Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 January 3

< Wikipedia:Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< January 2 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 4 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


January 3

edit

Afghan names

edit

Dears; I posted a topic on Afghan names pronunciation and proper spelling but cannot find, even the draft one. I know it was waiting for the review but may I know the where about of my post please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beissed (talk • contribs) 01:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, many things could have gone wrong. One is that you did not click on 'save' or you you saved to a non English version of Wikipedia. You do not have any edit history on English Wikiedia. Lets keep things simple before mentioning sandboxes. Which articles were you attempting to up date. We may then be able to follow the paper trail.--Aspro (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Beissed: User:Beissed/sandbox was deleted. We are an encyclopedia. Your page was not something an encyclopedia would consider to include. The former contents of deleted pages can only be seen by administrators. Do you want a copy for use outside Wikipedia? @Aspro: You cannot see deleted edits but the bottom of user contributions has edit counters which include deleted edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help

edit
  1. Is there any guidance at when to use first person (Obama) and third person (he) particularly in biography article?
  2. What kind of reference is it? ---> Obama (1995, 2004), p. 12.

Hddty. (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Obama" is not "first person." Not sure what you mean by "What kind of reference is it?" In general, good practice is just to use either his name or the third person pronoun to ensure good language flow. If the text you're writing refers to a time when Obama is president, it would be good practice to say "President Obama," not just "Obama." But if the text refers to his pre-presidency life, then omit "president." Read the passage, and then read it again to make sure the wording is not overly repetitive either way or confusing, especially if another "he" appears somewhere nearby in the sentence or paragraph. DonFB (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obama (1995, 2004), p. 12 is a (poorly-formed, in my opinion) short-form citation. If you look at Barack Obama §References, there is a matching long-form citation:
Obama, Barack (2004) [1st. Pub. 1995]. Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. New York: Three Rivers Press. ISBN 978-1-4000-8277-3.
The short-form, refers to the long-form.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a page

edit

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

Hi there

I have tried editing my page as the birthplace is incorrect. It says Mackay but it should say Melbourne. How do I contact the editor of my page? Its Tracey Browning basketball

Many thanks Tracey Browning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.141.76 (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see there has already begun a reverting of edits on this page. One simply cannot change information on a WP page without providing a reliable source to support the claim. Otherwise, it will keep being reverted. Please provide a WP:RS to back up your claim of birth. Best. Maineartists (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are the subject, Wikipedia strongly discourages editing a page about yourself. I would recommend leaving a message on the article's Talk page. Click the "talk" tab at the top of the article page and ask an editor to help. It will almost certainly be necessary that an editor will be able to find the information you want to modify in a published reliable source. It won't be sufficient for an editor to make the change based solely on your message. By the way, multiple people have been contributing to the article (click "History" at the top to see); there is not a single editor. DonFB (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tracey, the problem is that there is a published reference which gives the Mackay location (Reference number 1 in the article), and no references that say differently. I realize this must sound bizarre to you, as you obviously know better, but an encyclopedia goes by written sources rather than by word of mouth. That is why the editors above have emphasized the need for finding a reliable source. In the meantime, I have marked the birth-place as disputed in the article, with a link to the article's Talk page for discussion about the issue. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Wikipedia just summarises what sources say, so your argument is really with FIBA if they have published incorrect information. The page is about you, but not "yours", so the best way to correct the error is to find an accurate source, as recommended above. Unfortunately, Google here in the UK doesn't seem to bring up any reliable sources to counter FIBA's inaccuracy. Scobo also have the wrong place of birth. I have found some limited evidence that suggests that these sources are wrong, but not enough to make the correction. Perhaps you will have more success searching from Australia. Facebook and LinkedIn do not count as reliable since they are user-created. There must be some articles in Australian newspapers that we could reference. Dbfirs 10:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article is a BLP and the reliability of the source has been called into question, the information should simply be removed. It's better to be silent than wrong, particularly in BLPs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The editor had offered to send me proof, but I pointed her to OTRS (again) and gave her the specific email to use. I agree with removing the birthplace completely in the meantime. Meters (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing music charts

edit

Dear editors: I was called to an RFC at Talk:Revealed Recordings, and as a result I have been editing the articles of some of the musicians signed to Revealed Recordings. Many of them have multiple references to various music charts, all in the same format, as for example THIS ONE. A lot of these references have been added by the same now blocked editor. In the example, the musician has one single which placed on one of the charts, but there are references to all of the charts on which he did not place. Also, the name "Steffen Hung", who I am guessing is the owner of the chart company, is listed twice in each reference, even though the charts are computer generated from a database. He's not mentioned in the Ultratop article, bu Ultratop chart pages mention "Hung Medien" as copyright holder.

Of course I've seen plenty of references to music charts before (they are often used to show notability of musicians or albums), but this is the first time I've seen it so extensive. Am I correct in identifying this as an example of WP:CITESPAM? In this case the effect of the extra citations, which cite lack of chart performance, is to drive traffic to the charting website. Is there a guideline somewhere for correct use of music charts in references?—Anne Delong (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Access

edit

Is there a way for editors to access books or journals cited in articles without actually finding the physical book or buying access to the journal?

It seems nearly impossible to actually verify many obscure references, as they are often magazines or books unlikely to be kept by typical libraries. You could easily fake an obscure reference if you know of a book with a title that seemingly pertains to the subject matter, but you know that the book had a printing run of less than 10,000 copies.

Benjamin (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:WRE - X201 (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hey Benjamin. I would check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and see if they can be of help.
And yes, it would be possible to fake information by using an obscure source, or for that matter, simply making up a source with a convincing sounding name. Unfortunately, most of what has been written throughout history was done prior to the internet, and only a fraction of that has been digitized and made available for public access. Restricting the encyclopedia to only online sources may likely remove half or more of our content. The only thing you can do is assume good faith and verify when you can, expecially if a claim seems outlandish, of apparently contradicted by other sources you do have access to. TimothyJosephWood 14:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For paywalled articles (common in articles related to scientific research), the resource exchange project folks have access to a lot of stuff, but for out-of-print editions of pre-1900 books, you are mostly out of luck.
The one time I used a really hard-to-get source, I put an exact quote supporting the inline cite, and I would encourage others to do similarly (the harder to find is the source, the most precise a reference you should use). The basic idea is a tradeoff between the ease of access to the source and the ease of access to the specific material - lots of people can see online newspapers, so as long as it is somewhere in the linked article it is bound be checked by someone with an attention span long enough; but the one librarian that can access the original editions should not have to read 1500 pages of a phylogeny treaty. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article name Vs real name Vs referred to in article as...

edit

What is the policy regarding people who are primarily known by their stage name, rather than a real name? Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to be consistent - just these few examples from my watchlist present different approaches:

The preference seems to be to refer to them by the same name that is the article title, yet that is contradicted by the Visser/Ninja - both are on equal standing with regard to notability and AKA, yet one has an article for her stage name, and the other for his real name.

MOS:LEGALNAME seems to cover it at first glance, but only describes how a person should initially be introduced, not how they should be referred to throughout the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style has this: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Subsequent use which says subsequent references generally by surname. RJFJR (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The (generally agreed) standard in pro wrestling articles is to use ring names for ring stuff and real names for real stuff. It'd make as much sense for stage names and stage stuff (the studio could count as a stage). A bit odd to imagine a court calling Trevor Smith "Busta", and a bit odd to imagine MTV billing him as "Smith". Context should matter, even if it's not a written guideline. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electrostatic discharge

edit

The link to the Estonian translation is wrong.

It redirects you to an Estonian Wikipedia page covering "Gas solutions" or Gaasilahendused in Estonian. I tried to correct it but couldn't find the right place to do so.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.176.1.82 (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was right at the foot of the article, where inter-wiki language links used to be placed before Wikidata. I removed it in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clean slate

edit

Hello! Thank you for looking into this. I have been a user of Wikipedia since 2014, but recently I was accused of sockpuppetry. I admit to my mistakes of using multiple accounts. After being blocked indefinitely, now I realise that I want to make a fresh start. Is there any scope for this on Wikipedia? I am willing to be fully transparent in my approach in editing articles and fighting vandalism. I tried to look this up on Wikipedia's guidelines, but couldn't find an answer. Additionally, I understand that my account and contributions will be under constant monitoring, but that's okay, as I admit to my past mistakes and am ready to dive again. Can I get a clean slate? Thanks 1.186.38.86 (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Standard offer. TimothyJosephWood 14:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You are not permitted to edit as an IP to bypass your block. Your user talk page tells you how to appeal your block, and see WP:Guide to appealing blocks. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Wikipedia:Clean start, which specifies that a clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (...) in place against the old account. Getting a "clean slate" is in addition to the unblock request. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your replies, Timothyjosephwood, David Biddulph, and Tigraan. The way I see it there's no scope for me to come back in the next six months. My unblock requests have been declined twice, and the "clean start" thing clearly mentions exclusion of people like me. I don't know if there is any other way because even if I create a new account and start afresh without making the same mistakes I made, people will think I am still a part of the sockpuppetry. Anyways, thanks for your inputs. Maybe, I will retry after June. 1.186.38.86 (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 in music

edit

Well can you move the talk 2017 in music to the 2017 in music article right now can you do it for me because 2017 has started. 2600:8803:7A00:19:8411:5797:7BA9:1305 (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In general, a "prepared" article like this probably belongs at Draft:2017 in Music rather than on the planned talk page Talk:2017 in Music, but I moved it, no harm.Naraht (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And to avoid confusion if anyone is looking for it, it's a lower case "m", so it wasn't Talk:2017 in Music but Talk:2017 in music. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture sources not loaded on the internet

edit

Good day.

I want to know if pictures which are not loaded on the internet can be used as references for articles, i.e. they are found on a local device such as a camera or mobile phone. Also, how can I reference such a picture because the only reference to awards given to an individual in an article I am writing is a picture on a camera. There are no publications online about the giving of the awards.

Thank you very much for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallydate (talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vallydate. If you do indeed mean "reference" (i.e. a source to verify information in an article), then all reference sources must be published (and so at least in principle available to every reader, though they might have to order them through a major library for example). An unpublished source, whether text or a picture, may not be used as a reference.
It's relatively unusual to be able to use a picture as a reference, because pitures don't usually make statements. It may be that a picture of two particular people together would count as a valid source for a claim that they met; but I'm not sure even of that - it smacks of original research. Similarly for an award. But certainly unless the picture had been published by a reputable publisher, it could not be taken as verification of anything - pictures are easily manipulated nowadays.
If you wanted to use a picture to illustrate an article (not as a reference), then provided you hold the copyright, you are welcome to upload the picture to Wikimedia Commons (releasing it under a suitable free licence as you go), and then use it in an article. So if it is on your phone, then you may well be able to do that. It would be common to describe the event in the caption to the picture - but it should not appear in the main text unless it is supported by a published reference, and I'm not sure it should really appear even in a caption. --ColinFine (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add a little to this answer: I don't believe it would be possible at all for an article to avoid deletion if it were created with a supporting reference of nothing more than photos (or only one). Policies on reliability and verifiability do not contain provisions for this method of content verification. Sources must be published and reliable, as in textual, but as you've said, they don't exist for this event, so I'm pretty sure an article, if you created it, would soon be deleted. DonFB (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vallydate: Clarifying: I believe the article you're writing is a biography of a living person, not a description of a single event, as I initially misunderstood. Articles about living persons have considerably stricter requirements than other types of articles on Wikipedia. For the article to remain, it will need published reliable sources that establish the person's notability. You should understand that references to sites like Facebook and LinkedIn are not accepted at Wikipedia as valid sources. DonFB (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poor teacher needs help

edit

Hey all--I'm setting up a Wikipedia class, and could do with some help. I want to devote two class periods to research into and discussion about Wikipedia; I'm thinking of topics like representation among editors (gender gap, race, other demographics), coverage of topics (pre-Internet documentation, developing nations--and the rather voluminous representation of typical male, white topics), and accuracy. I'd love to get some links to some (online) articles that I can incorporate. Thanks! Dr Aaij (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should also look at WP:Education program first as well, Dr Aaij: while I don't think you are intending to get your students to edit Wikipedia (which is what that is mainly about) you should be aware of both the resources available and the guidelines about how to do it. --ColinFine (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dr Aaij. The recent paper by Greenstein and Zhu (2016) on the accuracy of Wikipedia[1] is worth reading. It says that highly edited Wikipedia articles do drift towards a neutral point of view. Good luck with your class. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Aaij, did you know that Wikipedia has its own newspaper – The Signpost? Each issue contains an "In the Media" section that summarizes what other media has reported on Wikipedia, and the bulk of coverage is on the issues you mention. You should check its archives and take a look at those "In the Media" sections. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Finnusertop; I don't think I was aware that such a section existed. 'Preciate it. Dr Aaij (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Aaij, you might find some useful articles here: Criticism of Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia, Gender bias on Wikipedia, Racial bias on Wikipedia. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Greenstein, Shane; Zhu, Feng (1 March 2016). Do experts or collective intelligence write with more bias? Evidence from Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia — Working Paper 15-023 (PDF). Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard Business School. Retrieved 2017-01-04.
Thank you zzuuzz. Those are useful links--they are not the kinds of articles I usually run into. Dr Aaij (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2017_January_3&oldid=1179082216"