MyWiki:Help desk/Archives/2016 May 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Archive header with {{subst:Archive header.

{| width = "100%"

|- ! colspan="3" align="center" | Help desk |- ! width="20%" align="left" | < May 15 ! width="25%" align="center"|<< Apr | May | Jun >> ! width="20%" align="right" |Current help desk > |}

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


May 16

[edit source]

Potential conflict of interest

[edit source]

Hello Help Desk,

The company I work for is looking to create a Wikipedia page on their operations. So far the plan is to internally create an article, and I can forsee potential future issues with conflicts of interest.

I do believe that articles on the company founder, as well as a business concept that is relevant to the company, are both significant enough to warrant their own articles, but I do worry about the current plan.

Is it possible to outsource the article creation to an unbiased third party?

What do you recommend we do in this scenario to avoid breaking Wikipedia's rules? This is the first time I've been a part of the creation of a Wikipedia article that I am a stakeholder in...

Regards, --Coin945 (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Coin945. First, familiarize yourself (and your team) with the relevant policies and guidelines on conflict of interest if you have not already: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
As for what is significant enough to warrant an article, refer to Wikipedia:Notability.
I've actually had good experiences with contributions by companies. The procedure is to suggest changes on the talk page of the article (if the article exists already; use Template:Request edit) or use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process if it's a new article. This ensures that an unaffiliated editor will review the content. In both cases, the contributors should make their conflict of interest and possible paid relationship absolutely clear.
My past experience is that established companies have competent people who can manage research and write good content. I'd like to stress that they should only use sources that are independent of the company – not the company website, its press releases, annual reports, sales catalogues, testimonies by customers etc. (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Independent sources). If there are independent sources, and the procedure described above is observed, then company contributions can be valuable additions to Wikipedia. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Finnusertop for your swift reply. I have been an editor of wikipedia for about 10 years, and am well aware of the third party reliable sourcing rule, which I know is vital for any article, but particularly pertinent when a company is writing about itself. Not all biases are conscious, after all... But as I said I do think the two article topics have enough third party reliable sources to justify their existence, and it is a case of being transparent and open to compromise on our end. I know I am, at least. :)--Coin945 (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please look at ref number 3 - I cannot bring it up at all. is it typed correctly? it used to work as I read it only last week. Thanks so muchSrbernadette (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Just a small typo in the link - http://ww. instead of http://www. - NQ (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add the the category / link "Courtesy titles" in the "see also" section at the bottom of this page . I cannot do it from this iPad. Thanks so much101.189.0.102 (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I recall participating in a discussion of this article's Reference 1 a few months ago, and noted then that
(a) the book referenced (which I own) does not support the wording of the sentence citing it, and
(b) this and other works cited in several of the references give the name of their Printer rather than that of their Publisher, which seems to me irregular. I am currently (again) at Work so cannot conveniently address this further at this time. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Save Page botton

[edit source]

How to set my Save Page bottom in editing area color to   red

UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ: Add input#wpSave { background-color: #ff0000; } to your common.css - NQ (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Ya, I can ride metro journey to seeing around — Preceding unsigned comment added by UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ (talkcontribs) 11:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Help in a community falling apart

[edit source]

Hello.

sincerely Christine Marie San Luis Obispo california resident — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.142.84 (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 5 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. -- GB fan 12:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Change Settings - password and email

[edit source]

Hello, I would like to change the email address and the password I am using on my account. I can't seem to find the settings to change this. Thank you.

JotamVA (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If you click on the "Preferences" link at the top of any page, it will open a "User profile" window. In the "Basic information" section there is a link for "Change password". In the "Email options" section, there is a link for "Change or remove email address". -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Citing primary source from Russian

[edit source]

I'm trying to cite a primary Russian language source, but do not have experience with making such citations on Wikipedia. George Koval.

Deacktivate account

[edit source]

[How] can I deactivate this account? After deactivating this one can I create another one? ThanksRenamed user qweretrztzuzuzubvxcver4fdsf (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

  • 1) Wikipedia accounts cannot normally be deactivated. You can just stop using the account. If you wish, you can change your password to a random string of characters that you'll never remember. But otherwise, your account cannot be removed or deactivated. It can be renamed to a random string of characters, as described at WP:VANISH, but it looks like you already did that. 2) If you wish to create a new account, you may, so long as you are not violating any of the rules listed at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. --Jayron32 18:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Correction require on Democratic Primary schedules wins (Nebraska)

[edit source]

I was surfing to see the Democratic Primary schedule when I noticed a discrepency - in it, it's stated Hillary won Nebraska - when in fact she lost the state to Sanders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Schedule_and_results

The CNN results from that primary to help ya out. http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/ne/Dem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gades1980 (talkcontribs) 18:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Any anti-POV cliques mechanisms

[edit source]

Does Wikipedia have mechanisms to counter POV cliques? Does Wikipedia have proactive mechanisms to counter violations, or are counter measures only taken when someone files a complaint? Formulairis990 (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Formulairis990: various kinds of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution exist to tackle problems with POV-"pushing" editors or groups of editors. If normal article talk page interaction fails, Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Third opinion can be used to attract the attention of a wider range of editors, who might not be regular editors of the problem articles. If POV-pushing is disruptive and becomes an issue of incivility and user conduct, the process can go all the way up to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, which can set topic bans. Many political subjects are under Arbitration Committee sanctions in either of the two ways: some editors are banned from editing them altogether, or, problematic editing of some topic will get all editors blocked easier than on normal topics. I think the proactive component comes about by editors being mindful of these processes and recognizing that unconstructive POV-pushing will potentially get them in trouble. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 20:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. A problem I see with this process is that it requires a level of familiarity, investment, and commitment that acts as a high hurdle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formulairis990 (talkcontribs) 21:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary comment, after the fact

[edit source]

Anyway to add or amend an edit summary after it is made? Formulairis990 (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Help:Edit summary#Fixing. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
ThanksFormulairis990 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

top level registries ie. rightsidereg

[edit source]

In my opinion, I think some sort of password should be required to view these things. I, personally, do not mind, but it lists names of literally what it says "TOP LEVEL REGISTRIES."

PLEASE NOTE THAT MORE TIMES THAN NONE THESE SITES ARE FLAGGED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. I just never seen any flag myself but know it to be more wise than not to try and stick to things you already know before venturing to a flagged site not having a clue that it is flagged. Remember you are on the WORLDWIDE INTERNET and NOT the US Internet.

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

How to get rid of red text.

[edit source]

I do not know how to get red of the red text Missing or empty |title= (help) on my Wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylin_Wang_Jabs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.203.126.243 (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The reference was simply missing a title, so I added it like this. Deli nk (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Where is the best place to ask a question about disambiguation?

[edit source]

I have a fairly complicated question to ask about disambiguation, and I'd like to find the right place to ask it. Here (WP:HD)? WT:DAB? WT:WPDAB? Somewhere else (WP:VPM, perhaps)? A pointer would be most appreciated. Tevildo (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

WT:DAB is the place to discuss the guidelines about disambiguating. For specific questions about a particular dab page or issue I would suggest WT:WPDAB, although I have seen questions there go unanswered at times. MB (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Ask away. I've had a fair bit of experience with 'em (and I've got the scars to prove it). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Feel free to repost this at a more appropriate venue. I've expressed the question in generic terms, but I can provide a specific example if necessary.
There is a fictional character called <Name>, who is not sufficiently notable to have their own article. Information on the character is available at [[List of <Publication> characters]].
We have a disambiguation page [[<Name> (given name)]] which already lists a number of fictional characters (but not the one from <Publication>). We also have [[<Name> (disambiguation)]], if that's relevant.
How should the character appear on the dab page? I can think of three alternatives, and there may be another solution:
1. Add an entry to the dab page: <Name>, character from <Publication> - see [[List of <Publication> characters]]
2. Create a redirect [[<Name> (<Publication>)]], which points to the character's section on the list page. Add [[<Name> (<Publication>)]], character from <Publication> to the dab page.
3. Put a piped link on the dab page - [[List of <Publication> characters|<Name>]], character from <Publication>
Option 3 is probably the least preferred (although the most logical), as piped links are discouraged on dab pages. However, any advice or alternative suggestions from someone experienced in the area would be very useful. Tevildo (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Both option 2 (MOS:DABREDIR) and 3 (MOS:DABPIPING) are allowed. In fact, the latter gives a specific example (Ten or Tenshinhan) that exactly matches what you're describing. 2 is less attractive because it says "This indicates a higher possibility that the topic may eventually have its own article." I generally use option 1 when the linked article is a related topic that has significant information about the entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again! Option 3 it is. Tevildo (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

References

[edit source]

I've seen some articles where the references are formatted with two columns of references instead of just one, as {reflist|30em}} instead of just as {reflist}} When is each appropriate? (The missing bracket at the beginning is just so it would show as text in this quesstion) Margalob (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This is explained here. Basically, a single column is better for a few footnotes but two columns is preferred with many footnotes. MB (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
That actually says that 30em is preferred. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The advice to avoid multiple columns for few footnotes is mentioned in Template:Reflist/doc#Practices. GermanJoe (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The template does not say 30em is preferred, it says: "The number of columns to use is up to the editor, but some major practices include: 1 column (default): Where there are only a few Footnotes; 30em: Where there are many footnotes plus a page-width Bibliography subsection; 20em: Where Shortened footnotes are used" MB (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
It says "Using {{Reflist|2}} will force creation of a two-column reference list, and {{Reflist|3}} will force creation of a three-column list, and so on. This feature is now deprecated in favor of the option described above [30em], which is better suited to flexible formatting for a variety of display screen sizes ..." (bolding mine) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand this. The section you referenced means you should use [30em] instead of specifying the number of columns with |2 or |3 (deprecated feature) when you want multiple columns. It does not say 30em is preferred in all cases. As stated above, Template:Reflist/doc#Practices clearly says that one column is common practice for a few footnotes. MB (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Margalob (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)