Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 March 11

= March 11 =

report of events still in the future
Dear Editors: I was reviewing an article about a new television station Mathrubhumi News. I started removing the promotional stuff, but then I came to a section that is about parts of a planned network that don't exist yet. However, the company has announced on television that it is about to build them. Should information about not-yet-existing things be in the article? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * sure. why not? Dell table (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:CRYSTALBALL for guidance on what future events should be included. RudolfRed (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So far it's only the announcement that has actually happened, so only the announcement as such can be included. Roger (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

it it for school
it this website safe for kids at school? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.244.238 (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Remember that Wikipedia is not censored, so depending on what you consider "safe" and the age of the child, you might want to provide supervised browsing. RudolfRed (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:AFP offers a brief introduction to Wikipedia for parents and legal guardians. Wikipedia contains an awful lot of information, including a small amount of content which may not be suitable for kids. You may also be interested in another independent project, the Schools' Wikipedia — a specific selection of about 5,500 articles from the English Wikipedia, suitable for school children, which has been checked and edited for this audience. It contains about the equivalent content of a 20-volume encyclopedia organized around school curriculum subjects, and is available online and as a free download. The articles were manually sorted for relevance to children, and adult topics were removed. Thanks -- Ushau97 talk  contribs 04:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

When someone writes on my talk page where do I respond so that the person will see it?
When someone writes on my talk page where do I respond so that the person will see it? If I answer on my talk page then how does the person know it is there?billdakelski (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors differ on this one. I prefer to answer on my talk page, immediately below the question, so that the conversation is all in one place and easy to understand later. If you think that the other person might not see your answer, you can leave a talkback template on the other person's talk page to alert them. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference (section)
Hello I am new in wikipedia. I haved learned how to use and edit all of my articles but i don't now how to use references.pls help me to this kind of stuff and now how to use this.justinralphman888 (Talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinralphman888 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This might help; it's an essay I wrote for new editors in your position. Hope it's useful. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, you can sign your edits by typing ~ (there's a shortcut to do this at the bottom of the edit window), you don't have to type out your username. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like the inquirer was referring to the Em-Amen page. I have done some general cleanup and requested a template for deletion which Justinralphman888 created only for the purpose of using in that page (probably). Ushau97  talk  contribs 10:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have done some more clean-up, and deleted the long lists of countries and cities in which Em-Amen sells telephones. There isn't much left. Maproom (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Help:Introduction to referencing --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

using portal
hello i am new in wikipedia. all i dont now how to make a "portalbox"pls help me.justinralphman888 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinralphman888 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by portalbox. Please clarify. Ushau97  talk  contribs 10:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

oh sorry i ment infobox.I now how to use a infobox but every time i make a new sentence in it, it do not show up when i save it,pls help me.justinralphman888 (talk) ( Justinralphman888 (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinralphman888 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 11 March 2013


 * I guess you refer to the infobox in Em-Amen. The code starts  so the documentation is at Template:Infobox company. You can only use the documented parameter names. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have corrected 2 of the parameter names & one of the values, but there are others which need correcting. As well as getting the right parameter names (and the name includes getting the case correct), you need to look in Template:Infobox company to see what the parameter values should be. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Bot
Danish, wiki has just gone into the project to remove the iw and replace with wikidata. There is only one bot in charge of the task so it is very slow process. Is it possible that some will make a bot available in Danish wikipedia, so we get phased wiki data faster? --89.249.2.53 (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Launchball
Before I go ahead and edit it, is there anything wrong with me editing the article Launchball?-- Laun  chba  ller  11:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with you editing this article. Ruslik_ Zero 12:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But "Launchballer" comes very close to being a promotional name. Maproom (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

2013 Holidays
The calendar for holidays says it is 2013 but is showing 2012 days, i.e. showing Feb 29 which doesn't appear in 2013. Whole calendar needs to be updated for 2013 or marked as 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EKemargo (talk • contribs) 11:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Which Wikipedia page are you looking at? There isn't a page called 2013 Holidays. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is Portal:Holidays/Calendar. Like the rest of Wikipedia, portals rely on volunteer effort to keep them up to date. It appears that no-one is very interested in maintaining this page. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have changed Portal:Holidays/Calendar to say which year is actually displayed now: 2012 for January-February, and 2011 for March-December. I'm not planning on spending time updating the months to 2013. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

How far can Wikipedia go?
There is this article called Bestgore.com, most of the content and the logo is by a user called JunoBeach. Apart from the fact that the article is obviously no article (advertising, no relevance, no article), the logo of this website which was also uploaded to wikipedia and which is visible in the article is showing an incredible violent picture of a dead woman. Such content is not appropriate for wikipedia. Also the article, which is called like the domain of the website, and not "Bestgore" is pure advertising. What do you guys think about that? Would a new deletion process for the article and especially for the logo make sense? Participate! Incarus (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that content is violent doesn't necessarily disqualify the article, since there are articles here about all sorts of things, including violent ones. The relevant criterion in this case would be whether the site is notable enough to deserve an article, not whether the content is disgusting to you. As for it being "advertising", one should look at the general tone, and make sure it is encyclopedic instead of reading like an ad or marketing brochure; if there are problems in that regard, they might be solved by rewording rather than necessarily deleting the whole thing. One might also look into conflicts-of-interest if it turns out that most of the writing/editing has been done by somebody associated with the site itself (I have no idea whether this is true in this case), though this can get bizarrely tricky given that we also have strict, draconian policies against "outing" the real identity of a pseudonymous contributor, which can make it pretty darned hard to talk about any possible connection they have to subjects being written about. And where the logo is concerned, policies regarding copyrighted images would apply, meaning that any use of it would have to follow our fair-use guidelines, which have all sorts of hoops the image uploader has to go through like providing a valid rationale. If this hasn't been done, the image is subject to deletion. I believe use of a logo of a site in the article about the site is considered valid fair use, though. And regarding whether the .com should be part of the title or not, the standard here is generally to use the form of a name most commonly used and recognized; do users of that site mostly speak about it with or without the suffix? My personal aesthetic preference is to leave out ".com" suffixes unless absolutely necessary to disambiguate (e.g., distinguishing amazon.com from the Amazon river and rain forest), but that's just me. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you are not taking it down if the girl's family feels offended by the picture, and coming with a legal threat? Im, not saying just saying. --89.249.2.53 (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are personal-privacy and legal issues involved, the Wikimedia office might have to get involved, which changes the whole situation. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No i dont know anybody from the family, it was just a tip to incarus if he wanna be sure, about what the think. --109.232.72.49 (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree to you, not every relevant topic is worth an article. Also there are other factors which make it clear, that this special topic is not worth an article: the article is pretty much from only one person, maybe with financial interests. There are pretty much no other edits by this user so the user serves a single purpose. Also there are no interwikilinks, just because on other wikipedias, articles like that will never exist. Beside of that, we still have the violent picture, which could even be a legal issue. One have to check if this might violate local laws and/or laws about the youth protection. Incarus (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Once it now worry so much maybe you should write an email to her family and ask if they mind the image of her hanging. --89.249.2.53 (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you represent the family involved? They might have standing to make a formal request through proper channels if there are legal/privacy issues involved, but anonymous commenters unconnected with the family wouldn't. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * JunoBeach has made many other, unrelated, contributions to Wikipedia. I see no reason to suspect financial interests. Maproom (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The suitability of the article is entirely dependent on WP:V and its subsidiary policies. Not whether things are offensive/appalling/violent. On the legal issue, please see WP:LAWSUIT. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, sorry but the article is not promotional in tone or advertising spam, actually the site has a fairly wide notability due to their posting of the Luka Magnotta alleged icepick murders, I read about it frequently during this case and I'm in Europe. The article is referenced, encyclopaedic in tone and not unduly shocking or gory, in fact it's not either of those at all. Apparently you object to the use of the image, you should take that up with the site owner himself as Wikipedia is just a reflection of what's out there.

Also, concerning the girl's family (?), please see no legal threats.

Finally, if Wikipedia were to begin to delete articles that some people took offense to then we should probably get rid of just about everything, asides obvious "shocking" material such as coprophilia, torture or Human Centipede, all articles about religious subjects would have to go as they would offend atheists or agnostics or just people from the other faiths; all articles about politics, philosophy, belief systems etc. would have to go to as, for example, the concepts of Scientology or Neuro-linguistic programming tend to offend a lot of people (not necessarily the same people of course), capitalists probably find articles about Communism or Socialism offensive to some degree and vice-versa. And so on and so on.  Captain Screebo Parley! 13:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, sorry it was not meaning like a legal threat, from me i swear i just wanna give incarus a tip, what he could do, just to get it resolved quickly and easily. Please, do not to ban my ip address forever. To be enough to apologize if it is to be, it was not meant so I just wanted to make a friendly advice to incarus ): 109.232.72.49 (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have replied at my talk page, no threat perceived, no worries.  Captain Screebo Parley! 16:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You guys still don't get the problem. I'm pretty sure that the following picture from the article violates local laws and/or laws about youth protection (also mention that sites like that are hosted abroad due to legal issues, wikipedia isn't and doesn't have any youth protection measures): File:Bestgore.com-LOGO.jpg Incarus (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * addendum: per the OP's remarks that the site is pure advertising because the article is at Bestgore.com, I have checked and this is perfectly acceptable, please see Amazon.com.  Captain Screebo Parley! 13:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to take part in this discussion, but the above image is copyrighted and therefore cannot be shown here. I have turned it into a link. Chamal T •C 14:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I also looked into this, please take note of the following and do not delete the image, thanks.
 *  Captain Screebo Parley! 16:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think 's point was that the image cannot be displayed here, at this help desk. It's correctly tagged for use in the article. I've added "nowiki" tags to your post so that the template doesn't add inappropriate categories to this page. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh fine, didn't realize the tag would add categories to this page, but upon reflection I guess those bots get everywhere. I understood (and still believe) that Chamal's point is that the image is copyright and by wikilinking to WP:NFC believes that it has no place on WP at all. Anyway, as you say, it's correctly tagged over there, under fair use rationale, thanks for the   tags. Cheers!  Captain Screebo  Parley! 19:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And just to explain a little more, images uploaded pursuant to the non-free content criteria can be used only in the article mainspace.--ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"picture from the article violates local laws and/or laws about youth protection" What local laws do you think the picture violates and what makes you think it is a "youth protection" issue? --Dweller (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * At least it is a violation of German laws, I'm not sure which laws applies here. Beside from international laws, there are server in Tampa, Florida and Amsterdam. I haven't looked up the youth protection laws of Florida, but I'm sure there are also laws against such things. Incarus (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The law which applies here is Wikipedia is not censored. Why don't we discuss the more substantive issue of whether the website is notable? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  23:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That are start a delete discuss about the image, if you wanna read .--80.161.143.239 (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Italcising article titles
Articles that are about and named for species, e.g. Narcissus cyclamineus, have, or should have, their titles in italics. But I have failed to find out how this is achieved. Can someone please explain? Maproom (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Italicizing the article can be done by using the template Italic title. However in the example you have given, this functionality is implemented in the taxobox template Speciesbox itself, which is used in the article. Chamal T •C 16:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Maproom (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-Protection
I am editing an article titled Petar II Petrović Njegoš and I wish to see it semi-protected due to persistent vandalism relating to the subject's ethnicity. How do I do this since I do not have administrative powers? 23 editor (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You can place your request at WP:RFPP and an admin will review it. 18:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! 23 editor (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What I see in the history of that page is not vandalism. Articles about the Balkans can arouse strong feelings regarding ethnicity, and some of the edits have been unhelpful, but they are not vandalism, and describing them as vandalism to those responsible will not make your task easier. Maproom (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of inference as a reference
I'm, at the moment, having a dispute with another editor about putting in some information about Beyoncé's pregnancy. Jennie x keeps wanting to cut out [a legitimate source http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beyoncé_Knowles&oldid=543468345] saying that the sources themselves does not explicitly say that she was using a surrogate so they are not relevant, but I wanted to show readers that a star in the end of their supposed first trimester performing in ways that would risk an actual pregnancy. Is inference not allowed on Wikipedia? thanks--Aichik (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * IMHO, no, because inference is a form of original research in that you are drawing your own conclusions from a set of facts. Now if a reliable source draws those conclusions it may be appropriate to report them, assuming that WP:BLP is not violated.--ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * See also: WP:synthesis (as well as WP:original research). —74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Solar System Ambassadors Program and notability
Dear Editors: I started to review a new page, Gregory McCartney, which would need to be totally rewritten to be acceptable (external links, excessive detail, etc,). The creator is actively working on this page, and is the subject of the article. Of all of the items on the page, only two could possibly be notable. One is his "Stars Above Hawaii" show and program for amateur astronomers, and the other is his membership in the NASA Solar System Ambassadors Program. I would like to request that someone more experienced take a look at this. The Ambassadors program is notable, but how far does this rub off on an individual member? This page needs to be tackled one way or the other, and I'm not sure I'm up to it. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)