Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 August 30

= August 30 =

Redirect literature question
Hello. I would like to to direct Chinese fiction to the article Chinese literature. How do I accomplish this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baudelaire Serene (talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect created. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirects and Wikipedia search
Dear editors: Grey box testing  redirects to Gray box testing. Since the Wikipedia search engine appears to discount capitalization and punctuation, do we also need:
 * Gray-box testing
 * Grey Box Testing ? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(There are also System identification, Software testing, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mathematical models: Grey box completion and validation, and Grey box so this is a little confusing.)  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you're right that those should both redirect to Gray box testing; the fact that they currently redirect to Software testing doesn't seem correct if the article Gray box testing exists.    Sophus Bie  (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that the two bulleted redirects were of no value at all, since the Wikipedia search engine ignores the capital letters and the hyphen. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Logo different on PC vs Smartphone
When Google searching "Eurest" on Smartphone, the logo for Eurest in the United States that appears on the Wikipedia "search page" is outdated (old blue and pink logo). When clicking on the logo, it goes to Eurest in France. However, the content on the search page is for Eurest in the United States. The logo should be the grey version that is on www.Wikipedia.com/Eurest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.149.36 (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So Wikipedia has got it right, and Google has failed to copy Wikipedia's information correctly. This often happens. Unfortunately, there is nothing that we here at Wikipedia can do about it. Maproom (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When you do a Google search Google determines what information to display. They choose to display text from the English Wikipedia article, and an image from the French version of the article. That is the choice of Google, and Wikipedia has no control over it. However, you do have some control.


 * If you click on the "feedback" link, you have the option of identifying the image as "wrong". I just did that. If enough people do that, someone will look into it and fix it. I have seen these issues corrected with only a couple people making the correction.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And actually, there is a way for you to correct it (based upon some plausible speculation). The colored logo is in a proper infobox, while the grey logo is just added as an image. I am reasonable sure that Google prefers an image in an infobox over one that is not in an infobox, so you could add a proper infobox to the English article, and Google would probably automatically correct itself. If you happen to know that the colored logo is outdated, you could propose it for deletion.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In this case it appears Google combined text from the English article Eurest with an image displayed in the French article fr:Eurest, but our standard reply at Template:HD/GKG still has some relevance. Google often combines a Wikipedia text with completely unrelated claims and images. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the template needs improvement. The standard message says "We have no control over how Google presents our information". That is both false and misleading. If OP fixes the ENWP article so it conforms to a standard article format, the problem will be fixed, so "we" can control it. (I haven't bothered to do it for the OP as the article is worthless, and either needs a fair amount of work, or deletion. The OP is invited to improve it.) Second, stating that we have no control leaves the impression that there is nothing to be done. In fact, clicking on the feedback link has been VERY effective in my experience. I see no reason not to tell readers that they do have some control. In fact, if I get some time, I'll try to correct our misleading template.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, we can sometimes influence Google without having direct control over their display, but it seems speculative to me why they chose the French image fr:File:Eurest logo.gif over the English File:Eurest.jpg. Trying to second-guess Google is a big part of the whole SEO industry. Maybe they just like "logo" in the name, or like gifs, or like colors (a black/grey image might be thought a "defective" version of a color image), or maybe it isn't about the image at all but about the French article scoring higher in some Google metric. And there are lots of searches where Google shows text from an English Wikipedia article which has an infobox with an image, but Google displays a non-Wikimedia image. Eurest is the only case I currently know where the English Wikipedia has an image with no infobox while another language Wikipedia has an image in an infobox. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Google's images for Knowledge Graph come from their own image search results, whichever ones are highest or are hardcoded. Thus, their robot doesn't care about Commons/enwiki/frwiki for that, it cares about however it determines the high ranked image search results. ~ Charmlet -talk- 02:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Printing the article MATRIX CALCULUS on PDF
Sirs, I have not been successful in printing the the Mathematics Portal article MATRIX CALCULUS though I can print most articles in that portal. Is the problem with my laptop or with the article? I use Adobe Acrobat 6.0 Professional.41.190.226.34 (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the problem is, but I just tried it and I was able to print the article Matrix calculus as a PDF. So the problem is apparently not with the article itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit War
I am a professional photographer and have come to Thailand to update the photos of the Wikipedia pages related to the areas that I visit. A user (User:Paul_0120) has decided that pictures of cars and blue sky's are far more valuable then professional photos that truly represented the areas that I contribute to. I have tried to reason with the user and it looks to me as this user feels that he owns these pages, and it summarily removing the photos and replacing them with ones that are of sub standard value and for that matter could be of anywhere in the country. His reasoning seems to me to be unjust and it is unproductive to the Wiki's that he feels that he controls. I would like others to chime in and provide some additional perspective if we can, thank you! talk --WPPilot 14:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that professional photographers have a real gift and should be respected. Maybe you two can make an agreement about the photos, such as, "I will put this photo of ___________ here, and you can put one of ____________ over there." That way both of you get what you want. Krburke12 (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see Dispute resolution for the standard resolution process. I see that you've contacted  on his talk page which is a good first step in the right direction.  Dismas |(talk) 15:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * - The most important thing is to take the photos and upload them to Wikimedia Commons, where they're then available to all 200+ language Wikipedias, not just the English Wikipedia. After that, there is plenty of time to get other editors here involved as to what images should be displayed in which articles. I do note that per WP:OWNERSHIP, it's considered improper for one or a group of editors to assert "ownership" of an article or group of articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment John, I do always load to Wiki commons everything that I shoot. My contribs, have for the most part circled the globe and this is the first time that a user has tried to override my professional work with pictures from cel phones and pocket cameras. As per WP:OWNERSHIP the user in question  seems to only work on Wiki's that are related to the area that I am shooting now, Bangkok & Thailand based upon a review of his edit history, and that user seems to feel the need to "control" those pages. I am in Si Lom right now, and after asking 5 Thai people (hotel staff) if my photo was of the Silom area, ALL 5 SAID YES. While many of that users edits look to be productive, for the user to outright dismiss my efforts and replace photos of cityscapes with pictures of clouds and/or cars on a road, that could be any road in Thailand is truly NOT in the sprit of Wikipedia. I am a professional that normally gets paid and paid well for my work, I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and after spending thousands on travel to come here to revise these pages, I now can only hope that my efforts will be respected by that user and that his feelings of Ownership to these wikis will not continue. Thank you for your comments sir! --WPPilot 02:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)WPPilot
 * Hi. If you'd be so kind as to discuss the issue at Talk:Si Lom, that would be great. Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Book creator
I need to know what happened to a book I had created in book creator, it is gone! did you delete it?? Please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kencoach (talk • contribs) 15:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Kencoach: Looking at your contributions, the only edit you have done is one spelling correction to Richard III, Duke of Normandy.  Did you perhaps create the book without logging in, or under a different user name?  The other possibility is that you forgot to save.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Users that are not autoconfirmed yet cannot save books. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's changed recently; any registered editor can save a book to their own user space. See Bugzilla ticket 46944 -- John of Reading (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

History merge requests
Dear editors: I have been checking for articles in which inexperienced users have changed the name of their articles by creating a new article and pasting the text from the old article. This happens quite a bit in the Afc because usually these are new users and don't know how to use the (well-hidden) "Move" option. I've been following this process:
 * If the older article was all written by one person, except for review declines, comments, minor formatting, etc. that aren't copyright issues, was written over a short period of time, and the same editor did the pasting, I request that it be deleted under G6 housekeeping, since there should be no copyright issues in that case. That's about half of the cases.
 * If the older article was created by multiple users, created over many months or years before pasting, or was pasted by someone else besides the article creator, I request a history merge. That fixes up the copyright attributions.

Unfortunately, I have been finding quite a few of these, and since I am not an admin I can't do the history merges myself. Mark Arsten has done some, but lately Anthony Appleyard has been doing most of it and he is tiring of this rather thankless task. (See User talk:Anne Delong.) What is the best way to handle this? Should I try to get more admins involved? Should I stop looking for these doubles? Am I requesting merges on some that are not needed? The longer these older articles hang about, the more likely it is that other editors or bots will come along and start adding to them, making the histmerge more complicated.

Thanks in advance for any advice. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 *  but lately Anthony Appleyard has been doing most of it ...: I am retired and it gives me something to do during the day. Too much riding about to kill time can be expensive in petrol/gasoline.Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Replying from an entrenched position of total ignorance: are you requesting the merges by placing Histmerge on the articles, or by some other means? Because if the former, I'd have thought it might be enough for you or one of the two admins to post a note at WP:AN asking for a few more people to watch Category:Candidates for history merging. It's clearly unreasonable for the whole burden to fall on two people; but in a certain sense, if other admins are not pulling their weight then that is, for us ordinary mortals, an SEP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have been placing histmerge templates on the articles. I realize that I could ask at WP:AN, but I thought that I would check first to see if my criteria for deciding which ones to request merges and which ones to request deletion were in line with general expectations. Maybe I should have asked before I did dozens.... &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To respond to your questions, no, you shouldn't stop looking for these doubles, since you're reducing the backlog of AfCs. As for requesting merges when not needed, I don't see this as an issue, based on your criteria. But, more generally, I suggest assuming that admins will tell you if they think you're wasting their time. (My experience has been that admins are rarely reluctant to speak up about concerns of that nature.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Stubs
How do you delete an article stub? I wrote a short article, and am not satisfied with it, but I do not know how to delete it, as in, the whole thing. Krburke12 (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are the only person who has substantially edited the article, you can put   at the top of the article. That will tag the article for speedy deletion on the basis that the author has requested deletion. After that, an administrator will likely take care of deleting the article within one day. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Krburke12: Since you are the only author of this article, you can request that it be deleted by editing it and adding at the top of the page.  Or, if you want to take it out of the encyclopedia, but think you might want to work on it later, you can move it to a user page for now.  (Don't cut the text and paste it though; ask for help if you don't know how to move a page.) (Sorry, I guess this was an edit conflict, but somehow it was posted without an edit conflict notice.) &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Draft article help request
Hello,

Hope your well. Thanks for all your assistance as of yet. I would like to get an experienced editor to have a look at my article. If possible put it up for me is this an option? Also I've followed all the Wiki procedures and every reference I add of the person is getting declined, but they all notify what I've wrote in my article so unsure to why they've not been accepted.... In regards to your question if I have any media coverage refs of him, yes there is some I have found on the person, I will find it and send to you to verify.....

I have changed all to factual, please let me no if its now only the refs i need before it'll successfully go on the main page? PS: how long do wiki articles usually take to get put on the main page as mine is taking a long time ? Many thanks amellondon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amellondon (talk • contribs) 15:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Presumably you are referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nicky Slim Ting Walker?--ukexpat (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ... and it's taking a long time because you haven't yet done what you were advised to do when you asked at above. Without references that adequately demonstrate that the subject is notable, your article will never be published. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and here's a reminder of what is says in each of the boxes at the top of your draft:
 * "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
 * What you can do: Add citations (see Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.".
 * Is there something in that advice, or in the links provided, which isn't sufficiently clear? - David Biddulph (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Format for citations
I am not a regular contributor but located some missing info to add to an existing page. I used the new edit tool, which was great. What would make it even better would be to give an example of the format for citations. I suppose I could have looked up the preferred format, but that would mean a new window, a search, etc. Can you just ghost the preferred format in the box, like [author][title][url][last visited date], or something like that?

BTW, linking to another page within Wikipedia worked great!

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.132.237 (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure exactly how VE deals with citation generation, but there are many different formats for citations depending on the media, access type, status, and possible fields. That'd be a lot of information to be ghosted, and not all would be in any way relevant to most citations. However, you may find ProveIt useful; it's a tool that allows you to select your citation type, enter the relevant information, and insert the completed citation into the article. drewmunn talk 17:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a consensus that VisualEditor should include a pull-down menu with a limited number of cite templates, but it's unclear how long it will be before this is implemented - some months, I'd guess. More generally, comments and suggestions for VE should be posted at WP:VE/F.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 01:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I need to know what my editing options are
To whom it may concern,

My name is David Flaherty and I own and run Magellan Strategies, formerly Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies. My company offers quantitative and qualitative survey research services to Republican candidates, organizations and private businesses. We also conduct predictive analytic projects. I am contacting you to understand what my options are for editing, changing or removing the Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies wiki page.

This "article" about my company was created by someone affiliated with the Mitt Romney campaign in 2011, not anyone associated with my firm. The person that created the page wanted to intentionally harm our reputation  because of a New Hampshire survey that my released in November of 2011 that  showed Newt Gingrich closely trailing Mitt Romney. My issue with the "article" is that it is titled "Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies", and  is supposed to be about my company when all it talks about is the New  Hampshire poll, and other polls that we have conducted.

If this page is going to stay active, and I am unable to edit, remove or change it I wanted to know if the name of the article could be changed to "Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies 2011 New Hampshire Republican Primary  Poll"  or some thing like that.

We have conducted more than 3,000 surveys and have many, many satisfied clients for other things that we do. And if there is going to be a page or article about my  firm, I am going to want to give the entire story of what  we have done, who we are, and what we have accomplished for the past 8  years. It's incredibly frustrating that wikipedia is used by someone to abuse my company, name and reputation based on one survey.

Please let me know what my options are.

Thanks

David Flaherty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjefferson1970 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have copied the above to the best place for it: Talk:Magellan_Data_and_Mapping_Strategies. I hope that someone who watches that page will respond there. Maproom (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have done a bit of work on the article, and provided Flaherty with some guidance on his own talk page. It should be noted that he has been editing this article without ever disclosing his own massive conflict of interest for three years now, before ever inquiring here or anywhere else about how to deal with his concerns in an ethical manner. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, then, this is a step in the right direction! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

User name on another Wikimedia area
Dear editors: I recently needed to leave a message on "meta.wikimedia.org", and I found that my signature was redlinked. I presume that there is a prefix needed to make the signature point to my user page on the English Wikipedia. Can someone enlighten me? Thanks &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Anne. You have a userpage at Meta, just as you do here (and at other projects where unified login provides an account for you), which will remain redlinked until you (or someone else) edits it. Instead of changing your signature, you can create your userpage at Meta, maybe with content like:
 * The same content can be placed at the top of your talk page there. But you could also change your signature to point here, as you propose. For that:
 * The same content can be placed at the top of your talk page there. But you could also change your signature to point here, as you propose. For that:


 * 1) Go to your preferences at Meta;
 * 2) Place a checkmark in the box for "Wikitext signature..."
 * 3) Place in the box above it: ;
 * 4) Click the save button at the bottom. Or, you might want to tell people your signature links to Wikipedia, so maybe instead:
 * Note that this would not be allowed here, per the signature policy (your signature must contain at least one link to your userpage, user talk page or contributions), and might violate WP:SIG, though that's really addressed to true external links; I failed to find any equivalent policy at Meta. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that detailed reply! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Issue with using CE rather than AD in establishing a time period
I was just reading the wiki link on Kontikki. The adventure of Thor Heirdol. In it the author is using a new convention that is obviously intended to unseat the time of Christ as the Waypoint of mankind. I am offended and see this as a deliberate attack on the Christian community. Frankly I am sick and tired of it and won't tolerate it. BC and AD is the correct way to address these time periods and I will not support any author or his work that takes such a direct attack on the Christian faith or accepted convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.152.95 (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please take a breath. We will not allow you to create a lot of drama over this, and have a guideline that addresses the issue. Please see WP:BCE. From a policy standpoint, we prefer neither, but use what's appropriate in context, and if none, follow whatever's already established in an article. If you think there's a good reason in a particular article for a change, post to its talk page but note that a good reason is not a "personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other", such as your view that it "is obviously intended to unseat the time of Christ as the Waypoint of mankind". If you deliberately push your point of view by changing Common Era dates to Western Christian, you can count on ultimately being blocked from editing. Maybe instead you can channel your passion for Christianity into writing some articles on notable clergymen or other suitable topics (but note that you must attempt to write from a neutral point of view—just the facts, not hagiography—citing to reliable sources). Coming here guns blazing with your mind made up is not the way to succeed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You used several "alternative" spellings in both Kon-Tiki and Thor Heyerdahl, but I'm not going to assume that's a deliberate attack on Incas and Norwegians. And while I agree with Fuhghettaboutit, I see no use of CE in any of the articles at Kontiki (disambiguation) so I guess you also got the article wrong. Common Era says: "Since the later 20th century, use of CE and BCE has been popularized in academic and scientific publications, and more generally by publishers emphasizing secularism or sensitivity to non-Christians." But if you won't tolerate it and are fond of Christian tradition then I guess you can just start Crusades against all of them. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you'd prefer reading Conservapedia rather than Wikipedia, and, speaking only for myself, I encourage you to make the switch. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Waypoint of mankind" -- is that an actual thing? I did a Google search and you appear to be the second person ever to use that expression.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

when can i write something about my efforts ?
when can i write somethimg about myself and my friends? our efforts in our society and job? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabnam bahrami (talk • contribs) 23:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not on Wikipedia. Try Facebook as Wikipedia isn't a social network. -- Neil N   talk to me  23:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Or you could go to a stationer's and buy a notebook. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)