Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 September 12

= September 12 =

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref
Scleroderma

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmcs (talk • contribs)
 * You should be good now. I believe I got all the problems.  Please double check my work and let me know if there are any further issues. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Article Lead/Intro
Hello,

In the article Intro/Lead Section, is it okay to include bulleted text ? Is there any rule on formatting that prohibits this ? Also, can one use bold face to emphasize some key aspects (e.g., some small phrases) in the lead section ?

I have another question, unrelated to this: On many articles, we see a note at the top, mentioning about several things, e.g., incomplete, not neutral, lacks citations, etc. Have these notes been put down by an admin ? Or could anyone have put in these notes ? Also, can these notes be removed by anyone ? Or does an Admin need to remove them ?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Js82 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, . While I don't know of a specific rule against bulleted lists in the lead section that section is normally supposed to summarize the article as a whole, and I don't think a bulleted list is usually the best way to do that.
 * Any editor can add maintenance tags (as those notes are known here) to an article. If you are using WP:Twinkle its "tag" feature will do so pretty automatically. Similarly, any editor can remove such tags. However, one should not remove them unless one has fixed the issue, or thinks that the tag does not apply. One should note the tag removal and the reason for it in the edit summary, and particularly when one thinks the tag was not proper in the first place, a post on the article talk page is often a good idea.
 * I hope that helps. DES (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot, DES Js82 (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding your question about boldfacing text: The relevant guidelines are at MOS:BOLD, which says, "Do not use boldface for emphasis in article text." Normally, bf is used in the lead only for the article's topic and for any search terms that redirect to the article. Deor (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

login
how to login — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.150.32 (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a link at the upper-right corner of every screen at Wikipedia. That will take you to the login screen.  -- Jayron 32 03:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For the direct link, go to Special:UserLogin. eurodyne (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hollywood actor CHARLTON HESTON - his movies
Dear Sir/Madam,

I remember seen a hollywood movie whose title starts with "INTERNECINE .........". This movie is not included in the list of films acted by the actor Charlton Heston. Kindly have a check and include this.

Regards G.Nagendra Rao AP, India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.179.74 (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for this film? It's not listed at IMDB.  Perhaps you are mistaken in your memory.  -- Jayron 32 04:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing The Internecine Project, but that starred James Coburn. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox help (Sports)
Why isn't the youth club appearing?? Everything looks normal to me, but "Club America" isn't showing up on the article. Charlie the Pig (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * One of your parameters is incorrect. You have youthclub1.  It should be youthclubs1 --Stabila711 (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia donors
Hello.

Does Wikipedia still publish the names of Wikipedia donors? 108.223.135.195 (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To an extent. See Benefactors, but see also Donor policy/en. It appears, then, that the information is not shared but some are listed at the first page I linked and I am assuming based on the latter that all those people explicitly agreed to it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Lidija Dimkovska a mistake
Dear Editor On the presentation of me in Wikipedia in English I found the following: Her book of poems pH Neutral History was translated into English by Ljubica Arsovska and Peggy Reid. It won the Best Translated Book Award from the online literary journal Three Percent. There is a mistake that need to be corrected as soon as possible: It won the Best... - must be: It was shortlisted for the Best... So the book ddidn't win the award, it was only shortslisted. Please correct it. Thank you in advance,best regards, Lidija Dimkovska — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.141.225 (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out, and congratulations on the nomination. We'll make the correction.    D b f i r s   11:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Why can't I revert an edit?
Just wondering why this edit cannot be undone? I get a message saying. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello . The Undo feature attempts to revert or undo a particular specified edit, leaving everything else unchanged. If later edits have also changed the same (or nearby) text, the program isn't smart enough to undo the particular edit without also affecting those later edits. You could still revert to the version prior to the edit, although that would revert all subsequent changes, and is usually not a good idea. You could carefully note the changes made by the edit in question, and manually undo them. In this case since the edit simply changed a category, and the category that it was changed from was later added separately, you need only delete any cats you think do not apply. However, since this area has already been the subject of reverts, i would suggest applying WP:BRD and discuss on the article talk page what categories the article should be in. DES (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding, DES. The reason I like to Undo instead of simply re-editing is that Undo's notify the editor whose edit one is reverting that their edit has been reverted. I prefer this method even though it takes extra work for me in most cases. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Can Audiopedia links be added? are they automatically added?
Can audiopedia articles be linked/templated into wikipedia articles? Is there a bot doing so?

I found Audiopedia videos of spoken wikipedia articles meant for the blind.

Audiopedia seems to be sponsored by the BBC. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8865357/BBC-to-open-vast-radio-archive-online.html

There is an Audiopedia user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Audiopedia

here is an example wikipedia spoken recording. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOgcIIy4mtw&ab_channel=Audiopedia

Informati:on https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV63FScHnShoobfaENC8R_Q/about Description We provide a free service targeted to blind and visually-impaired internet users. Wikipedia is the largest database of knowledge ever known to mankind, and yet it is essentially inaccessible to individuals with limited vision. Note that all text is licensed under CC-BY-SA, and all images are also creative commons (various licenses).

Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey CuriousMind01. That YouTube channel is unconnected with Wikipedia, and it is a copyright violation of Wikipedia, so we would certainly never properly link to them, automatically or otherwise. However, the copyright issue could be fixed to give proper attribution to Wikipedia's authors under our licenses (they do make an attempt to comply at their about page, woefully short of the mark). Wikipedia already has spoken versions of articles, and, as of now, there are 1,165 in the category for them. We also have a project dedicated to producing them. I do see some advantages to having a YouTube channel for others. For example, any normal format can be uploaded to YouTube using a billion devices, whereas there are many hoops to jump through here, because of the requirements that the upload be in a free and open-source software codec and container (see Vorbis & Ogg). Also, even though a human's reading is almost always many times better than a program's, it can be tasked with creating them 24 hours a day and allow access for people where they don't have it now. But even if we concede that, it would be better to have such a program to do so here rather than linked to off-site. I would support setting that up but as with everything here, it requires someone willing to take the time and having the know-how to do it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Audiopedia doesn't seem to be in any copyright violation per the terms in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights, because the content is offered by WP for free to all.

I think what they are doing is legal, creating computer generated spoken WP text articles, offered for free for use of the blind, and citing the WP article name and an image. It would be great if WP did the same, like you wrote it takes time and skills. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi again CuriousMind01. As I said about that page "(they do make an attempt to comply at their about page, woefully short of the mark)". I actually linked for you the copyright policy page you linked back to me above, and have a quite a lot of experience in copyright enforcement, application and interpretation. I do think it's important for you to understand what the copyright issue is, so you, being involved and possibly in a position to help here – maybe even in some manner informing Audiopedia of the problem so they can become compliant and we could link their efforts – are armed with the knowledge to know what the problem actually is and how it can be fixed. Wikipedia content is not "offered by WP for free to all". There are two basic problems with this statement. First, Wikipedia does not own the copyright to (the vast majority of) its content at all, its authors do, personally, whatever they contribute, so long as it is sufficiently creative to be subject to copyright protection. Second, most of that content is co-licensed under two free copyright licenses: the 1) CC-By-SA 3.0 Unported License, and under the GFDL, which, simplifying, require that copyright attribution be given to to the authors in a "reasonable manner" to comply with the licenses. We further agree by contributing, that such copyright attribution credit to us, the authors of an article, can be provided by (in addition to stating one or more free licenses they are reusing the content under), include a direct line notice of the page at this site where its page history is available, so that a person viewing the re-used content is informed of, and can easily and directly navigate to, the page being re-used and therefore can see the identity of the content authors in its history. This can be done by posting at the reuse site a) a hyperlink (where possible) or b) URL  to the Wikipedia page or pages being re-used  (emphasis added as this becomes important in the next paragraph), or c)  a list of all authors, which you would find in the page history/ies (generally this last option is only done where a page has very few authors). What this means in practice is that each one of the Audiopedia files needs a clear notice stating the license and saying what specific Wikipedia page its content comes from, by the methods I've outlined. This is not provided by vague notice somewhere that all text is "is licensed under CC-BY-SA". Every one of those videos is infringing on the copyright of the authors in the content of the page being read, and will be until a compliant full and direct notice is provided for the specific Wikipedia page by one of the methods I've outlined – it's really not all that difficult to comply but they don't come close. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit. Copyright is a complicated subject(to me).

Are these statements correct? For each Audiopedia Youtube video speaking a Wikipedia article,Audiopedia would have to state they are complying with these 2 licenses: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License and write the URL the wikipedia article which is being spoken (re-used).

State the intent of the spoken re-use is to assist the blind and visually impaired to make a use of Wikipedia articles, for free from Audiopedia.

Thanks again--CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , close but not quite. They would need to comply with at least one of those two license, they could select either or both. In either case, they would need to provide a link to the original page history, or the original Wikipedia page, which itself has a link to the history. A permalink to the version they used would be preferable. They would also need to be clear that their content is under the same license, and that people may use it on the same conditions. They would not need to state their intent, as Wikipedia's license are not in any way conditioned upon intent (they might want to, but that would be their choice). Indeed if they chose to charge for their services, Wikipedia's license would permit it if the above conditions were complied with.DES (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. How could a link to the original page history, or the original Wikipedia page or a permalink to the version used, be provided? I can only find providing the link to an article, which contains a tab for the article history.

If someone reuses a page from the past, example from June 1 2015, how can a link to the June 1 2015 page be provided? Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Correcting factual error
There's a small but significant error on Beepi, an article about a company where I have a paid consulting relationship.

I left a message on the article's Talk page, but Contact_us_-_Subjects suggested using this page if a request was more urgent.

There's a conflict of sources because of an error in a source. The question is when there's a conflict, do you correct to the preponderance of sources or do you just omit the info altogether?

In the Beepi article, the last sentence has the Wall Street Journal reporting 2014 revenue for the company of $100 million. I know from the company this is incorrect and causing them a significant problem. Three other sources have the correct info:

I'd go with the preponderance of sources and change the 2014 to 2015, but I have WP: COI, as stated. Perhaps the correct course is to delete the whole sentence?BC1278 (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278


 * I feel sorry for anyone who is making deals or business arrangements based upon what Wikipedia says. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Many individuals doing research on other companies use Wikipedia as a starting point because it's featured so prominently in search results by Google. And it pulls together various sources, saving time for a researcher. I've seen journalists pull whole paragraphs from Wikipedia and insert them into stories, which compounds the problem of errors in articles. So yes, incorrect information in an article can have a very major impact on a company, mostly because Google features Wikipedia articles so prominently. If you work on Wikipedia and know that articles can sometimes have lots of errors, you may lose site of how seriously outsiders can take the articles.BC1278 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278
 * I still feel sorry that internet literacy is so poor that anyone trusts Wikipedia. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I edited the article to include both statements, properly cited. This in my view is usually (but not always) the way to handle a conflict of sources. DES (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone help fix an error?
Could someone help me fix ref four in Scottish Labour Party leadership election, 2014? The journal, New Left Review is a bi-monthly publication covering September and October 2014, but the various parameters (date=, month=, year=) don't seem to recognise this. Can someone help? Thanks in advance, This is Paul (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You should be all set now. I split the year parameter into two separate parameters, month and year, and it worked. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks. This is Paul (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just clarifying, "month" is deprecated. So I switched to "date=" which allows for some date range formats (but not all unfortunately, see Help:Citation_Style_1). GermanJoe (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah I was curious why you did that. I wasn't aware it was deprecated. Thanks for letting me know. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is Paul, be sure to cite your source properly. If the template is stupid enough that it won't allow a proper citation in this situation, you need to write out the citation.  Nyttend (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll keep it in mind. As the article is an FAC I wanted to do it properly, but if it won't allow it then what else can you do? This is Paul (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , So far as i can see the template is, in this case, producing a perfectly accurate citation. A range of months can't be put into a month parameter, but then that parameter is deprecated anyway. A complete date, including a month range, can be and has been put into the date parameter. There are a few odd edge cases that the citation templates can't handle, but not many that I have seen in practice, and not this one. DES (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, good then. The most important thing is that you include a full citation in accordance with whatever style guide you're following; the templates are only a tool for that purpose.  Nyttend (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely true. I think they are often a useful tool, but they are only a tool, and not to be used if the fail to serve the needed purpose. DES (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)