Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 October 12

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

October 12

Information Incorrect

I was the co-host of the Charles J. Givens Radio show, but was not the individual that sold the investments that are referenced. The investments affecting Givens and that whole matter is widely reported in the Orlando Sentinel. You will find my name not mentioned in any of these reports. I think they meant to reference someone else.

Charles J. Givens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.27.6 (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume that you are James L Paris. I've put a "citation needed" tag on the mention of your name in the article. If no-one finds a reference to verify the inclusion of your name, then we will just delete it. Dbfirs 07:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

disappointed from your Wikipedia site

Dear Sirs, I have prepared an article to be published on your Site about the MedDiet Certification but unfortunately I was disappointed from Yann who declined it and I didn't understand the reason. I didn't know that you usually refuse to publish cultural information, Anyway, thank you, Regards, MedDiet (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Link: Draft:MedDiet Certification
• Your submission was rejected because it did not provide reliable sources to determine if the company is notable. We are not here to promote your company. Wikipedia articles must have reliable independent sources that have nothing to do with the company itself. The sources in your article were the company website and Facebook. Those are not considered reliable nor independent. Frankly, we really do not care what the company website says about a product since they are rarely neutral. Please see the general guidelines for all articles. We do publish cultural information, as long as it proves why it deserves to be included and as long as it follows all of our policies and guidelines. In addition, normal protocol says you should talk this over with Yann since they are the one that declined your request. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We don't "publish" anything -- We only summarize professionally published, mainstream academic or journalistic sources. If something really is culturally relevant information, those sources will exist. New articles must be verified by professionally published, mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject but not affiliated with it. The MedDiet's website and facebook page do not meet those requirements, as they are not independent. However, your username implies a conflict of interest, which means that you should avoid editing any page concerning the MedDiet at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Think this comes not under 'for profit companies' but from of one of the European NGO organanisations. See: Assured Food Standards. So, you're draft simply needs you (or someone else) to supply reliable sources. However please note: If someone else can provide those reference and they work for the same organization - DON'T let them 'ever' use your account to add them. Get them to create their own account. Otherwise you will will be blocked from further editing and blacklisted. See:Wikipedia:Username_policy#Shared_accounts. Reason: Wikipedia is not a free hosting system for all-and-sundry. If your organanisation is notable enough for inclusion on this encyclopedia there should not be any problem with providing reliable references. The ball still remains firmly in your court upon this issue. Any disaponment you may feel is down to you're missunderstandings of what Wikiedia is. Other than that: Happy editing. P.S. Do you get paid to do any of this? – if so explain and we might be able to provide more feed-back suitable to a professional copywriter/copyeditor. Who exactly requested the article be written (name, title or position, etc)may help us also in this respect.--Aspro (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No "edit" link for October 12

Why am I not seeing an "edit" link on the section header for October 12 above this section? I'm seeing it for every other day listed here. JIP | Talk 07:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It's weird. I have tried to fix it, and failed. I thought it might be caused by some unpaired bracket or tab in the preceding subsection; but I have inserted a dummy subsection above it, which gets its own "Edit" link without solving the problem. Maproom (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I tried as well and failed. The section is not being assigned a section number for some reason. The Visited pages section is number 37 and number 38 is assigned to Information Incorrect. Strange... --Stabila711 (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That was tricky. It was caused by a combination of different open tags in two different sections. Fixing either of them didn't help by itself but fixing both did it.[1][2] PrimeHunter (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving a WikiProject leaflet - used during Wikimania 2014 - to Commons or here so that the project can re-use it.

Is it possible/permissible to have the WikiProject Disability leaflet (created for and used during Wikimania 2014) moved to either Commons or en.WP so that the WikiProject can re-use it? It seems to be a waste of effort and resources to let such a document disappear into obscurity after only a single use. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Contact EdSaperia to wrap up the dangling lidensing issue and then they can all be uploaded to Commons. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Can blocked editors get thanks?

I use wp:notifications to thank editors whose work I appreciate. Sometimes, not often, I find those editors have been wp:blocked. I am just wondering if blocked users still get the notifications (can they even log into Wikipedia)?

Thanks in avance, Ottawahitech (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Ottawahitech Blocked editors can log in, they just can't edit (except for their own user talk page, unless they have also been blocked from that). I think that they can also receive thanks. DES ^(talk) 13:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The Sage - Newcastle England

I would like to inform you that the facts that are recorded on your site on the structural engineers for the construction of the Sage Newcastle is incorrect. Your article shows Buro Happold as the structural engineers however this is incorrect as it was Mott MacDonald who carried out the Structural and Mechanical & Electrical. Fosters were the architects and they correctly state on their web site Mott MacDonald were the Structural and Mechanical & Electrical Engineers.

Could you please update your site so that it correctly informs the public.

Thank you

Regards

Anton Sawicki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.80.114 (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This should be requested at Talk:The Sage Gateshead, however, to quote Foster and partners here:-

Structure
The roof, engineered by Buro Happold, is an entirely independent structure supported by four structural steel arches spanning 80 metres from north to south with a secondary structure of single radii steel members

So it appears Buro Happold were the Structural Engineers - at least for the roof - which is structurally the most important element of the Sage - Arjayay (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I cannot remove this article.

I would like this article removed as I cannot seem to do it. http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Lisa_Kessous

Can someone just go in and take it off, Please. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magoohoo (talk • contribs) 17:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The link you have given is not to Wikipedia, but to a non-related website that echoes or re-uses past or present content of Wikipedia. We have no control over what a parasitic site like this does or doesn't contain. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Magoohoo. You have linked to a mirror of Wikipedia. We can't delete anything on sites that mirror Wikipedia's content. Any site may duplicate the contents of Wikipedia (including unfinished drafts) because they are originally published here under a free licesnse (CC-BY-SA) that allows redistribution. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 17:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

However, that site uses the GFDL licence, not CC by SA, so is it actually a legitimate copy? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is dual-licensed, using the GFDL is perfectly acceptable for a reuser. Moreover, Wikipedia used to be solely under the GFDL, and a mirror set up several years ago would have to sue use that to be compliant. DES ^(talk) 18:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

html code

i need to copy html code of a table of specifications of some cars can you tell how to do it i needed for small webpage for mini college project plz help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.195.230 (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This page is for questions about how to edit Wikipedia. You might want to try http://www.w3schools.com/html/default.asp which has much general info about html with examples. DES ^(talk) 18:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're planning on hosting a webpage for a college project here on Wikipedia, note that Wikipedia isn't a webhost. I suggest looking at alternatives, like Google Sites or GitHub. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that the OP was looking for instructions on how to copy HTML source code from one place to another, possibly to copy it out of Wikipedia, but this was not very clear. DES ^(talk) 22:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sadism

I think a separate article called sadism should be created, at the moment the only viable article is BDSM which covers sado masochistic sexual behaviour, there is a link to sadism as a dicdef but that isn't sufficient. I'm a regular editor so I'm fairly sure if i create this article it will have some kind of problem, what I'm not sure. I come here from the angle that I was just editing the malignant narcissism article - these characters are not sexual sadists, nor masochists, they are simply sadists and want to hurt others. Would there be any kind of consensus to create the article? Szzuk (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Szzuk: You don't need consensus to create an article. As long as the topic is diverse enough and can stand on its own you should be fine. The only problem I can see is the not dictionary issue. Is the topic strong enough to stand on its own, or will it be the target of a merge attempt? Are there enough sources that only deal with sadism, or do most sources already lump it in with narcissism and other behaviors? To me, I don't really know the difference so that would have to be made clear. Is sadistic personality disorder the same thing? --Stabila711 (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  I'd say the term sadism is as global as anyone would think with a first guess, so it should stand on its own apart from sadistic personality disorder. I'm also thinking why isn't this a disambiguation page now, surely there are plenty of valid search terms. I will have a think. Thank you for the reply. Szzuk (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  Go for it. Create an article on the subject. It is clearly different enough from BDSM to justify a stand-alone article. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Search for reference name

I'm missing something that I hope is simple. I need to make some changes to some references. I've name the references and some of them have a name such as "1993 WUG". I thought I would do a simple search for that string to see whether the access dates were identical or varied, but a search for that string doesn't pull up any of the references. I read the Help:Searching, which suggests I should not expect to find them, but there must be a way. I've tested that searching for the string in AWB works.

I soon the problem is that the string is in the reference. Here is an example of an article which contains the string:

• Heidi Burge

Is there an easy way to search for these?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume you mean search all of Wikipedia mainspace for the string? If so, I doubt that's possible, as it would require reading and searching the wikitext of every one of millions of articles. Your search would run for days if not weeks, and consume an inordinate amount of server resources. The searches we can do are possible only because the text has been previously indexed, and that's done only for the text that readers see (and I'm not sure it includes all of that, such as the content of infoboxes). I think the only way you can do what you want is to edit each of the articles involved and use your browser's Find function to locate occurrences of that string. "But I could be wrong!" ―Mandruss ☎ 22:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Use insource: like insource:"1993 WUG". See more at Help:Searching. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

See, I was right when I said I could be wrong! ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Such a search would be futile as well since there is no standardized way to name references. As WP:CITE#Repeated citations notes, from the technical point of view it can be almost anything and my experience is that practice is very varied. What someone calls <ref name="1993 WUG"> could be called simply <ref name="wug"> by another person, <ref name="source1"> by someone else, or without any ref name. Searching for the title of some ref, like "SIXTEENTH WORLD UNIVERSITY GAMES -- 1993", however comes up with results. There's also a tool that searches for references by ISBN here. By the way, I'm curious as to why would you want to compare access dates? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

From their comment, " I've name[d] the references," I gathered they know what names they are looking for as they created them. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

One can search for a ref name within an article by simply editing the article and searching the wiki-text. Or it may be easier to search for "<ref" and compare to see if there are duplicate citations. I have done this often. One cannot usefully search for a reference name across articles, because, as is said above, there is no standard for how to name citations, and an identical cite might have different names in different articles, and two quite different cites have the same name. Besides, the reference name is in the wiki-text but is not rendered, so one cannot search for it at all without a tool, such as AWB, that exposes the wiki-text. DES ^(talk) 22:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, insource: can do it. insource:"1993 WUG" currently finds four articles. They have all been edited by Sphilbrick who I guess added that name to all four and found exactly what was wanted. Other editors may of course have chosen other ref names for the same reference. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Finnusertop, even if we assume that the wikitext is two or three times larger than the displayed pages, we can already search the content of all 61,761,504 pages of all kinds on Wikipedia in a fraction of a second. Searching the Wikitext of all 6,904,677 articles would be even quicker. See Boyer–Moore string search algorithm for a way to perform searches very quickly. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the actual text is not searched when you use the search box. That would be too slow for data of our size. As Mandruss said, "The searches we can do are possible only because the text has been previously indexed". This could for example include a list of all pages containing "1993" and another of all pages containing "WUG". A search of "1993 WUG" can then look up pages which are on both lists and see whether "1993" and "WUG" are consecutive. It may be more complicated in practice for efficiency reasons. See more at Search engine indexing. There are also users who have downloaded the full article text or have access to the full database and may perform selected searches on request, but it's slow. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

And you (Finnusertop) think that the search method (which, BTW, I linked to in my previous comment) that doesn't search the actual text works fine when searching article content but won't work when searching Wikitext... why? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Primehunter, that's exactly what I was looking for. I had looked at Help:Searching, which I see mentions the insource option, but it doesn't explain what it is. I see that Help:Searching/Draft does explain it - that page is linked from Help:Searching, so I should have checked there.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: I do understand that the reference name could be anything. However, every one of the references I'm looking for is one of several hundred references I created and I used a standardized format "YYYY ZZZ" where YYYY is the year, and ZZZ is one of "WUG", "Pan Am", "U18" etc,. all known to me. I care about the access dates for the following reason — given, for example that I'm looking for 1993 WUG, I know exactly what the title will state and exactly what the URL will state but the access date will depend on which day I worked on it. I'm searching for the reference name rather than the title because I created all the title so I know exactly what schema I used; the titles are generally standardized but there are some exceptions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)