Help desk
< February 19	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 21 >

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.

February 20[edit]

Rohita Union[edit]

Rohita Union:is an Union under Manirampur Upazila of Jessore District in the Division of Khulna, Bangladesh.Rohita is number one union in Manirampur Upazila.Rohita is a digital Union.

Political history: The chairman of the Union council is Md.Mizanur Rahman

Educational institutes: There are several educational institutions:

High Schools: Palashi Secondary School,Rohita Secondary School,Koadlapara Dakhil Madrasa. College: Palashi Degree College

Others institutes: Grameen Bank, Rohita Health complex,

Notable personalities: Village Rohita: Ex. Chairman; Rohita Union Council: Left Amzad Hossain Village Bagdob: CEO; Satkhira District Council: A.N Ahammad Ali — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.131.13.5 (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced information about Rohita Union can be added to the Manirampur Upazila article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New article in sandbox[edit]

I have written an article which is in my sandbox but as I am not an 'auto confirmed' user, I cannot make it 'live'. Please help me make it live. I have tried to move it to the wikipedia section but it says that the title is blacklisted. Please help me resolve this issue. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkkbagh (talk • contribs) 07:31, 20 February 2013‎

I see that the content of your sandbox is not in English. This is the English Wikipedia. If you wish to write an article in another language I suggest that you go to the Wikipedia in the relevant language and ask there. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about Abdul Quader Molla,[1] we have an article at Abdul Quader Molla. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Thai Wikipedia is at http://th.wikipedia.org. JohnCD (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or to use an interlanguage link th:Main Page.--ukexpat (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citing plaques[edit]

Resolved

Do we have a citation template to cite something like a commemorative plaque or information plaque (for example of a monument or memorial)? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cite sign}} is probably what you need. Chamal ^T•C 11:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, that looks very good. Thank you. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help:CS1 gives an oveview of each Citation Style 1 template. --— Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 12:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gadget. I added a link to that to my userpage for future reference. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posting on Wiki[edit]

Please how do i post contents on Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IB1207 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Community portal provides links to pages where you can learn to expand short articles, update pages with new information, etc. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought OP was asking a more basic question - how do I edit. If that is the question, then we have a number of places where the process is explained:

Overriding var expandCaption = 'show'; in MediaWiki:Common.js[edit]

Is it possible to override var expandCaption = 'show'; in MediaWiki:Common.js and provide another value instead of show in a specific location where I use a template using that function? Ideally, I would like to be able to pass a name to a template as a parameter that would rename the link, i.e. that I can define a parameter {{{1}}} in the template markup for renaming the link. Specifically, what I want to have is that the link labeled show below the third image at this page says something other than show. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting question - months[edit]

Hello,

I have a question about the dts template. In User:Tomcat7/Sandbox28, in the last table, how do I change July 1876 to July/August 1876, so that it sorts correctly and displays the result correctly? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion, but why not put it like {{dts|1876|July}}/{{dts|1876|August}}? This would bring the row to the end of the July group in ascending order and to the top in descending order. It will always sort using the first date. Have to say I'm not sure if this goes against WP:MOS or some other guideline though. Chamal ^T•C 15:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata - Interwiki links[edit]

Just stumbled over a bot removing interwiki links because it is "now provided by Wikidata on some-sort-of-token". I confess that despite being a pretty frequent editor of WP, I'd never heard of Wikidata. So I've dug into it, and come to some sort of understanding. But what doesn't seem to be explained anywhere is what I am supposed to do if I create a new WP:EN article, and know that there is already an article in another language on the same subject.

I can see that if there are two or more previously existing language variants, then I can go to one of them and click on the edit links link under the languages heading, and then add my WP:EN article to the list. Is this what I am supposed to do?. Will this bring the other article up in a languages list on the article I've just created?.

But if there is only one previously existing language variant, it won't have a languages list or an edit link. Nor will the article I've just created. So how do I go about establishing the link?.

Can you point me at any answers? -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same question a week or so ago and asked if there is a "Wikidata for dummies" explanation somewhere, but there is apparently not, yet. There are some automated tools available at Wikidata that make the creation of records there from existing Wikipedia articles a little easier, so that's how I have been doing it.--ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To create the first link in the chain, you would go to Wikidata and create a new page, linking it to yours and any others in existence. (You could also just create an old-style interwiki, then convert it using a script or just leave it.) The relevant help page is WP:WDATA, though that's likely to be incomplete at present. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 15:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Help desk#Wikidata and its impact on English Wikipedia --Senra (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Wikidata, driven mainly by the German Wikipedia, has boldy gone ahead with an excellent idea without due and proper consultation on other Wiki's --Senra (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They could have told us about this. My initial reaction was that some bot had gone crazy and set off on a vandalism spree. Luckily, I thought it would be a good idea to check first what the bot was supposed to be doing. Astronaut (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

page Football records in Spain :[edit]

Hello ..

may you please take a look at football records in spain ,this page is containing various different records in Spanish football, the user : 83.36.24.36 keeps removing some of them because he believes they are not needed and if you took a look at what he adds or removes you can see he is doing that biasing since he is working hard to remove Barca records allowing only real records !! the 3 records i added are well referenced from the related club website and even classified clearly under national records even not just a club records !! so anything clearer than that even ?? how should someone opinion or even bunch of people opinion about it make a difference in that ?? its a clear case...the related club classified it as record , so if someone likes it or not it shouldn't stop being a record .

and since its referenced I can't see any reason to remove it .

the website : http://www.fcbarcelona.com/club/the-honours/detail/card/fc-barcelona-team-records

what is really weird...there is some records similar to those added ( like i added ) but he added them related to Real Madrid so obviously he doesn't have a clear measure in that.

Thank you . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3878:81E0:58D7:E52F:61CB:51A1 (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has already been discussed in the talk of both the article and in Wiki:Footy. Cherry picked stats and stats from a club's own website are not to be put until there is consensus. please take what you have to the talk.49.244.173.62 (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this guy is already lying..he is removing well referenced stats , and adding stats stating there is a consensus about while no one even ever talked about , and what im adding are clear stats! the fact he doesnt like it doesn't make it cheery , look at the stat Ronaldo scored fastest 100 goals by number of seasons !! ??!? there is by number of games...so how come now we are now counting them by seasons ! the guy who holds the records played more seasons due to shorter league !! but he scored in less games ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3878:81E0:A0A2:1EFE:E57C:DD88 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page for editors to get help with how to use Wikipedia. Your problem is not about how to use Wikipedia. It's a content dispute. The place to discuss this question is at the talk page of the article (click the "talk" button at the top of the page on the article you are concerned about) or at WT:FOOTY. -Thibbs (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of WP:UPNOT[edit]

An editor asked if he could include a link to a blog on his user page. I told him to be wary of doing so per the policy stated in the title. However, I noticed that the policy stated "Excessive unrelated content". What is the definition of excessive in this regard? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a link is content. If copy/paste from the blog was excessive then that would be another matter. This policy was tested recently when a renowned photographer left the commons after others complained that a link to his website and numerous links to awards and accolades were removed from his user space. I think most regret their actions and consensus decided to allow them. This all came too late though as his works won't be uploaded anymore.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So a link or two is fine, but copying and pasting whole paragraphs of text are not? Also, are there any other policies this user could run foul of by putting links in his user page? I ask because I don't want the user to get into trouble. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LINKSPAM for some guidance. For example: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." RudolfRed (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edits[edit]

I would like to add additional information to an article. If I add a paragraph and notes, where on the page will they appear? Projmktg (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They will appear wherever you want them to appear. Take a look at Help:Editing for further assistance.--ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also look at WP:REFB for how to use references to support your new additions. RudolfRed (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or consider our editing tutorial. Try one or both of those editing help articles and then come back here if you have any further questions. Please be aware that anything you add to an article needs to be sourced (see citing sources) to reliable sources. Once again, come back here if our core policies or any of our many policies and guidelines cause you any difficulty. Good luck --Senra (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

L.A. Reid[edit]

Can someone please take a look at the Discography section of L.A. Reid. It's extremely long; I would estimate that there's about 200 listings. I'm not sure what the standard/proper way of displaying a section like that is (collapsing, mulitiple columns, a separate article, etc.?), but can someone who knows please edit it in whatever way is appropriate? Thanks! --76.189.111.199 (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best and standard course here is to split off the discography into a separate article. See Elvis Presley discography and The White Stripes discography for examples.--ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can someone who knows for sure what's best, and is familiar with the process, please make the appropriate edit? I'd prefer not to make an edit like this since I'm not well versed on it. Much appreciated. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've moved the discography to L.A. Reid discography for size reasons. Someone can go through and format it correctly on their own time, based on the standard discography formats. --Jayron32 20:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, thank you so much. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as one might expect there is a WikiProject dedicated to discographies: WP:DISCOGRAPHY.--ukexpat (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PR Firm[edit]

Hi Wikipedia! Is there any problem with a company's PR Firm building the company's Wikipedia page for them? Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.149.226 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. It is strongly recommended that you don't edit the article directly but you are welcome to discuss changes on the talk page or in user space sandboxes. Someone will probably come along and link to our numerous COI, NPOV, etc, pages soon.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Also, any material added needs to come from a WP:reliable source. RudolfRed (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Am I able to assume that your company is Walek & Associates? Whether it is or not, I recommend you discuss this question with CorporateM (talk · contribs) who is a self-declared PR person. He would, I am sure, assist you or your own PR firm in writing an encyclopaedic article that meets Wikipedias core policies and any relevant policies and guidelines (including, in this case, WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:RS as mentioned above). CorporateM can be contacted on his talk-page. Good luck --Senra (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe, it is not only appropriate, but also important, for editors at the help desk to provide links to guidelines that are clearly relevant to the questions being asked. The IP asked a very specific question and therefore should be given a very specific answer (in a friendly manner, of course) based on policies or guidelines. The ones courteously provided by Rudlof and Senra should be very helpful to the IP, as should more specific subsections such as WP:PE and WP:NOPR. And yes Senra, per Wikipedia's geolocation link, 160's IP address is registered to Walek & Associates.[2] --76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@76.189.111.199: Erm. I was not that clever. I simply looked at the OP's recent history which contained edits to Walek & Associates but thank you for the geo-located confirmation :) --Senra (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no problem. ;) By the way, initially I wasn't sure if the IP was asking the question because he was with Walek or because he was having a problem with another editor he thought was with Walek. That's why I wanted to check the geolocation. Have a great evening, Senra. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did answer the question specifically. I just put it in a nutshell for them. The IP asked if there is a problem and the only real problem is editing the articles directly. I do believe this is allowed for minor updates like number of employees, income figures, aquisitions/mergers, and Alexa ranks etc. Many COI editors request these on talk pages anyway just to avoid issues. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe, you said to the IP, "Someone will probably come along and link to our numerous COI, NPOV, etc, pages soon". Although I'm not saying it was your intention, edtiors could easily infer from that comment that you were being sarcastic and feel it's inappropriate to provide such guidelines. Therefore, I just wanted to make the point that it's not only appropriate, but necessary. Particularly with an issue as complex and important as this one, it's extremely difficult to appropriately provide an answer "in a nutshell" and can't be done without including the relevant links, which are excellent education tools. That's why I'm very glad that Rudolf and Senra provided them. While it's certainly important to be friendly to editors asking questions, it's also vital that we direct them to any relevant information so they can have full context. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PR firms are stuck in a tough spot. Reputable firms usually have a "hands-off" policy, which is frustrating for clients that have a genuine Wikipedia-related problem. Smaller firms are more likely to take risks and edit articles, but rarely have the experience to do a decent job. There are only a couple PR firms with adequate in-house expertise to do decent work here.

Wikipedia doesn't offer much clarity on the issue, but the law sets a much higher bar for ethics. The FTC requires marketing pros to disclose our affiliation in online communications and a German court found that - in some circumstances - editing the article could be an illegal form of covert advertising, just like astroturfing any other crowdsourced site (like Amazon reviews). CorporateM (Talk) 05:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing and its clarity on Wikipedia: @Canoe's "Yes and No" answer is precise in this context. Over two-years ago, Wikipedian's attempted and failed to agree a Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline) and a Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy). As far as I am aware, and as mentioned by @76.189.111.199 above, paid editing is only dealt with now as part of the conflict of interest guideline (WP:COI) in the paid editing section (WP:PE) which, in part, states "transparency and neutrality are key"—as also stated by CorporateM above. The same guideline (WP:COI), and again as mentioned by @76.189.111.199 above, addresses public relations staff (WP:NOPR) who are "very strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia in areas where ... external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine [their] ability to remain neutral".
At the very real risk of obscuring the issue here, perhaps I should quote from the What Wikipedia is NOT policy or at least the specific part of that policy dealing with promotion:
Wikipedia is not Advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.
— Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING

--Senra (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can also see: User:CorporateM/How WP:COI would read if I wrote it#Marketing

In my opinion, it offers more clarity than WP:COI, but it represents my personal views only. CorporateM (Talk) 18:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very good work, although I didn't read it all. You may wish to tag it with Template:Guidance essay and Template:Nutshell and then categorize it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a complete afterthought, it must be very hard for new editors faced with our very large number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, some of which conflict with each other. For example, in this context, our username policy (in the WP:CORPNAME section) tells us that "Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product [are not allowed and can be blocked]" whilst the conflict of interest guideline (in the WP:NOPR section) tells us to "provide full disclosure of the [COI] connection". In simple terms, using a username that unambiguously identifies the editor as having a conflict of interest with an existing or new article is intuitive yet it is disallowed per policy. No wonder new editors, such as GreeneCountyPartnership (talk · contribs), sometimes appear frustrated --Senra (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are usernames like User:MicrosoftCOI and ParisHiltonPR allowed?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my area of expertise but reading WP:CORPNAME, yes, both MicrosoftCOI (talk · contribs) and ParisHiltonPR (talk · contribs) are not compliant with that guideline. I know why. It is because prolific edits by such names can be considered promotional. But, in my view anyway, our policies and guidelines conflict in this instance --Senra (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jdsy[edit]

I was contacted yesterday about some things. I'm assuming I was a project. I was told I had some content to give tags of.... Meanwhile I just got here from Florida on Monday. I had a user name. I received unbelievable amounts of threats and hate mail. I couldn't even see why people were pissed at me.... It was very disturbing. So, today I try to sign on so that I can find out what is going on and I was deleted of merged or something of that nature.... My screen name was jdsy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.167.219 (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain with more specifics where you were, what messages you saw, regarding what pages, how you were contacted, what type of email you received, from whom? At first I thought you must be mistaking Wikipedia with another website but I do see that the user account jdsy was created yesterday. However, it never made a single edit, has no deleted edits, and no messages were ever left on its talk page. Also, we don't email new users with threats or with anything else. I also checked your global contributions but only see a single edit at the Simple English Wikipedia and no messages left for you there either.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]