Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 January 26

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 26

I need help to add our company

I need help to add our company ATMCrypto to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BitcoinATM page. Our company is similar to companies listed on BitcoinATM page (BitAccess, Lamassu, Genesis Coin...etc). Was trying to find the answer or added myself, but no luck. Please advise.

Many thanks in advance

www.atmcrypto.io — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ATMCrypto (talk • contribs)

This is Wikipedia. We are not affiliated with the Bitcoin Wiki. It is one of many unrelated wikis using the same software. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting a Review of Articles Edited by Socks

I am sure that this question has been answered before.

I encountered and reported a sockfarm that has been editing articles on certain artists and art galleries. I assume but cannot prove that the editing was paid editing. It goes back to 2014. The sock drawer has been cleaned out and laundered. So far, so good. My question has to do with requesting that certain articles to which they heavily contributed be re-reviewed. I know that any articles that they were the sole contributors to can be speedied as creations by blocked users. However, they contributed heavily to various articles that have also been edited by real editors. (I know. I know. I consider socks to be unreal editors.) My question is: Is the conflict of interest noticeboard the right place to list the articles and request that responsible editors take a quick look, or is WP:AN a better place, or somewhere else? Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robert, I would tend to think this is not an issue solely for administrators to ruminate on. WP:VPM should be a better venue. Thanks, Lourdes 00:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

xkcd 1337: part 3

Hail! Those of you familiar with xkcd know that Munroe licenses it under CC-BY-NC but releases a few under CC-BY-SA, usually per a Wikipedian's request. If you read the header of "1337: part 3", you'll see he's licensed this one under SA for use here. However, I have yet to find it, either here or on Commons. Would anyone happen to know what article the strip was used for? Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Releasing something under a Creative Commons license is not the same thing as uploading it to Wikimedia Commons. You can see here various websites where the comic strip was reused. Wikipedia isn't one of them. nagualdesign 06:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Munroe very specifically wrote on that page "For use on Wikipedia, I release this particular comic under a cc-by-sa license." (emphasis mine) Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That Monroe chose to release it doesn't necessarily mean anyone on Wikipedia asked him to do so – given this particular strip's content, I read the release as a meta-joke, and TBH, I can't think of a Wikipedia context in which it would actually be useful – any suggestions, Rotideypoc41352? (To be clear, I am a fan of Monroe's work in general, and think that some of it would be useable as references.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.0.128.132 (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah yes, so he has. It's released "For use on Wikipedia" under CC BY-SA 3.0 US, which allows anyone in the US (not just Wikipedia) to do pretty much whatever they want with it as long as they provide attribution, and also under CC-BY-NC 2.5, which allows for non-commercial use worldwide. You could upload it to Wikipedia or the Commons yourself if you feel inclined. Having searched both directly and using Google I don't think it's here. Perhaps someone sought permission but hasn't gotten around to uploading it yet? nagualdesign 09:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with 94.0.128.132 - considering Lessig cameos in the strip, the release is probably a tip of the hat. Per a comment on the explain xkcd entry, this text has been there since 2015. Unfortunately, I can't think of a context in which the comic or any part of it would be useful. I'm so guessing the comic has never been uploaded. Curiosity satisfied. Thank y'all! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing articles from Non-English sources

Hello! Thanks for your help. I have today one question about editing articles from non-English sources. How can I refer such sources? Should I indicate in footnotes that it is a translation from Spanish for example like this or not? Or may be I should indicate it just in Edit summary at the bottom of the page. And one more question about editing articles that need citation. If during my work I come across the source and turn out that text in the article just copied and pasted from that source what shoul I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyupant (talk • contribs) 13:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Hey Lyupant. Per our policies on non-English sources, sources in the English language are preferred, since on an English project, this makes it easier for readers to verify article content, but non-English sources are allowed if no comparable quality English language sources exist. If you provide a direct quote translated from a non-English source, you should always include a reference to the original-language passage in the article. This can be done as you say using reference tags, or can be done using Template:efn, to provide a separate list of footnotes. If you include summarized content from a non-English source, you may also choose to include the original text (so long as it's short, so as not to violate copyright) as well as an English language translation, in the case you feel doing so is helpful for readers.

As to your second question, if you find content that is directly copypasted from elsewhere, you should remove it immediately, and consider rephrasing and summarizing the content in your own words, again, to avoid copyright violations. The text also should be removed form the article's history, which I can help with requesting if you have a particular passage that you've found which needs removed. GMG^talk 13:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Most citation templates have a "|language=" parameter, for example see Template:Cite web#Foreign language and translated title. For advice on dealing with copyright violations, see WP:Copyright violations#Dealing with copyright violations. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Left-Handed v Right-Handed is an incorrect title

Hi, this article is in a category called "Left-Handed v Right-Handed cricketers". These titles are surely incorrect. They should be "Left-handed v Right-handed" and "Left-handed v Right-handed cricketers". The references in the article use "Left-handed v Right-handed". One of the sources prints the whole match title in block capitals (that might have confused the editor) but gives the result as "Left-handed winning by 39 runs". Can both be renamed, please? 86.168.218.79 (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems you may have a point. The way to request renaming a page is described at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and this is probably an uncontroversial technical request. Do you need help with that procedure? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've had some experience in cricket articles. Apparently, the names of the teams were "Left-Handed" and "Right-Handed"; the terms were not used just as a reference to the way they played. Sources like from BBC, ESPN,[1] and Paul Donnelley's well-cited Firsts, Lasts & Onlys of Cricket: Presenting the most amazing cricket facts[2] refer to the match as "Left-Handed v Right-Handed" and not otherwise. So I don't think this may be uncontroversial. But of course, requested move is the way to go. Lourdes 15:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe the article just needs a bit of work to ensure consistency. Thank you, both. 86.168.218.79 (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A great appreciation

I's like to express my great appreciation to GMG(talk) for your help on my topic. It's more clear now.Lyupant (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey no problem Lyupant. If you need anything else, feel free to ask follow up questions here, or you can stop by my talk page. GMG^talk 15:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Article title change and reference change

My company changed its name and website and I need to make the appropriate changes to its Wikipedia page including the article title, and any sources referencing the old website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.49.43.58 (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2018‎ (UTC)

Hey anon. If you can provide a source showing where the subject of the article has changed their name, I can probably move it to the new name without any problems, but I'm afraid we'll need more information at the moment. GMG^talk 19:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this is about Phoenix Nuclear Labs given the IP's edit history. Seems like they call themselves "Phoenix" now, per their own website, and I am inclined to consider a company's own website a reliable source for their own name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(I have too many tabs open.) It works for me, but what to disambiguate with? There is already about a dozen companies called Phoenix, in addition to a generic term Phoenix company. GMG^talk 20:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Phoenix (nuclear energy company)?

Well they seem to do more than just energy production. So I'm not sure if that's a great fit. GMG^talk 22:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

More like Phoenix (nuclear technology company). Link nagualdesign 00:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Since it seems uncontroversial I have:

• Moved Phoenix Nuclear Labs to Phoenix (nuclear technology company) (the former is now a redirect)
• Updated File:PNL logo.png
• Added an entry in Phoenix#Businesses

nagualdesign 01:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note the message I have left on the talk page. We do not change company histories retrospectively. nagualdesign 01:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

"Lost" half an article, massively bizarre formatting...

Sup. Can anyone discover exactly what I did with this edit to completely **** up the page? (Was formatting refs at the time, so I guess it's something to with that, but for the life of me I can't see it!) Scroll to the bottom and see what happens- all the refs, footnotes, half the text, etc., all bleeed into each other. Very much a "WTF"! Any help in preventing me from doing this again would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Just an unterminated sfn ref, see this edit. If you get that sort of problem it's usually worth looking at the wiki code at around the last part of the text which is rendered correctly. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Unbelievable... I'm always amazed as the first time how a mere brace of brackets could cause all that damage! Thanks for your hep David Biddulph, much appreciated, and thanks too for finding it so quickly. I'll bear that in mind for the future- enjoy your good Friday night. Cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)