Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 July 6

= July 6 =

Writing Articles About Companies
I've seen a lot of pages here that have information on corporations and the like and would like to know the restrictions on them. I would like to write about a new company, but not in the advertising sense. This new company has corporate social responsibility and would be deemed something too rare to be considered just another, "2 for 1 Special" type deal. If I were to write about the ethics behind this new green company, how it began and how it works, would it still be considered advertising? This is a bonafide company that has links with the Costa Rican president, Oscar Arias Sanchez, as well as larger organizations such as Omacha. I would just like to know the boundaries behind this so I may be able to write around it. Jessica D (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Ent (talk • contribs) 15:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:CORP, WP:SPAM, WP:RS and WP:YFA. – ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And WP:BFAQ. Note that writing new articles on Wikipedia and having them stick can be very difficult. Wikipedia deletes thousands of articles for failing to comply with our policies and guidelines. It's better to gain experience by editing existing articles first, and reading our friendly manuals. You started editing recently and appear to be off to a good start. I suggest accumulating at least 500 edits to existing articles before tackling the new article challenge. If you want to experiment in your user space, click here: User:The Ent/Sandbox and type a sample of what you have in mind. Then ask us to look at it and we can tell you how to improve its survivability. --Teratornis (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I explained on your talk page, you may be interested in Appropedia, which is a wiki running the same MediaWiki software that powers Wikipedia, but it allows original work and a much wider range of content about environmental topics than Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't my new article in the list of new pages?
I created a new article Hazel Walker at 1:29. Why don't I see it in the list of new pages? I did start it in a sandbox, but shouldn't the creation time and date match when I moved it into the main space?-- SPhilbrick  T  01:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. NewPages only shows newly created pages, not moves. There was a discussion once as to whether the behaviour you describe would be desirable, but I can't remember where. Algebraist 01:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Very odd. If I recall correctly, creating an article in a user subpage is considered preferred activity. It doesn't make sense to look at it when first created that way, as it isn't typically ready for editors to look. And if you recycle subpages, you'd never see it. So if everyone took the advice provided by WP, there would be no new pages in the new pages list. Obviously, there are, but it seems odd to have a whole concept (new page patrollers) built around pages not following the desired creation process. I hope it reflects probability that pages built in the preferred way are less in need of patol, but it's still odd.-- SPhilbrick  T  02:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is probably one of those situations where the large number of features in Wikipedia created a suboptimal connection between two features that different groups of people designed independently, without being aware of what effect they were having on how these features would interact for the user. Speaking for myself, I almost never look at Special:Newpages so I would have been oblivious to the problem you mention. In general, when I look at special pages on Wikipedia, I often wish they behaved differently. Wikipedia would be a lot different if I had designed it (probably much worse). But in general, it seems to work well enough. --Teratornis (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This might be a legacy effect from the early days when people probably started most new articles in article space. In the early days of Wikipedia, before we had articles such as Jupiter and Egypt, there were so many obviously notable topics without articles that Wikipedia had not yet turned into the efficient deletion machine it is today. As time goes on, it probably becomes progressively harder to start new articles that stick, since the remaining topics are progressively more questionable. Thus it is probably becoming more common for people to start new articles in their userspace before throwing them to the wolves. And so it might be time to revisit the behavior of Special:Newpages. I see a Wikipedia talk:Special:NewPages, but it does not have much discussion currently. --Teratornis (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Changing an Image
How do I change a photograph that is included in an article - purely for vanity?

Ted Quinlan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted Quinlan (talk • contribs) 01:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What photograph, what article, and what change? Algebraist 01:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably Ted Quinlan-- SPhilbrick  T  02:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have an image of the subject that can be released under a free license, i.e. one that allows reuse by anyone for anything, including commercial use and derivative images? If so, upload it to Commons, tagging it with that free license, and then use your image in the article. —teb728 t c 04:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See Contact us/Photo submission.  hmwith  τ   15:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Data inconsistency
I don't know which spelling is correct but in the article on Harold Holt his wife's birth name is spelt Zara Kate Dickens (in the "Early Life" section ) however when you click on the link in her biography (Zara Bate) it says she was born Zara Kate Dickins

Suggest making them consistent with the correct spelling.

Russell Gesling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.73.18.106 (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:SOFIXIT? – ukexpat (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Be Bold is overdone - if you don't know, and it isn't obvious, I don't see that making the change, possibly the wrong one, is preferable to identifing the issue so those interested can look into it.
 * I added a request to the talk page - my guess is Zara Kate Dickens, but both are cited in reliable sources, so someone else needs to do the homework.-- SPhilbrick  T  02:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Order of template messages
For a template message of italic text and an article message box, which comes first in order in an article?--Mikespedia (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See Hatnote and Lead section for guidelines. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

re:Mary Katherine Day-Petrano -- U.S. Autistic Savant
I'm not sure whether this would qualify for a speedy, though I suspect it would (see the history of the page and look at the name of the user who created it). However, if it's to be kept, the article should be moved to a more appropriate title. Vltava  68  03:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Aligning
Much like is there on I can use for aligning things to the right? --- Scarce  ||||  Talk  - Contrib. --- 04:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Yes —teb728 t c 04:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That works for text, but if you are aligning images, then use:






 * Which works for anything. Adjust the margin as needed.


 * Similarly, to center:






 * ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 05:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Or simply:






 * With left, right or center as appropriate. :)  weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  15:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Counters
There was a tool that would show you how many edits the most prolific contributors had made to a specified article, but my old PC went to Microsoft Hell and took my link to it with it. There was also another program that would display how many people had visited an article within a certain time period. Help a victim of WP:EDITCOUNTITIS. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Clarityfiend, long time no see. I've always just used stats.grok.se for the latter, but weirdly, that tool seems to be a broken link now (see also ). As for the former request, I use the wikichecker.com. Hope that helps, regards SpitfireTally-ho! 05:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thanks. (Grok works fine.) Now back to the hamster wheel for me... Clarityfiend (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Translation questions
What is the best place to ask translation questions like Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism ? bamse (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be the Languages Reference Desk. Or maybe someone at WP:CHINA (or other relevant country wikiprojects) would be able to help.  C h a m a l  talk 08:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright tag
Only one paragraph from one section of this article violates copyrights. However, when I tried to add the message on the beginning of the section confirmed, it covered up everything afterwards, including the ones that was original. What can I do? All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 07:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to add  at the end of that section, as Template:Copyvio says. The template pages usually give instructions on how to use them, so you can refer to them (Just place Template: before the name of the template and search to get the page) if you are unsure.  C h a m a l  talk 08:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a moment... Won't it be better if I just delete the whole paragraph? I'll do that for now.All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 08:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as there are other, original contributions in the article, just deleting the offending section is often the best idea. You could contact the editor who added the material to point out the copyright rules, as well - it's useful for him or her to know, and they may have been trying to donate material and want to pursue that in the proper way. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Though having looked at the article in question, are you sure it was a copyvio? The only hit I get for searching for part of the paragraph you've now removed (the one beginning "The real-life Captain Alec MacLean" - is that the right one?) is to an answers-type site that appears to be mirroring Wikipedia, since that paragraph was in the article back in February and the contribution to the other website is timestamped in March. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The paragraph was from the website of the Washington University Press:. It was adapted from the first paragraph. All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 14:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see - yes, yours was a good edit. Well caught. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see the changes I made yesterday for an article
Hi I edited an article and pressed the save page button and did everything else that was asked for, but still do not see any changes even after 1 day! What did I do wrong? Please help!!

Nimmy03081980 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Nimmy
 * Your contributions log shows this as the only edit you have made with this account. (Though you may have edited an article which has since been deleted - as a non-admin I can't see deleted articles.) Which article did you edit? Gonzonoir (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your account does not have deleted edits at the English Wikipedia. Many things could have happened. For example, if you as a new user added an external link then you would have to answer a CAPTCHA before the edit was saved. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Or if you weren't logged in when you edited, the edit attributed to your IP address may since have been deleted. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Or there was an edit conflict and he, for some reason, was not aware of it? All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 14:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Strange template in Evernote
I was editing the article on Evernote when I came across a template that started with

{{*

What is this template, and what does it do? It seems to transclude other content, however, I can't find the source of this content. Instead of just deleting it, I wanted to find out more...

Thanks in advance! &mdash; QuantumEleven 10:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The template is {{tl|*}}, which redirects to {{tl|•}}. It simply creates a middot, used to separate words in a list; it is misused in this instance. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  {{sup|talk}} 11:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah-ha - thanks! &mdash; QuantumEleven 11:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess Gadget850 didn't look at the source of the page to see the complete template name. I have removed the template. If you click "Edit this page" then at the bottom of the window there are links to transcluded pages. Before my removal the list included Template:* CEO and Web Software Developer: Amir Ali Behrooz. See more at Help:Template. The template itself should also be deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Algebraist 12:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Missed it by that much... ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  {{sup|talk}} 13:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The original question might have included a smidge more context. Help desk helpers tend to dash off replies as quickly as possible, to avoid the dreaded edit conflicts. So we occasionally go with our first guess and sometimes it is wrong. I've done it lots of times. Fortunately we have multiple helpers who check the answers. Hopefully the questioners stick around long enough to see the corrections. --Teratornis (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I sometimes inform the questioner of a new reply, for example if they got a wrong reply and may not stick around. I did so in this case: . PrimeHunter (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Offensive Content
How should i report if i find a content on wikipedia offensive or NSFW ? Shraktu (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored.  The left orium  11:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * However, if the said content appears on a page that has no relevance to it, that's likely to be an act of vandalism and should be removed. Apart from that, "objectionable" content is not removed as Theleftorium said.  C h a m a l  talk 11:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it was a personal attack. All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 14:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a specific article in mind then you can ask about it here. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How Can I Dispute An Article
Dear Staff,

I'd like to dispute the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Word_Television_Network

and need instructions on how to do that...

Thanks,

Glades2

Glades2 (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Click on the discussion tab at the top and explain what you find wrong with the article on the discussion page. -- k a i n a w &trade; 13:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As Kainaw says, you can add to the article discussion page. Explain what you find wrong - sometimes simple rephrasing can be all that is required, if so state what you think should be there. If you have some evidence of an inaccuracy, mention that too, along with any relevant citations (either of reliable websites, or reliable books). The important thing is that there should be evidence of the unreliability or inaccuracy (or blatent lies, if that is the case!) that you can present. With reliable evidence, an editor will be quite happy to make appropriate alterations to the article.  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 13:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help - I went to the discussion page, but how do I enter the discussion itself (or is it the same way that I'm entering my comments now)?Glades2 (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct. Edit the page.  There is a tab with a + to make it easier to add a new discussion. --  k a i n a w &trade; 14:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The tab is labeled 'new section' by default. Algebraist 16:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Image question
My question for this image is regarding the different versions of the image. It was uploaded with one version, then a modified one, but the most recent image is actually a completely different image. The source for the image isn't even the one that corresponds to the promotional image. Should this file not have been uploaded under a different name? Thank you. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 16:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine as it is, just ask the uploader to provide a source. If they can't, then the original needs to be re-uploaded. Xenon54 (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup and Pictures
I was wondering two things: one, if you have improved part of an article that requires cleanup, can you take off the flag or do you have to submit it to something (from Continental Airlines page, the Environmental Record section) and secondly, how do you put a picture into an article. Thanks in advance, --Plane Person (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you've improved the article, you can remove the tag. If someone replaces the tag, it indicates they still think there are issues, which is a great time to discuss on the article's talk page. As for pictures, first be sure the image has been uploaded, either on Wikipedia or on Wikimedia Commons. Then, simply place [[File:Image name.jpg]] in the article. Be sure to copy the file name exactly, including the extension. TN X Man  16:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you understand a template and why it was there, and fixed the reason it was there, then you may certainly remove it. Be sure you understand it, however. And to add an image, type (Image name).(suffix, i.e., jpg, etc) . Only images under a free-license may be used, however (try Commons).  Intelligent  sium  16:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.96.61 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

researches
please do not hesitate to contact me for the : the web site : http-sayeghresearches.wetpaint.com http://sayeghresearches.wetpaint.com/page/dr.antoine+sayegh+researches+Home?mail=1130 the e-mail : —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.153.128.12 (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to ask. This desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. Is there something with which we can help you? TN X Man  17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User appears to be trying to contact various heads of state including Ban Ki-moon about AIDS and cancer - that's all I can get from the broken English on the linked page. Sorry, we can't help you. Xenon54 (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hotlinking a section rather than a whole page
I'd like to hotlink a section of a page rather than the whole page. I know I'm using terminology that makes zero sense, so let me explain:

Let's say I want to display the contents of the Template:WikiBreak on a page. Simple, I just type WikiBreak. Now, let's say I want to display the contents of User:Bob the Wikipedian. How do I do that? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The easiest way is to move the contents of that section to a subpage, say User:Bob the Wikipedian/Current projects and then transclude it into your user page and anywhere else you want it. Algebraist 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Algebraist is correct. An example of this in action is my own userpage. Compare what you see on the page to what is displayed in edit mode. I've set the page up to display transcluded subpages. TN X Man  17:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured that would be my only option, but glad to know I'm not the only one who has to resort to that. I'll go figure out how to get a v/d/e template on it as well.  Thanks, both! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OR; you can wrap what you want to transclude in . ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 19:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving important discussion
Can someone move this discussion to WT:NFC? I need it to be moved ASAP, thanks Arteyu ?  Blame it on me !  19:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How to move a meta:Wikipedia content article to a different namespace
Hi, I have authored an article. Which has been Afd'd as being an essay. They suggested that I move it to the Village Pump. I have not a clue as how to do this. Please see Wikipedia culture Talk Wikipedia culture Sfrahm (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, what was suggested was that you or someone else move the page to your userspace. I have done this for you and you can find the article at User:Sfrahm/Wikipedia culture. This will allow you to work on improving the piece. Usually, Wikipedia does not have many articles about itself. I would suggest looking at the article on Wikipedia, as well as reading the info on writing your first article. TN X Man  19:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempt to help, however I disagree with your interpretation as follows: No, that is not what was suggested. I quote. "Wikipedia article space is not the place for personal essays. I think you'll find a better discussion environment at the Village Pump." Which in effect was a lateral arabesque, (Please see The Peter Principle) which I find objectionable in the sense of being counter-productive to my efforts in seeking to promote universal CAD. I also consider the move itself to be yet another display of Wikipedia self-destructive insularity.

If I am to be permitted to affect the environment that I am participating in, to positive effect, segregating my comments to an individual User:Talk is not an effective solution either. I contend that Wikipedia affords a hostile and not-useful environment to new users and for it to continue to survive in any sort of a useful condition, must needs allow some measure of meta content that leads to introspection, and iterative improvement. The intellectually biased operational mode of "we are smarter than thou" has already helped destroy many greater institutions than Wikipedia.Sfrahm (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you believe that Wikipedia is self-destructive, then perhaps you should not bother with it? Having read the essay you wrote, I concur with TnxMan. It is not suitable as an article, and so has no place in the main wikipedia. I have not found many editors with a "we are smarter than thou" attitude. Those that have that attitude tend to not stick around for long. Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. If you don't like this, then you are not forced to contribute, or even look at the website. Of course, if you feel *really* strongly, Sfrahm, why not get your own website sorted out, which allows people to post whatever they like - you can even use Wiki software on it! If you own the website, then you can control what is and isn't put on there. You might alternatively like to review What Wikipedia is not.  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 21:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts and opinions are not new. I believe that the poor usability and built-in discouragement of new contributors function of the user interface is counter productive to the goals and aims of Wikipedia. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_future_of_Wikipedia#Evidence_against_self-healing_theory.3F As a matter of fact, I am sorting out my own overgrown website project, currently existing with only two of us working on it. I will be sure to soon add a branch utilizing wiki software as part of it's natural progression of growth. I did not object to my essay being deleted from the general Wikipedia namespace per-se. I objected to the evident lack of a good place to put contributions, driving toward the self-healing function that Wikipedia will need to be able continue even and improve it's usefulness to the world. While attempting to begin to repair the broken government of the United States of America, I happened to detect a measure of brokenness in a favorite reference source. Please pardon my boldness in trying to help. Now, where and how should this present digression in discussion be moved to, pray tell?Sfrahm (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC) A clarification of my contentions. I am not saying that any of many wonderful dedicated fellow editors of Wikipedia have a "smarter" attitude. What I am talking about is what the partially automated culture of Wikipedia tends to inspire in new and potential new contributors. This is what I perceive as broken, not any of the human personalities involved, the meta perceptions of noobs is what I am concerned about.Sfrahm (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia certainly can be hard on newbs. We have registered user accounts, but perhaps only 100,000 of them represent users who have made a significant number of edits. Depending on how one looks at it, that's something like a 99% failure rate, if the goal is for everyone who dabbles on Wikipedia to become an accomplished editor - is that in fact the goal? I thought the goal was to have fun; if people don't think Wikipedia is fun, they leave - which is what the vast majority of people who try to edit on Wikipedia seem to do. Involvement in Wikipedia follows a Pareto distribution, which means the site depends on its ability to attract a relatively select group of people who seem to have some unusual personality traits. This might be troubling if Wikipedia were in some sense a failure - but here we are with the world's fifth-most valuable Web property (after Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, and AOL). Wikipedia cannot be all things to all people, and doesn't even try to be. I look at Wikipedia as being similar to elite military units such as the SEALs. Elite organizations pride themselves on having a high washout rate, even among their applicants who are already a highly select group. Of course Wikipedia tries to present itself as being welcoming and friendly, but as you have discovered that is far from true for everyone. The key factor seems to be the preconceptions a person comes to Wikipedia with. Many new users seem to have firm assumptions about what Wikipedia should be, and then they learn the hard way that assuming reality is different than discovering it. I had my erroneous assumptions about Wikipedia too, but as I learned more, I decided there are some pretty clever ideas here.
 * If you are interested in studying the internal operation of Wikipedia, and possibly improving it, see the links under WP:EIW. There exists a community of people who research Wikipedia. You might read their papers and see what they have to say. Maybe you could contribute to this research. For the most part, this research doesn't seem to take place on Wikipedia itself, certainly not in the article namespace, since we have that no original research thing. --Teratornis (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Misdirecting editors
Is it appropriate to misdirect editors and readers on the main page or anywhere else on wikipedia? For example, would it be appropriate to link to Paris in an effort to mislead readers who believe they are going to the page of the more popular city in France by not displaying the link as Paris, Texas? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, depending on context, sometimes (for example, pretty well the entire April Fool's Day main page is typically reliant on that). But in general clarity is good.  Why do you ask? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Balloonman/DYK hooks--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh. It's a personal essay about how to write catchy hooks.  I don't see much the problem there.  He's not advocating anything bad or untowards; and users are generally allowed to write essays such as this in their userspace.  Heck, I have half a dozen just like it in my userspace.--Jayron32. talk . contribs  23:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)