Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 July 21

= July 21 =

File
Could someone please put File:Little Athletics Australia Logo 2.png in the article Little Athletics as I don't know how to
 * ✅ It looks like HueSatLum did it. Piguy101 (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Moving one's own user subpage that has sub-subpages
I'm an autoconfirmed user (not an admin). I just moved a subpage of my own User page; the subpage had several sub-subpages under it. To my surprise, I was given neither the option to move all of the sub-subpages along with the moved subpage, nor the option to move the subpage without leaving a redirect behind. Is this normal? If so, would you kindly explain why those options were not offered to me? Thanks. — Jaydiem (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's normal. At present, only admins have the options to suppress a redirect and to move subpages when moving a page. (There have been periodic proposals to unbundle these rights and give them to selected non-admin users; one such is here.) The main reasons, I think, for restricting these options to trusted users is that (1) inappropriate page moving is a favorite activity of some vandals, and we don't want to make it easier for them, and (2) the need for the options doesn't really arise that often in most people's normal course of editing. As things stand, it's pretty easy to just ask an admin for help if one needs to move many subpages or to tag an unwanted userspace redirect for U1 speedy deletion. Deor (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding! I agree with the concern about potential "move vandalism", but I think everyone could agree that this concern doesn't apply within the subpage hierarchy of a user's own User page. Is there any technical impediment to making that exception? In other words, are "move" permissions granular enough to be applied conditionally only to some cases within a namespace, rather than uniformly throughout a namespace? If it's technically possible, has such an exception already been proposed? — Jaydiem (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, I found WP:Perennial proposals, which is relevant to this topic. The primary objection described there relates to deletion of User subpages. Because the request I'm contemplating involves only adding more flexibility with moving subpages within one's own userspace, but not the ability to delete them, perhaps it has a fair chance of being approved. — Jaydiem (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have submitted a proposal at the Village Pump: Allow "suppressredirect" and "move-subpages" within userspace. — Jaydiem (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

How to create a Wiki
HI team,

I have recently joined Wikipedia and have needed to (as per the requirements) make ten edits and wait four days before my account will be valid. I have done so and now want to know how to get started on creating my own Wiki entries. Your help with this will be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryansauer (talk • contribs) 06:54, 21 July 2014‎ (UTC)


 * Your account is, there are helpful links on your talk page about getting started.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 07:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You also need to understand the difference between Wiki and Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Are interviews considered original research?
If I were to interview an executive producer of an old TV show (late 1980s) and then publish the interview on something like Blogspot, could I cite this in the article about the TV show? I'm asking because I'm at a deadend; I want to include certain production information, but can't find any sources. Is this acceptable? 71.88.173.137 (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, in general blogs are not acceptable as reliable sources. There are some exceptions but they almost certainly do not apply in this case. See WP:UGC. SpinningSpark 08:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is for verifiability reasons, correct? What if the interview were video-recorded, and the recording were made available online? Granted that would be a primary source, which must be handled carefully, but I would think it'd be more verifiable than a mere blog post. — Jaydiem (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not so much verifiability as reliability. Any self-published source has not gone through the editorial and fact-checking processes we expect of a RS.  As you say, WP:PRIMARY is an issue here too.  I think it comes down to a careful consideration of what information is being extracted from this interview.  If it is basic facts that the producer could be treated as expert in, such as how many cameras in what studio, then it is probably ok.  If it is a bunch of negative innuendo about the star of the cast then it probably isn't.  Opinions and synthesis need to be filtered through an independent reliable source before finding there way into Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 21:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I just finished my interview. I asked him stuff like "How did the show get started?" and "What themes did you use when writing for Character A?". It's very detailed and not opinion-based. His email is the same as the one on his official website too. What's the best way for this information to be incorporated? Are you saying it can't ever be included? 71.88.173.137 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you still talking about a video interview? I think I already gave an answer on that. SpinningSpark 22:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It sounds to me like this was an email interview. I appreciate the IP editor's resourcefulness, but unfortunately, it's unlikely that an email interview is going to pass the criteria for inclusion. I suppose a possible workaround might be to create a brief article at Wikinews, and then cite that in the Wikipedia article, but that might be viewed as dodgy. I would encourage the editor to take the issue to the Talk page of the article to which he'd like to add the information gleaned from his interview; perhaps other editors there could help find corroborating sources for the material. (P.S. ~ IP user, let me also encourage you to become a registered user—doing so has many benefits!) — Jaydiem (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * One last thing, could I use WP:IAR for this particular instance? And yes I do plan on making an account. 71.88.173.137 (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you can't 'use' WP:IAR. It isn't a get-out clause for ignoring policy you personally dislike. Any material you submit will be subject to the same reliability criteria as is laid out in policy - and were we to decide to ignore policy (which would seem unlikely), we would do so because we considered it beneficial to the encyclopaedia to do so.


 * @Jaydiem - we are unlikely to consider material from Wikinews a reliable source - see for example this discussion at WP:RSN AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed on both counts. — Jaydiem (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Tag or template Removing
what is the policy of removing tag or template Amt000 (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I presume that you are talking about maintenance templates? Any editor can remove that tags after fixing the problem to which they relate.  However, if someone disputes that the problem is fixed and reinstates the tags you should beging a discussion rather than edit war over the tags. SpinningSpark 09:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

photos
I am really struggling to upload photos. Could I please have some help? I have read the tutorials but despite using what I believe to be the correct syntax, it doesn't seem to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrisjody29 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 21 July 2014‎


 * Please explain in more detail where you are having problems. What method are you using to upload?  What stages have you gone through?  Are you getting any error messages? <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 11:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I am using the method explained by the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial, but I think I may be doing something wrong, because I'll have the image saved on my desktop, then insert the correct syntax, ie File:....LOGO.jpg etc and it nothing comes up. Basically I don't know how to link the syntax between the actual photo i have saved. Thanks!
 * There is a two step step process; uploading an image, and inserting an image into the article. The picture tutorial explains the inserting part, but you need to first have done the uploading part.  There are two places you can upload to; Wikipedia or Commons.  Both can be used in an article just as easily, but uploading to Commons allows the image to be used on other projects such as other language Wikipedias and is the preferred location.  See Help:Introduction to uploading images/1 for more details. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanking someone for an edit.
I've gotten thanked for edits in the past, and now I can't find out how to thank someone else. What preference do I need to set or where do I need to select?Naraht (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I just figure out that I only get thank for edits that are of *other* registered users. The first page or so of the revision history that I saw, the only edits were my own and IPs.Naraht (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * To thank someone you need to be looking at the diff of the edit you want to thank them for. There is "(thank)" link in the header, right after the "(edit)" and "(undo)" links. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The option also shows up for me in the revision history as long as the edit was done by another registered user.Naraht (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Shell House Massacre
I don't where the hell you idiots get your information from? The Zulu's march that day to honor King Goodwell Zwalitini!! Some of us where witness to those events. Get your facts straight. The Zulus were not head towards Shell house, they were head to Johannesburg library were the king planned to address his nation. You bunch of FOOLS!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.224.145 (talk • contribs)


 * You can see where we get our information from, by looking at the sources cited in the article. If you can cite a reliable source saying that no Zulus approached Shell House that day, it can be added to the article. Maproom (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * A little civility wouldn't go amiss here. You can't expect volunteers to be helpful when you throw around words like "idiots" and "fools".--ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Self-referencing in Wikipedia
I was under the impression that articles written in Wikipedia are not supposed to be self-referential (i.e., they are not supposed to make reference to Wikipedia itself). Is my understanding correct or incorrect? Is there any Wikipedia policy about this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's correct; it's discussed at WP:CIRCULAR, part of the Verifiability policy. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is not a blanket ban on this. Wikipedia has an article on Wikipedia, as do other notable aspects of the project, such as Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, and notable events concerning Wikipedia (Category:Wikipedia).  What we should not do is write articles in a way that only make sense if they are actually still on Wikipedia as this obstructs free reuse of the material.  See Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This shouldn't discourage anyone from including appropriate wikilinks or listing related WP articles in a "See also" section. These links make it easier for those readers who wish to move to other WP articles having some connection to the one they started with Noyster  (talk),  14:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all. I am not referring to articles that are actually about Wikipedia (or Wikipedia-related topics).  I am talking about the issue of "circularity", as mentioned above by John of Reading.  So, if I remove a statement in an article because it is a circular Wikipedia reference, and then another editor reverts me, what can be done?  I claim that it is a circular Wikipedia reference; they claim not.  Who is the arbiter of whether or not it is a self-referencing circular statement?  This is the article: Deaths in 2014.  At the very beginning of that article, it states: "This is a chronology of notable deaths in 2014. Names are reported under the date of death. Names under each date are reported in alphabetical order by family name or pseudonym. Deaths of notable animals and other organisms are also reported here if they first have their own article." (emphasis added).  I removed the (bolded) statement, since it (obviously) means: "if they first have their own article here on Wikipedia" (emphasis added).  My edit summary stated: "Wikipedia is not supposed to be self-referential."  Another editor reverted me, with an edit summary that states: "It's not self-referential, it's a condition for listing determined by consensus."  To me, it is very clearly a self-reference.  Whether or not it is a "condition for listing determined by consensus" is not relevant; it may very well be a Wikipedia condition for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.  But that does not mean that it is not circular and self-referential.  Please advise.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood WP:CIRCULAR. What that is saying is that the references in an article should not include other Wikpedia articles, although of course they can legitimately use references which are in turn included in those other Wikipedia articles.    The situation you are talking about in Deaths in 2014 is about what is considered notable in that context, and the definition used there, of having its own Wikipedia article, is consistent with that used regularly in Wikipedia, for example in numerous list pages and in lists of "notable residents" in articles on places. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, let's completely forget the policy about "Circularity". I am referring to the common definition of the ordinary word "circular".  And, I guess I am referring to this policy: Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid.  Is not this applicable to the item I mentioned above?


 * Let's pretend that that Wikipedia article (Deaths in 2014) was printed on a piece of paper. A reader is reading that hard-copy print version of that article.  They have no idea where the article came from.  (In other words, I am making an analogy to ripping out a page from the Encyclopedia Britannica and giving that ripped-out page to someone for him to read.)  The reader reads the following statement: "Deaths of notable animals and other organisms are also reported here if they first have their own article." (emphasis added).  They would have no idea what this sentence means.  How would they know what that means?  This is the issue/problem of circularity and self-referencing that I am referring to.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your reader will have the same problem with "see also" sections. We do not apply this rule to hatnotes and see also sections for obvious reasons. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am (clearly) not referring to either hat notes or "see also" sections. I am referring to the main body text of an article; its lead, no less.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You can use selfref to mark the offending section of text in this particular case. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. So, what does that do, exactly?  I clicked the link and read it; but I couldn't understand what they were getting at.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All it does is mark the text as class="selfreferences". Reusers such as book publishers can then choose to automatically remove all such text, by defining that class as display="none" in css for instance.  If the article is going to use as a selection criteria that entries must have a Wikipedia article then that should be explicitly stated in the lede per MOS:SAL.  That makes a self-reference of some kind unavoidable and it is therefore a recognised exception.  A more fundamental question is should that actually be the selection criterion?  It makes the criteria very definite and easy to police, but on the other hand it excludes entries that may well be verifiably notable but happen to not yet have an article.  Anyway, selection criteria is an issue for the page editors to discuss on the talk page.  There is not one universal set for all articles, see WP:LSC. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. So, you are saying that this policy, MOS:SAL, is an exception to the policy Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid?  And that, in such a case, it is standard practice for the Wikipedia article to explicitly state that the criteria of the article is Wikipedia-based criteria?  Is that correct?  If so, do you know of other examples of articles that follow this same practice?   Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well yes, it's an exception, although it doesn't say it explicitly. It's a natural consequence of the need to state the criteria.  The more usual criteria is notability for all the entries, regardless of whether they have a Wikipedia article, although in practice the two are often much the same thing.  This is by no means the only page with the Wikipedia article criterion: this search on just the first page of results turns up list of botanists, list of twelve-step groups, list of deaths by motorcycle accident, list of Latvians, list of dance organizations, list of collectibles, list of former Special Air Service personnel, glossary of education terms (S), list of astronomy websites, and list of minicomics creators. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 20:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Joseph! Let me see if I can explain.

There are a great many "list" articles on Wikipedia; "Deaths in 2014" is but one of these. In managing the content of list articles, one of the key concerns is setting forth the criteria for what items should be included in a given list, and what shouldn't. Beyond the basic criteria that define the list (for example, a list of cats should not contain dogs), editors want to ensure that a list does not become clogged with entries that are not sufficiently notable and verifiable to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. Rather than risk overwhelming a list article's talk page with many separate discussions over the merits of many possible entries, list editors often simply state that an entry must have its own separate article on Wikipedia in order to be included. This is an elegant solution to the problem, because it effectively makes topics pass muster for inclusion at their own entries, rather than at the list article. In this way, the well-established policies and procedures for evaluation of topics for inclusion in the encyclopedia can serve their intended purposes at the individual-article level, thus avoiding the clutter and duplication of effort that would result from the same topic being evaluated separately at one or more list articles.

For more documentation on list articles, please see the navbox I'm including for you immediately below:

Hope this helps! Cheers, — Jaydiem (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Bogus "Daniel Teague" references and info
An editor at Talk:Potluck has stumbled across a number of hoax edits with references to an apparently fictional "Daniel Teague", none of whose supposed publications can be found. A quick look at WP:SNEAKY and WP:SVT didn't reveal much about where to report this for further investigation and cleanup. What, if anything, should be done to alert vandalism-fighting editors to the problem? Reify-tech (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Probably the best place to report is WP:ANB to report the user behaviour in genereal, or WP:ANI to have a specific incident dealt with. You might consider giving the editor an opportunity to explain themselves first (you will have to inform them anyway if you take it to AN) but in my opinion you are right, the references are distinctly dodgy. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

References at bottom of talk page
Hi, I'm trying to figure out if there's a quick and easy way to fix Talk:Majid Al Futtaim Group so as to suppress the references from appearing at the bottom of the page. I don't see a reflist that I could delete. As you'll notice, the references are running into the more recent comments resulting in a really muddy talk page. I know I can slap &lt;nowiki&gt; markup around the citations, but I was wondering if there was something obvious that I was missing, mostly for my own edification. Thanks, you hard-working editor you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added a to the relevant section.  As you say, there didn't seem to be a  at the end, so I am assuming that the display of the references there was a result of some relatively recent change in the Wikimedia software.  I did see similar symptoms elsewhere within the last few days.  Perhaps someone can enlighten us? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I too appear to have gained a "reference" at the bottom of my Talk page. How can I get rid of it, as it does not appear in the edit section? Answers appreciated. David J Johnson (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a reference used in the 12 Mile Reef section. Dismas |(talk) 15:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes it's a software change. It's been in effect for a few months I think.  In the absence of reflist or a references tag the references are now automatically added to the bottom of the page.  This avoids the generation of error messages on the page (although the error used to be supressed on talk pages), which was a very frequent mistake of new editors.  It is better to have references not neatly arranged in the proper place than to have no references at all and an error message.  You need to add reflists at the appropriate places to fix this (I have just done this) not delete them. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's something new and different alright. :) Thanks all for the help and info., I appreciate the assist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is some discussion going on at Village pump (technical)/Archive 128 (and maybe this is newer than I thought it is—I saw it discussed some time ago and assumed it had been implemented). <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Create a Wikipedia page
How do I create a Wikipedia page for the CEO of the company I work for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golden.Insurance (talk • contribs)


 * Would be best to read over Contributing to Wikipedia. Please note though that we strongly discourage people from writing about themselves, their friends, bands, websites, companies or organizations, personal vendettas, campaigns and any other topic in which they have a conflict of interest. -- Moxy (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, we don't allow accounts which appear to represent organisations, or which are in fact used by multiple people. Please create an account that is yours personally, with a name that doesn't suggest an organisation. (It is possible to change the name of an existing account, but since you haven't made any other edits yet, it's easiest just to abandon - it will shortly get blocked anyway - and create a new one).  --ColinFine (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)