Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 December 27

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.

December 27

UK nationality edit warring

I need a bit of help here. I'm not sure where to mention this, and don't think this has reached WP:ANI level just yet. Erzan (talk · contribs) is an occasional editor who makes changes to people's nationalities in BLPs seemingly through personal preference, then seems prepared to edit war if these are changed back, and refuses to compromise and just wants to argue the toss by providing links that make passing or tenious references to the subject. The British v constituent countries argument is an old one on Wikipedia, and they can be highly disruptive. I tend to think that they should not be changed without a good reason, and have pointed this out to the editor concerned, who currently has the article Adele in their sights. Previous attempts to discuss this matter with them have failed. Can someone advise please? Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It may be the time for a trip to the ANI board, in order to determine wider community consensus and views. It depends on the level of disruption, if any, that the colleague is creating. I would suggest that it is indeed your call, but maybe more eyes are needed here. Irondome (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, this argument has previously been had with the user, so more eyes would be useful. I'll post it and see how it goes. This is Paul (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I seemed to remember a consensus about not changing it one way or another just for the sake of it but I cant remember where that was. MilborneOne (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

How do I turn off auto-spell correct?

How do I turn off auto-spell correction? I don't remember having this feature before, and it's driving me batty. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Just realized it's my browser, not Wikipedia (duh!) Netherzone (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Netherzone: Autocorrect is everybody's worst enema. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Ha! "Do I not destroy my enemas when I make them my fiends?" - Abe Lincoln Netherzone (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Linking to a category with a piped link

I am trying to make a link to [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Massachusetts]] in my User Page. However, simply adding the aforementioned text will cause it to categorize my User Page under that category, rather than link to it. Specifically, I'm also trying to make a piped link, such as [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Massachusetts|Massachusetts]] with no luck. I am sure this has been answered, but I have checked the Linking and Pipe Linking templates with no answers, and my search terms aren't specific enough to turn up relevant answers. Thank you for any help. BostonUrbEx (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, duh... I already have these linked elsewhere in my User Page and I forgot. I believe I have solved the issue with a colon. BostonUrbEx (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm all set. Please disregard! BostonUrbEx (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@BostonUrbEx: I'm glad we could be of assistance! --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@BostonUrbEx and Gronk Oz: Yeah, me too! And I'd like to add the same trick works if you need to link to an image (instead of embedding it in a page, e.g. [[:file:smile eye.png]] → file:smile eye.png). A colon simply forces special wikilinks to stay just wikilinks. --CiaPan (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Citation links to copyright works

Following a previous thread from another board, I'd like to know what the policy is regarding links to copyright works in article references outside of Google Books. In my case, I worked on a references section for a particular article and linked to specific pages on Google Books where possible, although I couldn't do so for the ones not uploaded to Google Books yet. I had some reviewers at a FAC nomination ask to do a spotcheck of sources, although this would seemingly be difficult to do for these non-Google listed sources.

My question is if I can either: (a) have the "Informational notes" section (see "references section" link above) on a different page than the main article and quote relevant text from the book page for each source not in Google Books. Thus, each reference in the article would link to either a citation with a corresponding Google Books link directly to the page cited or a ref note with a quote, or (b) Upload a PDF of the book to a third party website such as archive.org and link there rather than Google Books. The PDF could be abridged similar to Google Books to comply with fair use requirements.

For consistency and simplicity, option B would likely be better, although I would like to confirm whether it is acceptable under fair use and Wikipedia rules to use links to PDFs of copyrighted books without explicit authorization, granted that the PDF is abridged to only have the pages necessary for the article's references.

Please let me know if I need to clarify anything and thank you for the help. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

PDFs of scans are not deemed reliable sources in this era of Photoshop. There is nothing on Earth wrong with a footnote to a printed work without any internet link whatsoever. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Tonystewart14, I've written more than 60 FACs and often used book sources. I don't usually link books, even through Google books, since the text viewed there is not constant either with time or geographically, the exception being out-of-copyright books on eg archive.org. Similarly, I don't link abstract-only journals, only full text. spot checks don't have to be on every source you use, and I'd expect there would be some web pages that could be checked. And a reviewer might use Google books to check a book source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

(later) your question inspired me to look back at bee-eater, a recent FAC. It's clear that the large majority of my sources don't have non-paywalled links to confirmatory text. However, there are checkable weblinks, Google books can be used to check some of the books (since that's how I read the text initially), and people have access to journals to check those. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a good example. In my case, there is a bibliography section with ISBN/DOI numbers for most sources. Considering all the feedback so far, I believe the article should be fine in terms of reference formatting and I'll just go through once more and make sure all text within the article is cited appropriately. Tonystewart14 (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

IMHO citing a Google Books page is almost as bad as citing amazon.com or another book dealer. Simply cite the book itself, and whenever possible include the ISBN in the citation as it functions as a "magic word" (when correctly formatted) that links to Worldcat, which in turn locates the book in libraries near the reader. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tonystewart14: As others have already said, web links are not necessary. If there's an important point or nuance from a source which is difficult for other editors to access, I'll often use the |quote= parameter in the citation templates to add a short quotation, so that the sense of the original is preserved through successive edits.

@Dodger67: I don't see anything wrong with including a |url= link to google books in addition to an otherwise complete {{cite book}} with ISBN &c. But there's no need to. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The inclusion of a "convenience link" within a book citation is perfectly acceptable. The problem is when editors reference Google Books (or Amazon) as if it, rather than the book, is the actual source. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism in "RELATED PAGES" link

There is vandalism in one of the articles below "RELATED PAGES". Below the name of the page in this section (at the bottom of the page) there is some text that must be deleted because of vandalism. How can this text be edited? -- Odalcet (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Odalcet. You can fix this yourself using the "Edit" tab at the top of the page / section (on a mobile device it looks something like a pencil). Or if you don't feel confident doing that, let us know which article has the problem, and somebody here may take care of it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Odalcet: The "Related pages" feature at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures uses descriptions from Wikidata. Click "Wikidata item" under "Tools" in the left pane of the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Gronk Oz, PrimeHunter. I fixed the vandalism on Wikidata. The article is here -- Odalcet (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Terrible vocabulary and spellings

Hi there, first of all thanx for this great site.i was reading through the indo pak war 1971 recently. Terrible spellings , vocabulary and framing of sentences.frankly it was quite offensive to find that many mistakes in such a famous info site. Im sure it must be a mistake but do take a look plz. Thanx again. --117.249.213.39 (talk) 27 December 2016‎

You are most welcome to be bold and fix the issues yourself by clicking on the "edit" link at the top of the page. Before you do so, have a look at the resources at WP:HOW, WP:COPYEDIT and WP:MOS. Please also consider making a user account - see WP:ACCOUNT for the benefits. Triptothecottage (talk) 08:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Often articles about areas where the native language is not English have poor spelling and grammar because people from the areas that are concerned who have learned English try to edit the articles themselves. Even though they don't know the language well enough to do it well. It can sometimes be a challenge to know what they meant to say. Please, feel free to fix what you can. †dismas†|^(talk) 16:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 this page has recently been tagged for cleanup for the issues you presented. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Delteil

Hi, I've just made a mistake re. linking to the original French article which should lead to fr:Joseph Delteil (poète). Don't know how to correct the mistake. Can somone please fix it? Thanks in advance; LouisAlain (talk) 11:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your erroneous edits to the Wikidata page for the French disambiguation page, and added a link for your English page to the Wikidata page for the poet. I would recommend that you complete the translation before adding any more links to your page from other pages in the English Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention. The translation will be completed within one hour; LouisAlain (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Galaxy note

This article is biased.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_Note_7

Words like "It is best known for being one of the first phones to spontaneously burst into flames" and "As an unannounced feature, it also included increased risk of fiery explosion" are INEXCUSABLY BIASED and must be rewritten.

Wikipedia should not be a playground for biased people to do this kind of childish misinformative rants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.103.75.241 (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. You are free to correct anomalies such as this by clicking the edit button at the top of the page. Eagleash (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Noted that you have in fact removed some of the inappropriate content. I have reverted further back. Eagleash (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

To support what the original poster said, it is worth noting that Wikipedia has a formal policy concerning writing articles with a Neutral point of view. So while those battery problems should be included in the article, they should be described in factual, unbiased language and they should be given appropriate weight in the article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Out of date article

I did some copyediting on Kingston and District Sports Hall of Fame, basically replacing external links with references. Then I decided to see if I could find some reliable sources about the hall. What I found instead is that no new inductees have been added to the list in about 10 years. It seems inevitable that a list like this will constantly be out of date, especially if it is a subject that is not in the headlines. Wouldn't it be better to just have the inductees page as a source and not try to keep up with all of the new inductees?

And, although I found lots of newspaper articles about the inductees, I couldn't find any (by googling) about the hall itself. The pages that I did find were just copies of the history that is on the hall of fame website; this raises issues of notability as well. So, I'm not sure if I should flag the article for deletion, remove the section on inductees and leave the article unreferenced, or leave it as is and put my concerns in the talk page. Leschnei (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No independent references, no evidence of notability – looks to me a strong candidate for deletion. "Out of date" could be addressed, but that's not the issue here. Maproom (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I've never proposed an article for deletion. Do I just use {{subst:proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} at the top? Leschnei (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

And there is one editor who started the page and did the initial edits. I can ping him. Leschnei (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok – I've proposed it for deletion. Maproom (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Leschnei (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Marketing Firm Wikipedia.

Hello, I was tasked to create a wikipedia page for my marketing firm.

I posted some content but it was deleted.

Can someone let me know why the content below may have been deleted?

Hallarsan Group is a creative marketing firm based in Dearborn, Michigan that specializes in brand management and design work. Their objective is to integrate a simple design theory into an advertising campaign and approach projects with strategic and creative thinking. Hallarsan Group partners with clients to create big ideas and translate them into a fresh digital experience. This often includes brand and marketing collateral, architectural, and spatial design, and advertisement. The Hallarsan Group philosophy is demonstrated in our case studies below. The design agency propels forth unique ideas and the passionate people behind them. Through intentionality, design, and collaboration with clients, the agency sculpts the most solid form of online brand expression that allows the customer to interact and learn. Solving creative problems through design is at the heart of Hallarsan Group’s efforts. The agency has experience in online media design geared toward focused brand experiences, as well as guiding clients into flexible and easy interfaces.

History: Hallarsan Group rose from the rebranding of HUI Design group. It is managed by Oliver Nasralah.

Ratings and Awards: As the HUI Design group, this firm has earned recognition from the Lebanese Student Association of WSU, OU, UM, and UMD for the Third Annual Unified Lebanese Gala. External Links: Hallarsan.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallarsan (talk • contribs) 15:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Hallarsan. It was deleted because it was copy/pasted from http://hallarsan.com/info/. In almost every circumstance, it is not permitted to copy and paste substantial content from other websites onto Wikipedia, because this is usually a copyright violation. In some cases, content owners choose to legally release text or images for use on Wikipedia, and instructions for how to do so can be found at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. However, full text from a website is usually inappropriate for the encyclopedia because it is usually overly promotional in tone, whereas Wikipedia's policy on article writing requires that they be written from a neutral point of view.

Finally, you may want to consider requesting a change of username at Wikipedia:Changing username, or register a new account to use with a different name, since our username policy forbids usernames that give the impression of representing an organization or business. TimothyJosephWood 15:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hallarsan: User:Timothyjosephwood is right, Wikipedia takes copyright law very seriously, and copyright violations are removed immediately when found. But that was not the only reason for deleting the article. If it was like the text you posted above, it would also have been deleted as failing to include any evidence, in the form of references, to establish thet the company is notable, in the sense in which that word is used here. Moreover, it used excessively promotion al language, unacceptable in an encyclopedia. Maproom (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

All of this assumes that your company is notable enough for an article per WP:CORP. Maproom touched on this but I thought I'd include a direct link to our guideline on companies. You may also want to read what what Wikipedia is not which includes WP:PROMOTION. †dismas†|^(talk) 16:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The language, in addition to being a copyright violation, is appallingly and unacceptably promotional, and would have to be cleared out with a metaphorical flamethrower of purification. Crap like, "propels forth unique ideas and the passionate people behind them" and "sculpts the most solid form of online brand expression that allows the customer to interact and learn" has no place in an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Can't Find an "Edit" Link

Found this page about the Collinwood School Fire: http://wikivisually.com/wiki/Collinwood_School_Fire // "Collinwood school fire"

which very much needs some editing.

Can find no link to do so, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.226.3 (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You cannot edit from that location because it is a Wikipedia mirror (a site that reproduces Wikipedia content) and not Wikipedia itself. In order to edit, you must visit the actual article at Collinwood school fire. TimothyJosephWood 18:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for clarification, please edit Collinwood school fire here on wikipedia. At some point in the future, those updates will also show up at wikivisually.com but we have no direct control over how fast that will occur. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikivisually actually appears to be a live mirror not listed at meta:Live mirrors, so changes are seen immediately. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Topic: crowd funding - new page or article "Community Capital Marketplace" or "Hybrid Funding"

Our Company, Breakaway Funding, LLC would like to publish an article on a derivation of the crowd funding model. We have tried several times to publish but the articles continue to get taken down.

Alternative funding models are emerging in the marketplace for businesses trying to raise capital.

"Community Capital Marketplace" or "Hybrid Crowd Funding"- Commercial funding sourced from individual investors as well as financial institutions (e.g. community banks/credit unions). Differs from crowd funding in that the model is specifically for business (not individuals) and source of funds includes accredited financial institutions.

We understand Wiki's position on Conflict of Interest, Self-Promotion and have written an article within the parameters which continues to get deleted. Could we please speak to someone about how to overcome this hurdle.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Azmina Hanna, Breakaway Funding, LLC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruby winter (talk • contribs) 20:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I cannot see what you have written, but fundamentally, if you understannd Conflcit of Interesdt and Self-Promotion then you ought to know you shouldn't be trying to create those pages. Let me offer an alternative. Please see WP:AFC to request that someone else write an article on this subject. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Someone Keeps Deleting Things Off Of The Page That I Monitor

The page is for a collegiate comedy group that I am in charge of. A user keeps deleting things that have been on the page for years. I am an official person related to this content and I know more about what should be on the page than a random person who is trying to delete everything. The things he's deleted have been on the page since 2012 and there is no reason they should all of a sudden be deleted. I don't know how to stop this person, but wikipedia said that they would block me from the page if I kept changing what this person did, even though this person is the one changing everything that I've done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltymommy69 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

References

You are not "an official person related to this content", and you need to read what Wikipedia says about page ownership. You also ought to read the advice which you have been given on your user talk page. The place to discuss the content of an article is on the article's talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. You are a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and perhaps now need to be topic banned. Oh, where is there an administrator when one wants one? Do not use Wikipedia as your 'free' promotional vehicle.--Aspro (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Err.., is this student-run comedy troupe encyclopedic anyway? There ain’t any really RS's either. Put this one up for AfD? --Aspro (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I've just queried its notability on its talk page. "Put this one up for AfD?" - I would support that. Kiltpin (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It was up for AFD in 2007 and was deleted, and subsequently re-created. G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, well. G4 and PROD were declined. Does someone want to try AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Send it to AfD. I'm not seeing much evidence for notability but I don't think G4 should be invoked for a ten year old AfD. Also this creation dates to at least 2007. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Sent to AfD. Maproom (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Rena Sofar current star in The bold & Beautiful

Her second child is quoted as her "First" with her second and current spouse It would be her second child

The first was a daughter in her previous marriage Just read it Its messed up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.199.17.232 (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Convenience link. †dismas†|^(talk) 23:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, it may be worded a bit confusingly but it still accurate. "Sofer married television director/producer Sanford Bookstaver in 2003. On August 5, 2005, Sofer gave birth to her first child with Bookstaver, named Avalon Leone, in Los Angeles." If true, then yes, she did give birth to the couple's first child. The way it's phrased it could be taken to mean either her first child or her first child with Bookstaver.

The whole section is unreferenced, so it could really use some references to confirm all of it. †dismas†|^(talk) 23:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)