Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 July 4

= July 4 =

Printing
How do I print this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.149 (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey there - on the menu on the left side of every article, you should see a "Printable version" link under the "Print/export" section. Clicking it will take you to a cleaner, printable version of the article. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 05:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Purple Heart
Just trying to add my late grandfather to the Purple Heart recipients list, W. E. Boyd. http://www.lawsonfuneralhome.net/memsol.cgi?user_id=844995. His obituary. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.49.95 (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey there - much respect to your grandfather, and it's kind of you to want to include him. I'm assuming the list you wish to place him under is Purple_Heart? If so, that list holds a list of people who meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines - or in other words, are significant enough to have a Wikipedia article. If you notice, all the listed recipients already have their own articles. It's unfortunate that we can't list them all, but this restriction is for good reason too, considering that there are almost 2 million Purple Heart recipients. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask! Thanks, ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 06:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Why wikipedia have strict policy about BLPs?
Why wikipedia have strict policy about BLPs?Ssaz 12 (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Because it can be sued. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Expanding on HiLo's answer, Biographies of living persons is a nice place to start. Living people are, naturally, more sensitive topics to write about than anything else - people have both feelings and reputations, in addition to the fact that the coverage of people can involve legal issues (e.g. defamation), which can and have lead to lawsuits in the past. This is why biographies of living people must be well-sourced, neutral, and of course, factually correct. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 07:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * more generally, because we are an encyclopedia: not a fan page, resume posting service, gossip mill, or hatchet job. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. As HiLo48 and SuperHamster say, incorrect or unsourced information in biographies of living persons can be the basis for a lawsuit for defamation.  As a result, unsourced information can be removed, and its removal is an exception to WP:3RR.  However, threatening a lawsuit for defamation, even due to incorrect information in a BLP, is a quick way to be blocked from editing, because we have means for resolution of BLP issues, such as WP:BLPN or even redaction, that do not involve legal threats.  We have to provide these remedies, or we would have legal threats and litigation, and other injuries to humans.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Content about our company is permanently delited even if it is not a spam.
Please, need your assistance! Informatio about our company was twice delited by Bilderling that incriminate us as spamers. Our company (Suprotec) is well known in Russia for its inovations in autochimicals, but we aren't allowed to share information about us because somebody sincerely ignores other user's ingerests. Please, help us! Sandernik (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, you probably have a conflict of interest, because you refer to "our company", which implies that you are employed by the company, and you should be posting to the article talk page rather than editing the article. On the other hand, I don't know what article is being reverted.  This edit to this Help Desk is the only edit you have made.  There is no article Suprotec.  User:Bilderling has not edited the English Wikipedia in 2014.  If the article about which you have the issue is on the Russian Wikipedia, then you should go to the Russian Wikipedia Help Desk.  (Maybe someone who knows Russian can direct you there.)  This Help Desk is for asking questions about using and editing the English Wikipedia, and I don't see an article or any reverted edits here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Bilderling is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia and has not made any edits all year (and only one in the previous three years). I suspect that you are referring to the deletions on Russian Wikipedia.  You must take the matter up there, but we have little sympathy for companies that create their own articles, and repeatedly doing it is the reason you have been blocked.  It is almost impossible for those associated with a company to succeed in writing about it in a neutral way so almost certainly the label of spam is justified. SpinningSpark 14:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Where and how to propose a merger of several separate articles
The articles River bifurcation, Distributary and Anabranch all seem to be describing fundamentally the same thing, with the naming differences being mainly a geographical one. There also seems to be significant overlap with the disambiguation page Slough (hydrology). Last year another editor proposed on the Talk page of one of the articles the merging of two of them, but received no response. Is there somewhere where the broader issue of merging all these articles can be raised, with some hope of resolution? HiLo48 (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * with no opposition to the previous merge suggestions, just carry out the merge.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

finding my book
on the day that I enrolled in the free version I was invited to create a book and add pages as my research progressed. Now, after I log-on, I am unable to locate that book that has six or seven page-articles included. How do I locate the book that I created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithrlsmith162 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I take it your saying its in Book namespace... Try searching just books


 * -- Moxy (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

effective date issue for George Washington
I wanted to change 5 star generals page ... error listing Geo. Washington's EFFECTIVE date was listed as 1976 instead OF 1776 ... going through the process today, I note the print has been changed ( I didn't, though I had highlighted the incorrect date ... haven't yet checked the online Wiki 5 star generals site to see if change was made there. If not, someone who's more familiar with the process than I will have to make the change. Questions? email me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobblewash (talk • contribs) 17:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is about Five-star_rank. But I don't understand what Bobblewash is requesting. Maproom (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please check existing source links in the article before making changes. I have reverted your edits with edit summary [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Five-star_rank&diff=615620756&oldid=615600269]: revert two good faith edits by Bobblewash, the linked Public Law 94-479 says: "appoint George Washington posthumously to the grade of General of the Armies of the United States, such appointment to take effect on July 4, 1976." PrimeHunter (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Guide to editing
Is there a guide somewhere that can teach me the basics of editing? There's an article I want to edit but for some reason there's not an edit tab on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesVegas (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A few articles are protected from editing. Maybe you have come across one of them. What is the title of the article you want to edit? Maproom (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello LesVegas yes we have such a page at Contributing to Wikipedia - you may want the specific   section Contributing to Wikipedia-- Moxy (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation and redirect issues
I'm not a new editor but it's been a long time since I have edited Wikipedia. I discovered that Wikipedia didn't have an article on Ross Parker, famous for composing such songs as We'll Meet Again and There'll Always Be an England. Ross Parker was a redirect Murder of Ross Parker. Although it seems like a tragic event, I have no doubt that Ross Parker the composer, actor, and lyricist has far more lasting relevance and is the primary target, so I started an article there. An editor moved my article and made Ross Parker a disambiguation page with Parker the composer and a redirect to the article on the murder. There is now a discussion about moving the page here, but that is only one part of the issue.

I went to add Parker (the famous one) to Parker (surname) only to find that there is already an entry for the murder victim. Same with Parker. Should there be an entry for someone who isn't considered notable outside of being the unfortunate victim of a crime? I don't mena to sound callous, I'm simply asking what the consensus is these days. Bwaybaby77 (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the lyricist Ross Parker is notable enough to justify an article, though I am not the best person to judge. If he is, then the article should be titled "Ross Parker", and the existing redirect from that title to "Murder of Ross Parker" should be removed. Maproom (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the page should go to the composer. It is not necessary to have a disambiguation page when there is only one other target, especially when it is of lesser notability.  Disambiguation can be dealt with with a hatnote instead. SpinningSpark 14:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears that the article on Ross Parker (composer) had been in existence since at least 2010, so that the real problem is that Ross Parker was directing to the murder victim. Both articles meet the notability criteria, so that question is whether Ross Parker should redirect to the composer or should redirect to the disambiguation page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the question of whether Ross Parker should direct to the composer or should redirect to the disambiguation page be determined by consensus? However, what talk page should the discussion be on?  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe it will be settled by consensus. I linked to the talk page where the discussion is taking place (Talk:Ross Parker (composer)). I don't think I asked my real question very well, so I'll try again. Should the victim or perpetrator of a crime be included in lists when the linked article is about the event? For example in this case Ross Parker (murder victim) is included in lists, but the article is Murder of Ross Parker. I don't mean to minimise the crime, but outside of being a murder victim he is not notable by Wikipedia standards. Bwaybaby77 (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you asking whether Murder of Ross Parker should be in Parker (disambiguation) and Ross (name)?  I would answer yes, but but have not yet rechecked the disambiguation list policy.  By the way, Bwaybaby77, thank you for being bold and for then discussing your actions here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, but let me give you another example of a more general case. If Ross Parker the murder victim had gone to Yale, should they be added to the terribly named List of Yale University people? Bwaybaby77 (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say, no. That list ought to be of notable alumni of Yale; and the murdered Ross Parker was not notable, though his murder was. Maproom (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm trying to gauge where things stand these days in relation to victims or perpetrators of crimes. My impression was that they were not considered notable (except in rare cases) and would be covered by an article about the event. And as such they would not be included in lists of people with the same surname or lists of alumni or people born in such and such a place, etc. Is there a guideline that addresses this? Bwaybaby77 (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Flags in Infoboxes
Hi! I read in the WP:INFOBOXFLAG that "flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes". According to this, I removed flag icons from some articles about tennis players. Soon after, another editor reverted my edits without any edit summaries. I asked him on his talk page to explain me his move, and he told me that it is a "long established consensus" of the WikiProject Tennis to include flag icons in the infoboxes of players. Now, I don't understand how is it possible to have "long established" consensus that is directly opposite to the Wikipedia guideline? Shouldn't the guideline actually reflect the consensus? If guideline is the reflection of the consensus, than it appears that we have two totally different consensuses on the same issue. Which one applies? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is an unfortunate fact of Wikipedia that people in a given field can get really fanatical about "protecting" "their" topics from the standard practices elsewhere in Wikipedia. One is the taboo maintained against creating any infobox for classical composers; another is the insistence in certain sports on adding flag icons to infoboxes. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Orangemike is correct. Sports has long been allowed to populate (some might say overpopulate) their articles with flags. I would note that WP:INFOBOXFLAG is a guideline not a policy and there is more leeway with these. Also it state right at the top that there will be occasional exceptions to the guideline and it goes further (and this comes directly from the section that you linked to) when it states that "examples of acceptable exceptions include military conflict infobox templates and infoboxes that include international competitions" and tennis is certainly an international competition. You may find this frustrating but your best bet is to let that go (and I know that it is difficult to do all at once - give it a few days) and edit other articles. There is always a ton to do around here. Clicking the "random article" link can lead to new learning which is usually fun. Hang in there V. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The big problem with sports and actor bios is template spam Michael Jordan more links there then in the article...looks like some grade 5 student went template mad. -- Moxy (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)