Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 April 3

= April 3 =

Replacing a .jpeg image with a .svg file
Recently, my attention was drawn to Category:Images_that_should_be_in_SVG_format, and I decided to help out. I converted a few images to svg, but when I went to upload them (file page-> file history -> upload a new version of this file-> choose file -> upload image) I received the error message: "File extension ".jpeg" does not match the detected MIME type of the file (image/svg+xml).". I tried editing the name of the file to xyz.svg instead of xyz.jpeg, but it wouldn't let me. How can I upload a new version of an image that is in a different format? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platysvg (talk • contribs) 02:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is in a different format, then it must have a different name, and must be a different file. Upload the new version as a new file. --ColinFine (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

April Fools Image
Came across this (admittedly decently Photoshopped) image which was presumably uploaded for April Fool's Day:

File:88-3029-B-2-Spirit-0349.jpg

Original: http://www.northropgrumman.com/MediaResources/Pages/Photo.aspx?pid%3DBS-50001_008%26rel%3D%2F%26name%3DPhotos

Not sure of the proper protocol for getting something deleted these days, so I thought I'd ask here. Thanks. Nrbelex (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's the 3rd of April now, so it's no longer of any consequence - until next year's fun. Roger (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a non-free image uploaded pursuant to WP:NFCC but as it is not used in any article, it will have to be deleted. I have tagged it accordingly.--ukexpat (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Extremely long list in an article
The list of notable alumni at Hollywood High School is extremely long (the actual length, not the amount of names); you'll see that it's more than twice as long as the rest of the entire article. (I'll bet it's Wikipedia's longest notable alumni list for a high school article.) I assume if it were a table, it would just need to be collapsed (with a show/hide button). But it's not a table; it's just a regular list. So can someone please turn the list into a collapsible table? I have no idea how to do it. Thanks! --76.189.111.2 (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Something has to be Wikipedia's longest notable alumni list. (I have no idea if this is or not.) Do you have a problem with who is included, or do you just think the section is too long? I don't understand why it needs to be collapsed. --Onorem♠Dil 07:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (Original Research) It might well be that the most notable thing about the school is the number of notable students. (Not hard to imagine given the number of high schools that have articles just for existing.) --Onorem♠Dil 07:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hollywood High is one of the most "famous" high schools in the country, but my request has nothing to do with the the names/content of the alumni list; it's solely about the length of the list; it's way too long, particularly in relation to the length of the rest of the article. And MOS says to collapse a table that's too long. I'm simply looking for an editor who knows how to transform the list into a collapsible table. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that extremely long alumni lists for large universities, for example, simpy redirect to their own articles with something like "Main article: List of ABC University alumni" in its place. But again, those are lists, not tables; and they usually are extremely long. I don't think a high school alumni list should have its own article. I just think this one just needs to be collapsed so it won't overwhelm the rest of the article, which is pretty minimal. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Collapsible tables are pretty easy to create, but frankly, I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so with such a huge list. However, if you fancy doing it yourself, here's the formatting you'd need (with just the first four entries):


 * Hopefully that's fairly self-explanatory; each new addition should be formatted as:
 * and don't forget the  at the bottom. Have fun! Yunshui  雲 &zwj; 水  09:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * and don't forget the  at the bottom. Have fun! Yunshui  雲 &zwj; 水  09:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Yunshui. I'll do it. See, I told you it's extremely long! Haha. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I recommend putting the household names on the article and the rest in a separate list article.-- Laun  chba  ller  10:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The usual procedure is to split such lists off to a separate page List of Hollywood High School alumni. Roger (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the input. I took the guidance of the admin (Yunshui) and just spent a couple hours creating the collapsible table after marking this thread as resolved. So I just saw the additional comments. Leaving the "household" names in the article and then having a separate list elsewhere seems unnecessary and inconvenient, considering the rest of the article has so little content. And having a separate article where the list would be two or three times the length of the high school article itself doesn't seem as logical as simply having the collapsible table so that all content can be in one article. Again, this is an odd situation since there are probably very few (or no) other high schools that have as many notable alumni as this one. Obviously, some of the alumni are far more prominent than others, but all of them have their own articles and are therefore assumed notable]). Perhaps there are a couple whose notability might be challenged (as is the case with any long list of people), but I did a quick check of each article and did remove a couple bogus listings. Thanks again for everyone's feedback. [[Special:Contributions/76.189.111.2|76.189.111.2 (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

mem is used to create lists of members, including alumni. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hannah Elizabeth Gwillim Whit
Hi, i am trying to change the main name to Hannah White.

is this possible?

thanks,

Lucy Stone Hannah White's Publicist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannah Elizabeth Gwillim White (talk • contribs) 10:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not allowed to write about yourself or anything that you may have a conflict of interest with.-- Laun  chba  ller  10:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are allowed to, but be careful that you do not violate any policies, especially the neutral point of view policy. - a boat   that can float!   (watch me float)  11:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And since this username is an impersonation of the real person, your account has been blocked. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  12:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So, to sum up:
 * You may not use that account with somebody else's name, but you are welcome to create your own account either with your own name or another name you choose, provided it meets the requirements in WP:USERNAME.
 * You may put information about yourself as a Wikipedia editor on your user page, but it's not recommended to try and write an article there.
 * You shouldn't put promotional material anywhere in Wikipedia.
 * Because of your conflict of interest, you will find it difficult to write a satisfactory article about your employer. If you are determined to go ahead, read the links above, and then use the WP:Articles for Creation mechanism. Better, research to find the multiple substantial references to her in reliable sources independent of her without which an article will not survive, and post at WP:Requested articles --ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Walking distance
A number of articles state that various landmarks 'are within walking distance' of various stations, for example Benhilton church is within walking distance of Sutton Common railway station. Is there a hard and fast rule of what 'walking distance' curtails? My idea of walking distance is from my house in North Cheam to the Aldi in Selsdon.-- Laun  chba  ller  10:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I used to do my shopping in North Cheam, many years ago... AFAIK, there's no offical measure for "walking distance", it's highly subjective. We shouldn't really be using it; it would be far better to state "landmark x is 700 yards (640 metres) from railway station y", if such a precise measurement can be sourced. Walking distance for me is about North Cheam to Ewell... Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Toni Dalli
I wrote and asked about a song that Toni sang years ago,and i am not sure if I have done it right so that someone will see it and perhaps ,can tell me an answer, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patmayjam (talk • contribs) 11:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I've had to revert it because I'm not sure what you said and comments are not allowed in articles. You can post on the talk page if you wish. - a boat   that can float!   (watch me float)  11:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually the best place to ask is on the Entertainment Reference Desk. The talk page is only for improvements to the article.  Rojomoke (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. I'd forgotten. - a boat   that can float!   (watch me float)  13:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

HMS Waterwitch 1892
Not sure if you can help. HMS Waterwitch 1892 has been edited by persons unknown. It is major and has deleted much of context related to ships early history and to her career. Obviously if I knew who the person was I could discuss via TALK but because they do not have a logon name it is not possible. Any suggestions? I have left a message on the HMS Waterwitch TALK hoping they will correspond.

Sidpickle (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's still possible to communicate with IP editors via their talkpages (User talk:2.101.37.82 in this case); I'd suggest leaving a message there asking him to come back to the article talkpage and discuss the matter - he's already left some comments. Whilst a lot of cited content was removed, it looks as though this editor was genuinely trying to make improvements by removing what he saw as a lot of extraneous material. The focus now should be on whether any of that material merits restoration; talk it through and see if you can't reach a compromise. If you're struggling, you might want to ask for a third opinion or even take it to dispute resolution - hopefully, though, simple discussion will suffice. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  13:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I expect he has reverted the article to his (or her) original version. I agree it was not vandalism but a difference of what should be in the article. I tried to put in the historical context of the vessel; she was one of the first ocean going steam yachts and she was 13 years old when the navy purchased her. The history of the ship during the survey career has also been taken out and a postcard cited as source data and even the web link to this is missing. I cannot really be bothered getting into discussions with whoever. I did look for his talk page but could not find it. The work I put in was to dispel the myth (published in the original article)that the ship was the White Ladye and he seems to have accepted that this is the case so some good came out of it. Thanks Yunshui. Hope you have some sunshine. We are cold and miserable in the UK. No sign of Summer! Sidpickle (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion


A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

reason

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Joeterranova (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks from the above as if you are somewhat confused. If you are saying that you want the article Joe Terranova deleted, that was already done earlier today. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I think he's bickering about it being deleted. Mr Terranova, the article was deleted because it was a copyright infringement, it didn't indicate its importance/significance and you shouldn't be writing about yourself.-- Laun  chba  ller  15:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Confusing indeed. The article had been around for ages and recently came up at COIN. I stubbed and tagged it as it had been a copyvio for years. Joeterranova had already blanked it and tried to place a deletion tag on it, so I felt that deletion was perhaps the best option, since there were no non-copyvio versions to revert to (other than an unreferenced stub). Please let me know if you think I made the wrong call. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good call.--ukexpat (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Subject deletion
I don't understand why my post about Bartech was deleted on April 2nd. It was written as an encyclopedia entry, was neutral in tone and mirrored another posting that Wikipedia has accepted: Manpower Inc.. Ccooper36 (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the deletion log, it was deleted due to unambiguous advertising or promotion. Perhaps WP:N and WP:CORP would help you.  Dismas |(talk) 14:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you sincerely believe that what you had added was neutral then I am afraid that you are very much mistaken - it read like a company website, which is hardly surprising seeing that large chunks were in fact copied directly from Bartech's website. As well as being unambiguous advertising, it was therefore also a copyright violation. Please do not post copyrighted material or advertising to Wikipedia again. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  14:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you please review my new submission and let me know if it meets the acceptable standards? Ccooper36 (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a link for convenience: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bartech. Dismas |(talk) 15:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And again, it's too promotional in tone and most of the text is copied verbatim from sources such as this. Dismas |(talk) 15:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not copywrite infringement because I was also the writer of that press release. Those are the facts - what Bartech is, when founded, number of work assignments, etc. Also, how is this entry too promotional in tone and others like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manpower_Inc. are accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccooper36 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It is copyright infringement since the terms of that very page say it is. Copying it word-for-word is a copyright violation. Thanks and good luck ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Statements like "has led the industry for over 35 years", "Bartech improves clients’ market position through greater quality, efficiency, cost savings and transparency" and "That vision and ambition have made Bartech into a trusted global provider and manager of large-scale teams of skilled contingent professionals", among others, are all obviously promotional in tone. They might be allowed to stand if third party, independent and reliable sources had made them, but are unacceptable as they stand.  The Manpower Inc. article has one  unreferenced claim that may be considered propotional (about its Employment Outlook Survey) and even that is tagged as "citation needed".  Rojomoke (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Although there undoubtedly are articles which are over promotional, that is no argument for everyone else to break the rules - please see Other stuff exists. If all articles are reduced to the lowest standard, we will spiral into total chaos. Arjayay (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

If I delete these statements - can the rest of the submission be posted or are other corrections/edits needed? Ccooper36 (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In one word - no. Have you read 'my first article'? You need to find sources (like newspapers) that talk about the company, and it has to be neutrally written. Based on your comment on the talk page before I deleted the article, you work for the company so this is likely to be difficult for you. It might be best to consider creating a short stub only referencing independent sources first of all. As for the current draft - due to the copyright violations it needs to be deleted. If you would like any of the text back drop a note on my talk page and I can email it to you. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Understanding of articles
Hi. I was just wondering if there was a way that people who write these articles could write them in lay-mans terms. I can tell they are full of information, but i lose my head when I'm trying to understand what it is I am reading. So if people could please start taking into consideration the "HOW" of how to write their articles then I think Wikipedia could be a lot more useful to people from ALL blocks of life. Thank-you.

TG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.176.219.249 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You might like to check out the Simple Wikipedia, but you won't find half as many articles there as on here. SmartSE (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Or any of the other languages if you're not fluent in English. Roger (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You are right, but there is probably no way to achieve this. Wikipedia is edited by thousands and thousands of people, some of whom are good at writing clear jargon-free text, and others who are not. Also, many articles are on subjects which are rather specialised, and it is very difficult (and possibly unhelpful) to write them in a way that the non-specialist can understand - I would hope that an article which was an overview of a subject would be clearer, but if you're describing a very specialised and details aspect of a field, it might make the article very long and repetitive to explain every time in layman's language, rather than linking other articles.
 * But more can probably be done, particularly in making the lede of articles more approachable. You are welcome to simplify articles if you think you can, and you are not losing anything important from an article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Please help!
I tagged this article: GNU C-Graph for CSD and now one of the two creating users (who I have reason to believe are the same person) is accusing me of having some sort of agenda. The two users are clearly affiliated with the company, the usernames are User talk:Visionat, User talk:Adriennegt, and IP 72.252.229.15. All three appear to be the same person, the creator of the software, Adrienne Gaye Thompson, as listed on the article itself. "adriennegt" is clear enough and "visionat" is the word "vision" followed by the initials of her first and last names. The IP is assumed to be associated since those three are the only contributors to the article. The accusations against me can be found at Talk:GNU C-Graph and User talk:Visionat. Will someone please explain (reiterate) to this user what COI is and why their article is not acceptable? Please help  Gold   Standard  18:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have warned Visionat about personal attacks - their comments on the talk page are unacceptable.--ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Would you mind looking over the article as well and see if you think my CSD proposal was accurate? and if not, what measure should be taken (AfD or otherwise)? Thanks,  Gold   Standard  18:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This doesn't fit neetly into WP:CSD but there's no hope of it getting through AFD. I agree that the users are all likely the author - note the signature here. Considering that, and the fact that large parts are about accusations of theft and racism, speedy deletion seems then speedy deletion via G11 seems the best option to me. SmartSE (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Smartse. Would you mind leaving the user a note on their talk page explaining why the page was deleted and that you are an admin?  I fear that otherwise the user will come back swinging.  Thanks,  Gold   Standard  20:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I will shortly - once I work out where to begin. SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If they do, there's an app block for that.--ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks to you both!  Gold   Standard  21:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are women being moved into a women's sub catgory but therre s no men only category
Novelists categories Category:Scottish women poets and Category:Scottish women novelists seem to be created so that the main categories are men only. What message is that supposed to give out to schoolchildren using wikipedia - novelist = male? Surely Wikipedia isn't really meant to that sexist? --FDent (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Historically, many fields have been men-only. Women partaking in these fields are cause for separate categorization. When men partake in historically women-only fields (though there are few), they are cause for separate categorization, Category:Male ballet dancers for instance. I don't view it as sexist, I view it as quite the opposite. Scarce2 (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Novelist is clearly not such a "traditionally male" field. Roger (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are interested, WP:Cat/gender has some more details regarding this specific issue. Also remember that categories themselves are solemnly intended for easy access of information - If was looking for information on female Scottish poets i would have to wade trough the 334 entries listed in the Scottish poets category in order to locate the 34 women in there which is quite a pain. Note that categories are often not entirely complete - there are quite likely more female poets in that list. For the same reason categories sometimes don't exist. If someone were to look for female poets they would notice the missing category and end up creating it. Since male poets are much more common it is likely the "We really need that category for this" reaction would not occur. If you feel something is lacking though, feel free to fix it yourself. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This can give rise to apparent incongruities though. For example, Elisabeth Moss refers to herself as an "actor" so that is, rightly, how we describe her in the body of the article, yet we categorise her in "actresses" categories. I am not saying this is wrong, but it can look odd to the casual reader.--ukexpat (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To put it bluntly: Wikipedia isn't sexist, but reality is.
 * If there was a "WikiProject Men's History", it would be a "redirect" to History. That's why there is WikiProject Women's History
 * If there was a "WikiProject Men's Sport" would be a "redirect" to Sport. And that's why there is WikiProject Women's sport
 * Does that clarify things a bit? Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * By this logic, someone could remove any others they considered to be a minority group into a sub-category so that Scottish poets is only male Scottish poets who are not Jewish, gay, black etc. Great if you have an agenda. Since you mention history, does the existence of Jewish history category mean that the Holocaust is missing from the rest of history? --FDent (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * implying that women's history and women's sports need to be separated from the men for some reason... seems pretty sexist to me.--Atlantima (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

article for creation is stuck
I have an article that is ready to be reviewed: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Conrad Bergendoff

However it has been a long time and it has not been approved. Is something wrong?

sbeattie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbeattie (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The article itself was never up for review - due to an incorrectly closed reference tag the review request template was never added and as of such the article was stuck in the limbo (Or rather: never waiting to be reviewed). I've corrected that issue, and it is waiting for review now. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Portishead Facebook Page
Has been created by Wikepedia....how can I take it over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.119.190 (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody at Wikipedia created the page on Facebook. It is Facebook's users or administrators who create such pages by copying some information from Wikipedia. You can ask for advice at the . Roger (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You could also edit whichever page on Wikipedia you're talking about - perhaps Portishead, Somerset or some other page - and improve it by adding information supported by reliable sources (see WP:REFB for how to start on that). Probably Facebook's page will update to reflect those changes, either immediately or after some time. But that's up to them, not up to us. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Jacksonville Oregon
Hi, there are no museums any longer in Jacksonville OR. It would be great if you would remove the references as they are now inaccurate.

Thank you , Jan Garcia, City Recorder, Jacksonville OR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.41.80 (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jan. You can do this yourself if you have reliable sources.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism of the page covering me
The wikedia page about me has regularly been vandalized. It happens every six months. Can you advise how I can prevent this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skropper (talk • contribs) 22:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Every six months is very infrequent compared to some articles. If it was continuing currently we could request that the article be locked, but that would be inappropriate in this current circumstances. Many of our editors monitor recent changes specifically for vandalism and it it usually caught and reverted pretty quickly.--ukexpat (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Steven! I'm sorry to hear that you have been having vandalism issues with the article about you. I've taken a quick peak at the revision history, and noticed that you have edited the page about you.  This is sometimes seen as an issue although I'm sure it was with good intent.  The first thing I recommend you do is add COI to the top of the article, which basically says that a non-neutral party (you) have edited the article. It also says that someone else may want to verify the changes that you have made, and add reliable external sources to back up the changes. I notice that your page also has an "issues" banner which says that it lacks reliable references.  I'm sure that there is no-one that knows better than you what journals, papers, articles, tv interviews, or whatever that you have been featured in.  I would include a list of those references on the talk page to give any neutral party the best chance of improving the article and preventing it from being nominated for deletion.  If you feel that the general consensus of other people of the content of the vandalism would be considered incredibly offensive, a personal attack, abusive, or threatening you may request that the page be semi-protected by Requesting page protection.  I would request it be a semi-protection to block all unregistered users from editing the page.  I hope this helps! Technical 13 (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)