Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 October 28

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 28

Article doesnt appear in google search

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpita_Mukherjee_(singer) This article reviewed 2 days back. We cant get this article on google search. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juwais (talk • contribs) 05:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Juwais. While you can submit websites to Google for indexing, Wikipedia is not Google, and we cannot control their search results. Thanks. Lourdes 05:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Juwais: Hello, the article has been reviewed, but there is a message at your talk page in respect of copy violations. These may seem quite minor and in some cases it may not be possible to change the wording a great deal but this is something you must address quickly or the page could be deleted. If you have difficulty with this please discuss it with the editor who reviewed the page. You will find their details at your own TP. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eagleash, the reviewer marked this article as unreviewed because the copyright violation. The reviewet notify me to fix that And i corrected the problem. then the reviewer re review this article.

@Juwais: Then I'm afraid that, as Lourdes suggests, it is in the hands of Google. Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Your alerts

Next to my name on the top line is an icon for 'Your alerts'. How to you send an alert to an individual. Anthony Staunton (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Anthony Staunton: You can contact another editor by leaving a message at their talk page or by WP:PINGing them as I have done here. 'Alerts' are to notify you of actions performed by editors at a page where you may have an interest, E.g. if an edit of yours is reverted, and are typically generated automatically, where appropriate, by the software. Eagleash (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Anthony Staunton. As mentioned by Eagleash, broadly, you can alert any individual by using templates like {{u|Anthony Staunton}}. Wikipedia alerts contains more details of what kind of events trigger alerts. Warmly. Lourdes 06:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Charles Frederic Moberly Bell

I have totally stuffed up when adding a picture file into an info box - on this page. Please fix if able. Thanks 101.182.88.116 (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed. Eagleash (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess I have to wonder whether Wikipedia may legitimately use that image. According to the summary information, the image came from http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/rg_nativeborn1.htm; author is unknown; the date is 1 January 1907 (where did that come from?). At the bottom of the source page is this: "© Philip Holberton 2016 All rights reserved".

I really know squat about copyrights and what is and what is not allowed on en.wiki so perhaps this usage is ok. But if it's not ...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk and 101.182.88.116:, I'm fairly certain that the copyright assertion applies to the text on the page and not to the images. Bell, after all, died in 1911 so any photograph of him was certainly not made in 2016. A Google Image reverse search finds this very similar image but cropped and sized differently. It is likely that both were scanned from a printed image, perhaps from [1]. Assuming the image was created in 1907, United Kingdom copyright applies for 70 years from creation for works by an unknown creator (1977). If the creator of the photograph can be found out, then their copyright would run out in life + 70 years. As long as the photographer died before 1947 (probable), we should be fine. That's not legal advice, of course. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

[2] doesn't have any images. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend:, well, that's what I deserve for blatant speculation. Thank you for the correction. I don't think that changes the substance of the answer. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the substance of the answer. Just curious, what made you guess that it came from there? Nyttend (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Charles Frederic Moberly Bell

I cannot work out with ref number 13 who the publisher is. Please help. Leave in quote please. Thank you very much 101.182.88.116 (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The publisher is not "2017", nor is the publisher for ref 12 "1968 (page 48)", nor is the publisher for ref 15 "28 November 2010", nor for ref 16 "1963 - Page 5", nor for ref 17 "1959 - Page 12". Please reply to the question asked of you at User talk:Srbernadette#Which language?, which has remained unanswered for 2 months. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry if I keep making mistakes. Many of my edits - I feel at the time - are correct but then I read that David thinks that I do not even speak English and I lose all of my confidence. If you all feel that ref number 15 is OK on this page - then that is good. I am always nervous doing this - sorry again - please be patient; I am better than I was 4 years ago. 101.182.88.116 (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

No, reference 15 is not correct. "2017" is not the publisher. To keep the English simple for you, if you don't understand what goes in the publisher parameter of a citation, please leave it blank. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I used the wrong template; I almost always use the "news" template, not the "book", "journal" or "web" templates. I swear to you that I put the name of the publisher in the publisher bit - and I usually put the page number there as well. I honestly do not know how to fix it (and any others that are wrong) . Sorry again. 101.182.88.116 (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not a question of using the wrong template. Yes, you usually put the page number there, but why? The place for that is the page parameter, not the publisher parameter. Similarly the place for the date is in the date parameter, not the publisher parameter. I don't know why for 4 years you have found it difficult to understand, hence my question as to whether you would understand better in another language. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability

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

Hi,

I have updated actor Siddharth Mahesh wikipedia profile page for several times but still could not meet the request of notability, could you please kindly tell me which part have problems? or what kind of materials do I need to add in?

Thanks. Look forward to your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harendra2640 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Note Appears to be about Siddharth Mahesh which was turned into a redirect after AfD here. Eagleash (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Harendra2640. As has been told to you by other editors on your talk page, I shall suggest that you give a thorough read to Wikipedia:Too soon#Meeting criteria (please also open all the policies and guidelines that the essay refers to in the said section; especially WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ACTOR). In summary, you need multiple reliable sources to have significantly discussed Siddharth Mahesh (his movies, his life, his career etc). The term reliable sources does not include personal websites, blogs, Twitter, Yahoo... In general, attempt to get reliable news/scholarly/book sources written by people not attached to the subject in any way. The best two sources you listed in the article are not enough. One has a paragraph on the subject (which is a good start); the other discusses the movie and not the subject (the subject's role in his first and only released movie is discussed but in a few lines). All other sources you have placed are unreliable and/or primary. Therefore, until you get multiple, independent, reliable sources discussing Mahesh at length, you should not attempt to create the article. Also, as you have been guided on the talk page, please read Wikipedia's conflict of interest advice before editing on Wikipedia. Write back for any more clarification. Thanks. Lourdes 23:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Publishing a Wikipedia page

Hi everyone,

I've created my wikipedia page, added all relevant links, photos, headings, contents etc. What is the process of it going from a draft to a published page? What do I need to do?

Thanks!

Elliepupwork1996 (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Elliepupwork1996, you can move it yourself (see Help:Move), or if you'd like someone else to review it before it gets moved, you can submit it for review. If you want to do this, add {{subst:AFC submission/draftnew}} to the very top of the article (before the image), and when you're ready to submit it, click the big box that says "Submit your draft for review!" and follow the resulting directions. Nyttend (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Elliepupwork1996 You also need to to disclose that you have been paid by the subject to write the article. Please see Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure for instructions on how to do that. Mduvekot (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding a picture to an infobox

Hi,

My picture was removed from a draft page that was in the infobox because it was not copyrighted and now I am trying to add a new one that is copyrighted but it is not coming up. Can you please tell me what I am doing wrong?

Thank you

Soccerg7932, after the filename you added {{PD-self}} in the infobox. This is what's breaking it — you cannot put anything there, except for the filename. {{PD-self}} goes on the file's description page, which is at File:ctysonsoccer.jpg, although since you've licensed it differently (but still in a perfectly acceptable manner), there's no need to add it to the description page now. Please feel free to come back here if you need any more assistance! Nyttend (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

PS, convenience link to Draft:Chris Tyson. Nyttend (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Using the same reference repeatedly

I have recently learned to use the "bracket {sfn|Widener|1982|p=205}bracket}" format when repeating a reference. However I am not sure how to do this when referencing a web site, particularly one with a very long address. Here is an example". The first group will just be there, I'd like to learn how to abbreviate the second and third ones. Thanks

https://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=K5092196D1814.4363&profile=ariall&source=~!siartinventories&view=subscriptionsummary&uri=full=3100001~!339473~!0&ri=3&aspect=power&menu=search&ipp=20&spp=20&staffonly=&term=daughters+of+the+Confederacy&index=.GW&uindex=&oper=AND&term=civil+war&index=.SW&uindex=&aspect=power&menu=search&ri=3

https://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=K5092196D1814.4363&profile=ariall&source=~!siartinventories&view=subscriptionsummary&uri=full=3100001~!339750~!1&ri=5&aspect=power&menu=search&ipp=20&spp=20&staffonly=&term=daughters+of+the+Confederacy&index=.GW&uindex=&oper=AND&term=civil+war&index=.SW&uindex=&aspect=power&menu=search&ri=5

https://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=K5092196D1814.4363&profile=ariall&source=~!siartinventories&view=subscriptionsummary&uri=full=3100001~!338592~!2&ri=7&aspect=power&menu=search&ipp=20&spp=20&staffonly=&term=daughters+of+the+Confederacy&index=.GW&uindex=&oper=AND&term=civil+war&index=.SW&uindex=&aspect=power&menu=search&ri=7

Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You can look at the documentation of {{sfn}} but this templates is generally for journals or books where there are pages. For websites you can simply use short form of <ref> tag. Ruslik_Zero 20:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

So just to be clear, @Ruslik0:, first time I'd use the whole thing, after that just use "<ref>" ? Carptrash (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

To be clearer, the first time you use <ref name="NAME">CONTENT</ref> and subsequent times you use <ref name=NAME />, where NAME can be any string. {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

However, the above method only works for references whose content is exactly the same. For references with subtle differences in URL like the ones you gave ri=3 vs ri=5 vs ri=7, there is no method I know of of storing the data. {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think if you sanitize those urls, you can use something sanely concise. Try https://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?source=~!siartinventories&view=subscriptionsummary&uri=full=3100001~!339750~!1 which should be equivalent to the middle one sans highlighting. Furrykiller (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I think I will try Furrykilles approach and see what happens. Carptrash (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Lists in prose

I looked through what I could find about lists in prose but I wasn't able to locate a concrete answer. If we've got a biography for a living person who is highly notable for more than one thing, what order would we list that in the lede prose? Take, for example, John Madden. Chronologically, he's a former football player, coach, and commentator. In terms of notability, he's a former football commentator, coach, and player. In terms of notability as pertains to the sport itself, he's a former football coach, commentator, and player. Does the MOS or anything else answer this? (And I'm asking generally, not specifically as pertains to Madden's status as a sports figure.) CityOfSilver 21:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi CityOfSilver, as per MOS:LEDE, "[...] the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." Beyond that, there's no mention of what should be the priority of listing. In my opinion, the notability factor which is more predominantly covered in reliable sources should come first, and the ones which have lesser coverage, should come later. But then, the talk page of each respective article would be the best page to reach a consensus for each particular article's lede section listing of notable items. Thanks. Lourdes 07:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lourdes: The other day, an anonymous editor expressed revulsion at the lede on Ted Kaczynski, which lists him as "a mathematician, anarchist, and domestic terrorist." To my mind, that order is pretty offensive given Kaczynski's crimes so I figured it was because the preference was chronology, not notability. (And it was even harder for me to know since had Kaczynski never done anything of note after age 27, he still met several standards at WP:NACADEMIC.) So since there's no apparent opposition right now, I'll boldly reorder it and add it to my watchlist. Thank you. CityOfSilver 17:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Biased articles

Manny Lehman (disc jockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi guys,

How do I flag a page for review on grounds that it sounds the page has been written by the guy himself.

Last night I met a guy who said he managed a DJ called Manny Lehman... I googled him since I had never heard of him and the wiki page came up.

The language and prose used is extremely flattering and what stood out to me was that (I have removed this) "his chart topping remixes....of Madonnas "...

The offical remixes that were released the charts as listed on Madonnas page.... he isnt there.

A google search of that remix brings up bootleg unofficial remixes which were not released and so... were not chart topping.

So how much of the page is actually true and hasnt been a PR spin by a publicist.

Its not neutrally written and seems overly flattering and an exaggeration of his resume.

Additionally, there are only 5 references which confirm his place of birth and that he is a person. and a DJ. the page needs serious verification.

Thanks :-)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PiFunk (talk • contribs) 28 October 2017 23:00 (UTC)

Try {{autobiography}} and/or {{advert}} for the promotional tone, and/or {{refimprove}} for the lack of sources. {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Well, it's been subsequently nominated for deletion, and I've !voted Keep, given the extent of reliable source coverage of this Billboard charting subject. If the article finally gets kept, I'll try to work on it and improve it – there's much scope. Thanks. Lourdes 05:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)