Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 May 13

Help desk
< May 12	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 14 >

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 13

Spacecraft Docking and Berthing Mechanisms table question

How would I remove the border around the APAS-95 images? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_Docking_and_Berthing_Mechanisms#Types

--Craigboy (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I would remove them from the {{double image}} template and nowrap the table cell (like so). — Bility (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you--Craigboy (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

NB I have moved the article to Spacecraft docking and berthing mechanism per Wikipedia's naming conventions. – ukexpat (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Advertisement on my page

I have a page made about me and my notable company. How do i place Google ads there so I can make some money ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.130.178.65 (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You haven't made any pages. This edit was the first this IP address has made to Wikipedia. --Jayron32 04:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Besides which, what the IP is proposing is prohibited at any rate.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 04:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Advertising is not permitted on Wikipedia - it's an encyclopaedia. Of course, if you'd told us your name and that of your notable company, we'd be able to give you specific advice. In my experience, when people have created a page about their own company, it is very rare for it to actually be notable as Wikipedia defines it! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 04:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the IP isn't referring to a page on Wikipedia, but to a page somewhere else on the web? He or she didn't actually say anything about it being on Wikipedia. If this is the case, I am sorry if this is a misunderstanding, but

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Miscellaneous reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps.. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The phrasing is ambiguous—if the page is on Wikipedia, he could be saying a page has been made about him, not by him. If it's here on Wikipedia, it should suffice to say you can't put ads on it, and if it's not on Wikipedia then you're asking in the wrong spot. Maybe try http://www.google.com/intl/en/ads/ ?— Bility (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem with translating articles

I translated the Paris By Night 102 article from Vietnamese wikipedia version. The Vietnamese version of this article has no problem there. Why the English version that I translated and saved here needs "cleanup" and "wikify"? I don't change any content in the article, just translate it. Please answer soon, thank you. I'm new-comer here, hope u will help.Memberofc1 (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Paris By Night 100 & compare the two: the lede flows better at #100, 102's lede reads like a list of points. + What is Chú thích? Jarkeld (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Also, please note that each different language Wikipedia has other rules and what may be accepted in the Vietnamese version might contravene local English rules. Besides, such tags are placed by people. The Vietnamese version might have the same issues, but for the tag to be placed, someone has to notice it first. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Links from templates to the transcluding page

By default, where a template links to a page in which it is transcluded, the link is removed and instead you get the text in bold. Is there a way to make the text appear as neither link nor bold? Yaris678 (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Bold self links are a general feature for all links to the same page, for example Wikipedia:Help desk. It could be avoided by testing whether you are on the page (see mw:Help:Magic words#Page names) and omit the link brackets in that case. Why do you want to change it? Many readers will expect bold and be confused if it isn't there. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Being bold is useful in a navigation template, but the case I am thinking about is the message box about the RfC on use of pending changes protection in the short term.

Something similar can be seen at the top of WP:Pending changes and various sub-pages. It would be good if there was a template that didn't embolden the term pending changes protection when on the WP:Pending changes page but did link to that page from the term when on other pages.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have made {{No selflink}}. The first unnamed parameter is the page you want to link if it isn't the page itself. The second unnamed parameter is an optional text to display instead of the page name. Examples:

{{No selflink|Wikipedia:Help desk}} --> Wikipedia:Help desk

{{No selflink|Wikipedia:Help desk|The Help desk}} --> The Help desk

{{No selflink|Wikipedia:Pending changes}} --> Wikipedia:Pending changes

{{No selflink|Wikipedia:Pending changes|pending changes protection}} --> pending changes protection

You can preview the examples at Wikipedia:Pending changes to see the difference. Does the template look OK? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That template's more than OK! It was just what I needed! Awesome! Thanks.

I have used it at Template:Pending changes May 2011.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Afternoon Wikipedians

Resolved

 Chzz  ►  14:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

user blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am a Computer teacher from Tidworth, England. I am introducing using Wikipedia into the curriculum. Is it okay if a my class of 32 children edit Wikipedia and try and create some articles? It is part of the syllabus entitled Wikipedia and Me- The Virtues of Free Speech. Thank you very much. --MrPurcellsClass (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Good afternoon, Mr. Purcell. Yes, Wikipedia can certainly be used in your tuition, however there are a couple of very important points; Users should never share user accounts. It's bad practice to share passwords, and doing so can result in blocks; so I hope you can use the opportunity to teach your students to each create their own user account, to keep their password to themselves, and to log in under their own username to edit. Note, the user names can be almost anything you like (nicknames, or whatever), and indeed real names are best avoided. Please create "User space draft" pages, instead of making a live article. That way, the class can experiment as much as they like, without various problems with a live article being subject to deletion, and so forth. You can make such pages with the link WP:USERSPACEDRAFT. You may also find this link useful: Wikipedia:Advice for younger editors.  Chzz  ►  12:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Additionally Wikipedia's guidelines on School and University Projects and Advice for teachers provide more information. CaptRik (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Simple Wikipedia might be more suitable for them. See: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page --Aspro (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Thank You My 32 pupils have all logged on and will start editing Wikipedia and experimenting immediately. For the purposes of continuity, they will use this account. Thank you. --MrPurcellsClass (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC) You don't want to get kids into the habit of sharing accounts. If you want to have some way of having an overview of the edits, you could get them to all sign your talk page using four tildas, that way you know who they all are. Yaris678 (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC) {{adminhelp}} Mr Purcell claims he has permission for the class to use a single account. The initial edits don't look promising; they are in mainspace. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC) I've cancelled the adminhelp. I think there are enough eyes on this case already. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC) I've started an AN/I thread, which I think is a better venue for this - please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Teacher / class editing. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  12:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC) I don't think he is who he claims he is. Probably students of his impersonating him to make fun of him. -- Obsidi♠nSoul 13:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC) User was blocked and had talkpage access revoked; this appears to have been trolling.  Chzz  ►  14:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Genetic origins of the Turkish people

dear wikipedia, i would like to bring to your attention that the following article: Genetic origins of the Turkish people is being repeatedly vandalised by people who make political changes or changes out of etnical view. Therefore the discussion set out on the genetic make up of the turkish people is suffering in the article. Since the article is also basically completed and there have been set out the basic principles of the genetic origins of the turkish people, i would like to request that this article be fully protected from any further edits.

Unconstructive edits were for example from user:diyako2000, who removed the populations native to anatolia, namely armenian and assyrian, and changed this with kurds. And also removals from these ancient populations by user:pancho100.

But the most disturbing is the recent edit made by user:dbachmann. He reports that a sizable part of text on the genetic make up of the turkish people is rubbish and he replaced it by that the turks came to anatolia in the 11th and 12th century. This edit by dbachmann is very disruptive, becase first of all the article is about the genetic make up of the turkish people and not about the history of the turkish people. And secondly, he removed sizable factual information on the clarification and the discussion on the genetic origins of the turkish people.

I have seen on the user page of user dbachmann that he has in the past made a lot of unconstructive changes and removals to a lot of articles that infuriates people. I think that he should be given a warning that he should not change a lot of information without opening any discussions on the talk pages of the articles.

and of course i would like to request a full protection on the article Genetic origins of the Turkish people so that no further disruptive edits can take place.

thank you in advance 77.249.201.75 (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, it might be better if you request page protection from here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Do note that protection runs counter to everything that Wikipedia is about and should be rarely used. You must have a good enough reason for it, like incessant vandalism, POV pushing, or edit-warring. In my opinion, I don't think it needs one, but I'll let an admin decide on that. I see that you have already raised the issue with User:Dbachmann, I suggest waiting a bit to see his reaction.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reaction. Unfortunately user:dbachmann has not responded to the issue and has again removed large pieces of source backed text from the article. 77.249.201.75 (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

People of Jewish Descent

1. I just wanted to say the this link says Eli Wallach has polish and Jewish ancestry: http://www.nndb.com/people/735/000022669/ Should that be noted in his article? Thanks! 2. Would it be ok to list Alyson_Hannigan under Category:American_people_of_Jewish_descent since it says she is Jewish on her mother's side? 3. Also is it ok to list Josh_Keaton under Category:American_people_of_Peruvian-Jewish_descent since his parents are both Peruvian and Jewish? Please give your opinions on these questions. Neptunekh2 (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Neither NNDb nor IMDb are reliable sources. When discussing categories, please comment them out with a colon so the markup shows instead of putting the page in the category— [[:Category:American_people_of_Jewish_descent]]. If the articles already have reliable sources, then these categories are appropriate, otherwise you need a source. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And I see that Category:American people of Peruvian-Jewish descent is up for deletion. I have to agree with the reasoning on the CfD page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources for people of Jewish descent

1. Would this link be a good souce about Alyson Hanngian being of Jewish descent: http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/23122/celebrity-jews/ 2. It says in this article that Josh Keaton has a Caucasian parent and a Peruvian parent and he both the Jewish and Catholic holidays http://nomoreheroes.wikia.com/wiki/Josh_Keaton. SO I think it would be far to say that of one his parents is white and the other is Peruvian. Neptunekh2 (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

1) What do you mean by "Jewish descent"? This is the old "Jewish race" concept. 2) You are saying that Peruvians cannot be "white"? 3)I don't think this "no more heroes" website is necessarily a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Re 2: Even if it is a reliable source (which it isn't because it's a wiki), is "American of Peruvian Jewish descent" in the least bit encyclopedic? IMHO it's trivia, it does not define him and he obviously does not identify as such otherwise there would be reliable sources that say he does. – ukexpat (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied to same question on my talk page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Josh Keaton

It says in the article that was born in Hacienda Heights, California to Peruvian and Jewish parents. DOes that mean he's half Peruvian, half Jewish? And where a so called as you say "reliable source" for this statement in the article? Neptunekh2 (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The statement is unsourced. Without further information, "Peruvian and Jewish parents" could mean any combination. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Cats like these can be a battleground so I have removed them from the article. – ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

AFD help Rob Potylo

I missed a step somewhere. Can someone fix this for me? Thank you in advance. --Endlessdan (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done You missed step 3, listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I've done this for you now [1]. You should also notify the major contributors to the article, using {{subst:AfD-notice|article name|AfD discussion title}}. I have not done this. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

how to amend the article title

I recently created my first article on my user page with the temporary title of "User:CChiu2011/my sandbox". I intended to move the page to the "live" Wikipedia and rename the title correctly as "Cantonese nasal-stop alternation". I've been trying several times to click at the "move" button on the top right corner, but nothing happens. Please advise me how I can move my article from my sandbox into the Wikipedia proper or change the temporary title to the correct one.

CChiu2011 (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you had trouble, but anyway - I moved it for you; it's now Cantonese nasal-stop alternation. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Request help on Burson-Marsteller article

I'm coming here with a request on behalf of Burson-Marsteller, looking for another perspective about recent activity on the company's Wikipedia profile. Some background[2]: This week it was uncovered that Burson-Marsteller approached journalists about writing a story about alleged privacy concerns raised by Google’s social circle product at the behest of an unnamed client. The client was later revealed to be Facebook. The initial lack of transparency about the client’s identity raised ethical questions. Once Facebook had acknowledged it was the Burson-Marsteller client, the firm released a statement said it should have declined the Facebook assignment when the client requested that its name be withheld from the media. This has brought renewed attention to B-M's Wikipedia entry, which I am reluctant to address personally for COI reasons. Here are my questions:

• I would appreciate someone looking at the "In May 2011" section[3] where, if nothing else, "PR attack" strikes me as a POV word choice. Otherwise I don't dispute the claims made, but I wonder if this amount of detail is necessarily appropriate. For example, this seems to have been handled with more care on the Facebook Wikipedia entry.
• In this edit[4] somebody deleted a list of major clients from Burson-Marsteller's history from the introductory section, with the odd justification "Removed artefactual client info". These clients are all discussed later in the article, with citations. I hope they can be restored.
• In this edit[5] also in the introduction, an anonymous editor changed the sentence "Burson-Marsteller is well known for its crisis management services, through which it has become identified with several major corporate crises of the past half-century." to say "Burson-Marsteller is well known for its crisis management services, political lobying and smear campaigns". I understand why this would be addressed later in the article, but this seems like too much and biased language besides.
• In this edit[6] someone has added a lot of information related to the Bhopal disaster, for which B-M provided crisis management services, that doesn't really pertain to B-M's role. I'd appreciate someone looking at it. To me, "it didn't deflect criticism of Union Carbide" appears to be POV. This was updated again in this edit[7] but I still wonder if this is appropriately handled.

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide, and I am happy to help answer any questions if I can. Flatiron 230 (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note

Regarding your 2nd point: I also don't see why these clients must be listed in the lead section. It should be sufficient to mention them in the body of the article. Remember that the purpose of the lead section is to summarize the most important points of the article. I think listing them is too specific for the lead section. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

My view on "lists of clients" is that they are spammy and should be removed from the article. They are self serving and "look at me, how great I am and all these clients that I have". You don't see lists of major customers at Microsoft, DuPont or Dow Chemical Company so why should a PR firm be any different? – ukexpat (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a list of clients should be presented in the body and only, if the fact that someone is a client is notable in the sense of Wikipedia, meaning there are independent reliable sources about someone being a client. Otherwise it should not be in the article at all. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

First I want to clarify, these responses answer just one of my questions; I'm ultimately more concerned about the persistence of phrases such as "PR attack" and "smear campaign" which I think create a bias problem in the article. If you would be willing to look at those, I would very much appreciate it. But because you mention these other companies, I think a comparison can be made. Microsoft's lead section does mention a key early customer (Altair), the Dow lead section mentions markets the company sells to, and DuPont contains a list of its best-known products. Likewise, the B-M article had previously included a list of the clients with which it has been chiefly associated. To a PR company, its clients in a way are its products, and those indeed have been B-M's most significant clients over its nearly sixty-year history. Please note that all of these engagements do exist in the article, all are cited and all clients named are themselves the subject of Wikipedia profiles. Flatiron 230 (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The statement "In May 2011, Burson-Marsteller was hired by Facebook to conduct a PR attack on Google." in fact seems to be biased. The orignal statement "The e-mails were meant to whip media outlets into a frenzy -- but the effort backfired when journalists found out that that the anti-Google campaign, conducted by PR giant Burson-Marsteller, was paid for by Facebook." (quote from the source) should be reformulated in a neutral way and then the current formulation should be substituted with this one, in order to achieve a neutral point of view. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

At least the term PR attack doesn't seem to be encyclopedic at all. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The insistence on listing a bunch of major clients is part of what makes people suspect bias in this article. The purpose of this article is not to advertise an advertiser; it is to provide a solid summary of the subject; for this purpose, most of the trivia not only can but should be omitted. notability is not contagious; you don't "catch" it by contact with a notable client or customer. 95-99% of the clients listed here should be trimmed out. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The clients listed in the body of the article itself seem to be fairly notable (even controversial, since the company does specialize in those), addresses both sides of the respective issues, and referenced. Much of the content of the article actually deals with operational history. The 'client listing' Toshio Yamaguchi was referring to earlier was on an earlier diff where they were mentioned in the lead section (which I agree should not be the case).

In my opinion, though, I think some should be mentioned in the lead. The most notable ones at least. Instead of a vague "Burson-Marsteller is well known for its crisis management services, political lobying and smear campaigns" which seems to be a smear campaign in itself, listing some of their most notable affairs would probably be better (the good and the bad, replace 'political lobbying' with a specific mention of Argentina for example and 'smear campaign' with a specific mention of the Facebook-Google affair). And yeah, as an editor completely ignorant of what they are and completely indifferent to the Facebook 'scandal', I do indeed get the feeling that those statements (at least regarding the Facebook thing) aren't neutral and breaks WP:DUE.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 02:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

East Kilbride page

Why have you removed Allan Scott from notable people? He was represented Great Britain at the 2008 Olympics and currently holds a Scottish athletics record. Is that not enough to be a "notable person" from a small town... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.24.57 (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Re. East Kilbride

It was removed by Swabaxter (talk · contribs) with this edit, and I'd guess it was a mistake - it looks like that user was doing lots of edits, which may have taken a while; your addition of Scott might've just been lost in-between (if they were working from an older version).

(You could discover that by looking at the 'history', by the way)

So, the best thing to do is, ask that user - on User talk:Swabaxter.

Meanwhile, I will reinsert your edit. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  18:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Page not loading completely - Dana Plato

Hi guys, just letting you know that the page for Data Plato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Plato) isn't loading completely, after repeated Shift-reload attempts.

Just wanted to let you know.

Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.58.188 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No problems on my win7/firefox 4. Which OS/browser do you use? Jarkeld (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine for me too, Chrome on Mac OSX 10.67. doomgaze (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been having problems generally with slow response and loading on Wikipedia this morning (other sites seem okay). Nothing special about the Plato article, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

See topic here on the Pump.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to mention I'm using IE 8.0.6. Loading OK now. Weird! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.58.188 (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)