Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 November 2

= November 2 =

Check if articles use a template
Is there any tool that allows to see what templates are transcluded on each page? For example, I want to see how many times Template:Infobox spacecraft is used in x articles. The transculsion count tool at wmflabs only give numbers, and I want pages. Is there anything for this? Thanks. EggOfReason (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this or this what you're looking for? Thanks, Lourdes   01:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , there is or  Vexations (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I wanted. Thanks, both of you! EggOfReason (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Family of Catherine, Duchess of  Cambridge
Please place the  leaning  forward  italics  over  the  words  The Times UK  in reference number 112. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbernadette (talk • contribs) 06:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Template:cite web, & the more appropriate Template:cite news, will tell you which parameters are rendered in italics. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of article/Deleting part of the article
There is an article which I came across as a user - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Jessup_(artist) - wherein image projected on the page is not that of the artist. I got in touch with the person - Paul Jessup - and asked him to check, and he confirmed that it is not him but a TV actor named Ben Nathan Jones. He also went on to say that he did not want a Wikipedia page and why wasn't he asked about it. Then he went through the page and said that much of the info is from his website and case being discussed under the 'Controversy' section is akin to slander since he is just one of the board members and hence is not directly responsible for the accounting and taxes.

He is requesting me to delete the page totally saying he does not want it. Is there a way for speedy deletion that can help achieve this? I can prove that the pic is not his because I have his real pic.

Thanks in advance, Vinvibes (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the picture. The material in the 'Controversy' section is supported by a reliable reference. If you can say which of the material in the article is copied from his web site, it will be removed, as a copyright violation. But we won't delete the article just because he wants it deleted – we don't need the subject's permission for an article on Paul Jessup, any more than we do for an article on Napoleon. Maproom (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Maproom - This is what he says about the information in the Controversy section - It is a company that I was 1 of 3 directors of - I did not file company Vat Reclaims the accountant was responsible for that. I have been on the board of many companies during the past 30 years. It is The Great British Teddy Bear Co which is my family Company and it is not mentioned in the press release source, what is mentioned in Paragon which I have virtually nothing to do with.

I feel it is a case of misrepresentation of information here. He has one family business which is philanthropic and well-known, and the press release referenced under Controversy highlights another business, namely paragon, in which he has a very limited role to play. So highlighting it under a separate section on his page is a little unfair.

Your opinion? Vinvibes (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, . The Wikipedia article is about Paul Jessup, not about the Teddy Bear Company. The claim in the section is supported by the source: I agree that the section should be written more clearly, but it should certainly not be removed. Further discussion should take place on the article's Talk page rather than here. --ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks ColinFine...yes, so maybe editing it to bring out the fact that he has limited role to play in Paragon and that it has nothing to do with his main business could serve the purpose? On the talk page of the article, the query will draw the same response, isn't it? Will start a thread none the less. Many thanks, Vinvibes (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now rewritten (and retitled) the section, . It does now name the company which made the false claims, but it also mentions, as in the source, that he was sole director. You are welcome to edit it, but the source does not bear out the claim that he had a limited role in Paragon. --ColinFine (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you ColinFineat least it distinguishes between the 2 firms now. Many thanks for your help, Vinvibes (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)