Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< August 1 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 3 >
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.


August 2[edit]

User talkpage archive not appearing[edit]

Is there any reason why User talk:Piguy101/Archive 5 is not appearing next to the other archives on User talk:Piguy101? Piguy101 (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The servers hadn't realised that the page needed refreshing. I have "purged" the page, and now all five archives are showing. -- John of Reading (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It works now. Thank you very much. Piguy101 (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Question About RFC Closure[edit]

I have posted this at WP:CLOSE, but it isn't monitored much. Since this is a question and not a complaint, I hope that this isn't forum shopping. I closed an RFC a few days ago. Subsequently an editor posted to my talk page and asked me to add some additional text to my closure. My question is whether this would be an appropriate action. Closing an RFC, on a talk page, boxes the RFC section, stating that it should not be edited further. On the one hand, I think that the request is reasonable. On the other hand, it violates the concept that the boxed section is truly closed. My question is: Should I ignore all rules and add to a closed RFC, or should I request that the other editor request closure review at WP:AN? I am only involved to the extent that I closed an RFC that I had otherwise not taken part in, and I don't have a strong opinion as to how to move on. Thank you for your advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: If the addition or the modification of the closure text is quite helpful, I would IAR and do it. (Non-administrator comment) Piguy101 (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very frequently closers are asked to modify closes. Try closing a few AfDs and your talk page will soon fill up with this sort of stuff. Mostly, these are just attempts to continue the already closed debate. Such attempts should be resisted. However, there are legitimate reasons for modifying a close and this is sometimes done. Reasons include: you were mistaken in policy, you realise that you misunderstood some of the comments in the debate, your closing comments have been misunderstood and need clarifying, andor you overlooked some comments in the debate. If you add to your closing comments you should make it clear that this is an addition, and if you remove something you should strike it rather than deleting. SpinningSpark 08:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On further review, I concluded that the requester partly disagreed with me on the content. (I can't try closing a few AFDs without first submitting an RFA, but RFCs are not that different.) The original RFC had been poorly formatted, without a Survey section for !votes, which I had noted in my closure. I advised the poster that he could open a new, properly formed RFC to run for a new 30 days. That is that. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admins in good standing are welcome to close AfDs if the close does not require admin action (eg close keep) and the debate was not contentious. See WP:NACD. SpinningSpark 02:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ofensive[edit]

some of the things said at the TPG Telecom page is realistacly quite ofensive, it contains very much swearing and bad things, espially in the VIEW HISTORY,very disapropiate for children detmental to mental health,

mr RAJA KAPOOR

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.187.142.107 (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The vandalism was reverted and the page protected at 02.30 UTC this morning - Arjayay (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a paper from a symposium[edit]

I'm trying to use {{Cite conference}} to reference a paper published in the proceedings of a symposium but the date parameter is confusing me. Must I use the dates the conference actually happened (a four-day event) or the date (year) the "Proceedings of..." was published? The template documentation is not clear on this point. I'd really like to do this correctly but if it's too difficult I might just as well use {{Cite book}} and regard the "Proceedings of..." simply as a book and the paper as if it were a chapter. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Date" is usually the date of publication of the source (Proceedings of foo: Santiago, 2000 or whatever) which is often some time after the conference. The actual date of the conference usually forms part of the title of the conference so does not require a separate field. SpinningSpark 15:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about page creation duplication : 2 August 2014[edit]

Good Morning, I have a question and I don't know if you can help me. There is an NFL player that has different links in Wikipedia to his name but didn't have an article. The problem is that some links refer to him to L'Damian Washington and others as L’Damian Washington. I didn't know how to link both names to just one article so I created two articles (one with each name). This is not the best way to do it, so do you know who can help me with this problem ?. Thanks. Tecmo (talk)

The player is L’Damian Washington. I don't see a variant spelling of his name. If there is a variant spelling or commonly used misspelling of his name, a redirect is in order, but I don't see the problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a variant apostrophe, I've redirected it. Tecmo, I'm surprised that someone who's been here for two years with 2000 edits hasn't managed to find the WP:REDIRECT page yet. I don't think it was necessary anyway, I believe the search engine would go straight to the right page even in the absence of a redirect. SpinningSpark 15:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Spinningspark. It appears that we were both resolving the variant apostrophe at the same time. Tecmo: You acted in good faith if you didn't yet know how redirects work. However, please do not create duplicate articles using copy-and-paste. It causes them to drift apart as the primary article is edited. Please read and use WP:REDIRECT instead. This is an anomalous case in that it involves a variant apostrophe rather than a variant spelling, but the solution is still redirection, not duplication. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a list of the lamest edit wars ever. Those are intentional edit wars, in that the editors knew that they were reverting or attempting to insert their language. We briefly had one of the lamest accidental wars ever, as two editors were both trying to correct the issue of two types of apostrophes, a smart apostrophe and a dumb apostrophe, and wound up accidentally creating a redirect loop. It should be fixed by now. It makes no difference to me which apostrophe is primary and which is a redirect as long as both work. Anyway, again, please do not copy and paste to create duplicate pages for variant names. It may be well-meant, but its effects are quite bad. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global CSS Issue[edit]

This morning I noticed that something in Wikipedia's global styles (that is, its not specific to one article) is causing my browser to believe there is a horizontal scroll amount (about 40 pixels) regardless of how wide my browser window actually is. But I am unable to locate the offending div or style that is misplaced nor am I able to find an appropriate place to report "Bugs with the site itself." Draco18s (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before we tell you how to report a bug, let's establish that other editors are seeing this. I have tried three different browsers and two different skins and cannot replicate this. What combination of browser/skin are you using? I suspect that it is an issue with just your computer/browser. Try a different browser, then a different computer to see if this is true, then try restarting your computer. SpinningSpark 16:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a list of a few pages this is happening on for you might also be useful to see if others are having the problem on those pages. This is usually caused by something in a template and usually has nothing to do with the site css or js. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a incorrect birthdate successfully[edit]

Hello I got a message notifying me that my information regarding Stephen Mangan birthdate as incorrect in a interview he said he turned 40 in 2012 IMDb backs this up 22nd of July 1972 I believe Wikipedia used to have this information but now it says he was born in 1968 why do they believe this is suddenly his correct date of birth? I thought I was just doing a public service correcting a piece of faulty information I didn't expect to be told off but doing so ho-hum :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samkalbag (talk • contribs) 19:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question. First, there are not one but two references which verify the 1968 date in the article. Second, please read WP:RS/IMDB as to why IMDb cannot be used as a reference. As much as I like that website they do not require sources, nor do they verify, info submitted to them and the site is riddled with errors. Indeed, they have even had entire pages that were hoaxes. Third, Stephen would not be the first, or the last person, to shave off a few years to make themselves younger in the eyes of others. All of this is why Wikipedia needs WP:SECONDARY and/or tertiary sources for information added to are articles. You can also read WP:MOSBIO for further guidelines regarding this. MarnetteD|Talk 19:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Create Account: Apparent incorrect user-name conflict[edit]

Tried to create an account with the name "RobertAyers". Got reject with the note "The name "RobertAyers" is too similar to the following name: Robertayers". Sounds fair, except that a search for User:Robertayers gets no match and a 'display users starting at' confirms no Robertayers 2001:558:6045:FE:19CC:5CAE:C9B6:7B6E (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The name does exist; see Special:ListUsers/Robertayers. He just has not created a userpage yet. /~huesatlum/ 20:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since Robertayers never edited, you should be able to get an account creator to create RobertAyers for you. Go to Wikipedia:Request an account and follow the directions. Deor (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spaces in usernames are allowed so you could also try "Robert Ayers" if you want, but it's possible you will get the same message. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes 2 in use?[edit]

It looks like PC/2 is being used on Tony Penikett. The result of Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 1 said that PC/2 should not be used. Is this allowed? Piguy101 (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that PC/2 has been applied to the article, after it had previously been under full protection (more drastic than PC2) due to vandalism. It is true that the RFC concluded that PC2 should not be used in the English Wikipedia. However, the software does permit its use. Why don't you ask User:Bearcat why PC2 has been applied to the article? There was a recent issue when PC2 was applied to an article as a WMF Office Action, but this does not appear to be an Office action. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of policy, Wikipedia:Protection policy#When to apply pending changes protection, it is still the case that PC2 should not be used. SpinningSpark 23:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are however apparently only a step away as Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013 closed as "There is only a consensus for implementation if and only if an rfc concerning criteria for its use gains community-wide consensus first." and Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 closed as "That said, there is consensus for proposals 1 and 2 and 7 to be used as criteria." which provided the criteria required for the 2013 proposal to implement to be accepted. One more proposal based on those two RfCs should do it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the actual close, T13. The actual close says those three are only criteria if PC2 is implemented in the future. There is no existing consensus to use PC2 on en.wp at the moment. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Bearcat, and have said that there is a question here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I suspect that one more proposal based on those AfCs will concentrate the opposition, and make it clear that we do not as a group want to do this. (My own reason for opposing is that we have already too great complexity especially for things that affect newcomers, and the very worst thing we could do is to increase this. ) Inanyeven, any individual admin starting poff on their own is trying to force the issue by making it a fait accompli, and the change should be reversed as being made in direct opposition to existing policy. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was simply an accidental misclick, not a deliberate flouting of any policy. Not that I actually knew (or had any reason to know) that any policy against PC2 actually existed — but that's a moot point, since I didn't use it intentionally (and have actually never done so even once in my ten years as an administrator.) I would suggest, however, that if there's actually a policy against its use by regular administrators in normal content disputes, then maybe it should be removed entirely from the menu of options available to an administrator, so that an accident like this can't happen in the future. If it's really meant to be restricted to a narrow range of office-specific uses, then maybe people with the office level of privileges should be the only people who even have access to the option. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The help desk is not really the place to make that suggestion, but aren't admins supposed to know the protection policy before they protect anything? SpinningSpark 21:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're suggesting that administrators have a responsibility to reread the protection policy each and every individual time they want to protect a page just in case something might have changed since the last time they read the protection policy, even when the change in question doesn't actually impact any of the page protections the administrator in question has actually performed, I haven't acted inconsistently with my responsibility in any way. Again, this was an accident that resulted solely from mouse scrolling, not a deliberate flouting of policy — and as such, it's not something for which I deserve to be admonished for somehow failing in my duty as an administrator. Bearcat (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2014_August_2&oldid=1083426593"