Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 November 29

= November 29 =

Use of military infoboxes
I've noticed many infoboxes being populated with template:Infobox military person for non-military notables, especially actors, who spent some time in the army. See for instance Telly Savalas and Karl Malden. The template description is vague about when to use it. Most are being macro-added by an IP, with some ruining the TOC formatting, as for James Earl Jones (now fixed). Is this a proper use of the template? --Light show (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to ask this question at WP:MILHIST or template's talk page. -- Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 14:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Displayed image differs from uploaded image
Hi, I recently uploaded a new version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMP#/media/File:GIMP_2.9_Usage.png to Wikimedia Commons for the article on GIMP. However, the image on the article and the media information page differ from the actual current file, which is also what shows up on the Wikipedia mobile app. I'm not really sure what to do... help would be appreciated! Transfat0g (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is sometimes a delay in generating scaled versions at different sizes when a new version of an image is uploaded. At Village pump (technical)/Archive 142 it took a couple of days and none of the suggested purge methods could speed it up. The only immediate fix I know is to request a size that isn't already cached, for example by setting  in the infobox parameter instead of getting the default 300px. But in this case it doesn't seem important which version is displayed so I suggest to just wait. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The new version of the image is now displayed everywhere. I didn't do anything to make it happen. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

AFC: Removing decline comments
None of the AFC help desks appear to be where to ask this question, so I am asking at the main Help Desk. At AFC, the author of one draft article that is being declined as reading like an advertisement is deleting the previous reviewer decline notes and resubmitting the draft. I haven't looked for a specific rule against this, but I am sure that it is contrary to policy, among other things as an attempt to game the system, by trying to deny subsequent reviewers information of the opinions of previous reviewers. I see that there are special templates to warn an editor for removing various sorts of deletion notices, but I don't see a template for removing AFC history. I templated the editor for disruptive editing because that is the general issue. Am I correct that removing the AFC history is inappropriate? How would other AFC reviewers deal with this? If I see that article submitted again, should I go ahead and nominate it for deletion as a waste of reviewer time? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Standard practice is to simply restore the deleted AFC history and explain to the submitter that the history helps us to better assist them. AFC Reviewers do want to see the history of the draft so that recurrent problems or difficulties can be identified and the submitter given appropriate assistance. However in this case where the issue is a "vexatious" submitter MFD is appropriate - after restoring the AFC history. BTW you can direct questions about AFC reviewing to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help - it's one of two "sub-links" on the "Talk" tab. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping! Robert McClenon -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

How to deal with a problem editor
How does one deal with an edit like this? I've already reverted twice. Another time isn't going to make a dent in this editor's point of view. 32.218.33.209 (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The first thing you do is discuss it on the article's talk page. If you cannot reach consensus there, you move to further steps in the Dispute resolution policy. --ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

James Bryce, 1st Viscount Bryce
Please check ref. number 22 on the above page. I don't know what is wrong with it. Thanks 101.182.171.41 (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Done - Hello, I just exchanged "date" and "accessdate". The former is the source's actual date (when it was written or published), the latter is the date when the URL was last accessed to read the source content. Template:cite web has more information about the various parameters. GermanJoe (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of ®, © + ™ symbols
I am sure I have seen a guideline, that we should not be using symbols such as ® or © or ™ in articles I wanted to cite the guideline when removing some ® symbols - but couldn't find it. Is there such a guideline? - or is my memory playing tricks (again) ? - Arjayay (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:TRADEMARK, currently the fifth bullet point under General rules. —Cryptic 19:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cryptic - I was sure I'd seen it but couldn't find it - probably because I started looking for ® not ™ - Arjayay (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You can search projects pages by placing WP: before the search term. WP:® and WP:™ both redirect there (WP:© has another target). PrimeHunter (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

How to describe a footer for a user page?
How do I make my user page "footer" get treated as such? My user page is organized into sections and subsections. At the end, I have a footer, consisting of a signature and a couple of tack-ons. I currently express that as a separate fake section using "== ==". I'm happy with no table of contents for now, but if I chose to use a TOC, the "footer" would be treated as a section. How do I identify the footer as such, so that WP renders it properly, and doesn't treat it as a section? Thanks. Willondon (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you want it to render? You can make a horizontal line with four or more . PrimeHunter (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've commented out the "no table of contents" directive on this version, to show you what I mean. The "footer", saying "Cheers, Willondon", etc. is seen as a third section (since I faked it with "== ==" ). If I don't do that, the "footer" is considered as part of the last section (Miscellaneous things). I guess what I'm looking for is some code to indicate "the sections are done; treat the rest as the end part of the article, a footer, and don't include it in the table of contents". Willondon (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't know what you want. If you don't want it to have its own entry in the table of contents then just don't make a section heading for it. If you want source text at the end which is not included when the last section is edited then it is not possible. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that last thing is what I wanted. Thanks for your help, and informing me that it's not possible. Willondon (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Image removal
I added an image on Paul Telfer's Wiki site and now it's been removed.

Why was it removed after I sited sources and creative commons citations?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnormand (talk • contribs)
 * The deletion log is at commons:File:Paul Telfer-actor.jpg. You were notified at commons:User talk:Dnormand. The deleted page can only be seen by Commons administrators so I don't know what it said. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Hi Dnormand. Your edit to Wikipedia's article on Paul Telfer (not Paul Telfer's Wiki site) was reverted probably because the image was deleted from the Commons. ...Text removed as redundant to the above... In short, did you take this picture yourself? If not, what made you think it was under a suitable free license or in the public domain? I note that there is an image by this name at Wikia but it appears to be a copyright violation. As for the nature of the revert by – done using rollback which is only for edits clearly made in bad faith – I don't know why that occurred or whether there's some background here I'm not aware of that would support that. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)