make that would help Google and Wiki connect the correct information, I would greatly appreciate it. Below is a screen shot of the incorrect Google search result, if that helps convey the problem. Many thanks for any help you can give!

Amwatsonwork (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Amwatsonwork: Actually, we do get many questions about this. The answer is always the same though, it's Google's problem and not Wikipedia's. We don't give that info to Google. They take it from Wikipedia. What is normally done in these situations, and I've done this many times successfully, is to click on the "Feedback" link at the bottom of that information box that Google has (it doesn't appear in the screenshot that you provided). There you would say what's wrong with the info and then it's up to Google to correct it. I've had good results with this in the past. Dismas|^(talk) 17:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, does this mean that Google isn't supplying current Wikipedia info, but rather cached info? And in this particular case, the cached info is several months old? Deli nk (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Amwatsonwork: See Web crawler for further explanation. This is how Google gets it's information. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 17:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dismas: Thank you! I will try the feedback portal and see if it helps. I understood it to be that Google "takes" the info as you suggested, but we've updated every page we know about that would reference our new CEO as the current CEO. So I wonder about the cached info --- that could be the case, but I'm not smart enough to know how to look into that. Amwatsonwork (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: This is definitely how I understood the information to work, but again, given that it's been several months since we've updated our Wiki page and our own website, it's curious to me that the information hasn't updated. Thanks for replying! Amwatsonwork (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Amwatsonwork: Your query needs to be directed to google, as to how current their information is. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: Fair enough. Their first reply to us wasn't satisfactory, but now that I have a new angle to the question maybe they can be more helpful. Thanks! Amwatsonwork (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Amwatsonwork: The previous answers omit an important detail: Google also uses other unspecified sources. We get many questions like this and actually have a stock reply at Template:HD/GKG:

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

There is another misleading Google feature I haven't seen before. The search newseum ceo produces a box at the top left with small heading "Newseum/CEO", big heading "James C. Duff", and a paragraph with an excerpt from the linked Wikipedia article James C. Duff. This gives an even stronger false impression that the CEO claim is copied from the linked article, when only the text paragraph is actually from there. This box also has a "Feedback" link. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thank you! That is very interesting --- I hadn't seen that either. I've submitted feedback on the newseum ceo search result box as well. Amwatsonwork (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Proliferation of talk page banners.

I am considering starting a discussion about the proliferation of talk page banners. For example, does every reader of Talk:Cold fusion really need to know it was the target of a merge, mentioned in an "on this day", the subject of mediation (6 years ago), a former featured article (11 years ago) and mentioned by a media organization (6 years ago)? Do we really need to allow WikiProjects to advertise in the talk page banners of so many articles?

To attempt to demonstrate the problem, where would I find out [A] the top ten talk pages by number of banners and [B] the top ten banners by number of pages they appear on? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I support Guy Macon. I went to Talk:Cold fusion, scrolled past the yellow stuff, started reading, and wondered "what's the problem? this looks like a normal talk page". Then I realised it's the yellow stuff he's complaining about. I am so inured to it that I am rarely aware of its existence. If it's commonplace for talk pages to start with a load of stuff that no experienced user notices, something has gone wrong. Maproom (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose this is dipping your toes before a village pump post, but I would oppose this – at least as an overarching topic rather than identifying some very particular talk page banner and making the cases that it is truly superfluous. I use them pretty often and find them very useful. Sometimes it's just curiosity, but sometimes for very targeted purposes, such as searching a class of articles by what banners are on the talk page. I think pretty much all of the banners as Talk:Cold fusion belong and are useful. To be more specific as to a few:

• Yes, everyone should know it was the target of a merge. I actually think this is the most important banner on that talk page. It provides critical copyright information; the location of the source page history for content included but not found in the article's page history. It is itself a notice of attribution under our free copyright licenses. People who perform merges often fail to provide proper copyright attribution in an edit summary, and such a banner may be the only from of attribution there is (even if insufficient). It also gives notice upon any move request that any redirect that is a source of merged content must be retained.
• I absolutely want to know whether an article has been taken to GAC or FAC, what the results were, and have an easy link to visit the discussion so I can see criticism of the content/suggestions for additions, etc.
• The arbitration committee notice is crucial information for all editors. People must know that they are subject to a much easier block, the normal rules and leeway may not apply, and just generally that there is a controversy as to that topic.

I'm going to stop there but I think they're all useful and I don't think they impose any hardship on readers that would be outweighed by a general notion of just removing clutter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• My thoughts were the same as Fuhghettaboutit - there is critical information there... If anything, there might be a more concise way of providing that information without the 'wall of yellow', but nothing more. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, but at the same time I agree with Fuhghettaboutit, that information is critical. One idea might be to add a third subpage for "Article documentation" which would include most of the talk page banners, and maybe some of the article clean-up templates? It could be prominently linked with a simple box on both the article and talk page that would say, "See documentation about this article". I don't know. That might just hide it all away and defeat the purpose.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Might I gently suggest that the above comments are not answers to the question I asked, nor is this the right page to debate this particular question? Of course we have all read the banner on this very page that says "This page is only for questions about using Wikipedia" and we all read it all the way through every time we edit this page, never, ever skipping it, right? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)