Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 July 7

Help desk
< July 6	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 8 >

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.

July 7

How to edit a document

A page named Bhumihar has been reported vandalism, but there is a wrong information in about origin of Bhumihars and i am unable to edit it, so how can I edit it.Shivam kr. Singh (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It might vary for certain users, but there should be an edit button to the right of the article title. It might also help for you to look at Help:Editing. Dustin (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Shivam kr. Singh: You need to put an edit request on the page's talkpage. Add a new section at the bottom of the page and put {{edit protected}} on it. Then specify exactly what to change and where to change it. More information can be found at Wikipedia:Edit requests. Ask for any questions. Piguy101 (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Listen to what Piguy101 said. I hadn't realized the page was semi-protected. I believe it is also possible to leave an edit request relatively easily by clicking on the "view source" button, then clicking on the "submit edit request" button. Dustin (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

But please ensure that you cite verifiable reliable sources that clearly back up your request, or it will not be implemented. The reason the page is semi-protected is because of the number of edits which were not a neutral point of view and edits based on "personal knowledge" and unreliable sources. Arjayay (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Templates, navboxes, categories, and my utter, utter confusion

I've come here for guidance. I'm about to fix the categories for the navboxes I created, listed at the bottom of User:Anna Frodesiak. Basically, I want to remove all the cats to the article categories, so that only cats that are navboxes/templates remain. I have encountered all sorts of issues that I cannot figure out:

1. Category:Golf templates has a parent cat Category:Golf. That's okay, right? I gather that individual navboxes shouldn't have cats that are the articles, but template/navbox cats can have parent cats that are articles, right?
2. Category:Sports and games Wikipedia administration just confuses me completely.
3. The parent cats in Category:Society and social science templates is also baffling to me. Parents are Category:Science and nature templates and Category:Wikipedia templates at the same time. How can that be? Plus, it's a container cat that shouldn't have pages, right? Dear, oh dear.
4. A navbox is a kind of template, right? So, as for cats, aren't all navboxes children of templates? Then I see Template:Woodworking has Category:Technology and applied science templates, Category:Forestry templates, and Category:Navigational boxes. Is this right?
5. Per item 4, can a navbox or cat have parent cats that are XXX templates and XXX navboxes at the same time?
6. Category:Navigational boxes says that it is a container cat, yet contains a whole bunch of pages. Are those supposed to be subcatted (added to the child cats)?

I'm so sorry to bother you all with all of this.

I wish to start with going through the navboxes I made to remove obviously wrong cats, like Template:Paper and its cats Paper and Forest products cats, which are articles. Of course, it also has Category:Navigational boxes, which must be refined. That is where I'm at now: trying to figured out the most refined cat for these things. I'll wait for feedback to these questions before I begin.

Many thanks for any guidance you can offer. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You would probably be better off taking these issues to Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories, although the talk page does not seem to be very active. At least some of your points (point 6 for instance) should be taken to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. SpinningSpark 11:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Spinningspark, I posted at one of those pages to discuss here, so as not to post this whole thing a third time. Anyway, it may all be moot, as I don't see anyone nutty enough to take on this list. :) Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits to "SAE Institute" Wiki page

Hello, I recently edited the "SAE Institute" wiki page (SAE Institute) and added more information to the "Notable Alumni" section because I thought it would be interesting for the readers to know some of the people who have graduated from SAE Institute especially since all of the ones I added became well known music producers or filmmakers. However, most of the SAE Alumni I added to the page do not have their own wiki pages. One day after I added approximately 57 names to the list (source of my information= https://blog.sae.edu/de/hall-of-fame/) I saw that Wikipedia added several comments to the page including: "This article currently links to a large number of disambiguation pages", "This article appears to be written like an advertisement", "This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience.". I did not realize before adding the information that the list of alumni would be considered advertising the company and too detailed. Once I read this however, I decided to try to undo what I had added and remove all of the new alumni from the Notable Alumni list... However, this was then undone by someone else. And so now I do not know what to do? How can I undo my error and get the page back to a page that isn't "like an advertisement" with "an excessive amount of intricate detail" and "links to a large number of disambiguation pages". I would like to revise what I have done as soon as possible, please let me know what I should do? Thank you! UPDATE: I removed the "excessive amount of intricate detail" and fixed up formatting, so hopefully the page is acceptable now?

Saebkkthailand (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

To answer just one of your points – a list of "Notable Alumni" is acceptable, but you should be aware that "notable", in this context, means "the subject of a Wikipedia article". Most of the people on your list were not notable in this sense. Indeed the only notable name I can see there is Kriesi. Maproom (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Given your username, I assume you work for, or are otherwise related to, SAE Bangkok Thailand? If so, you should read, understand and follow our polices on conflict of interest. Except in certain extremely limited areas, you should not be editing the page at all, but should make suggestions on the talk page.

Your user-name is probably also in contravention of our Username policy as usernames that represent the name of a company, group, institution etc are considered promotional. You should consider asking for a change of name - please seeWikipedia:Changing username - Arjayay (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Submitting An Entry For Review

I'm sorry but I have checked FAQ's and can't seem to find an answer that works for me. I have an article that's ready for review submission on my Draft page but need instructions on how to actually submit the page. Would appreciate any help in this matter. Nothing on the Draft page indicates an option for submission. Thank you. Jladrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jladrew (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You can submit it for review by putting {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. You might also like to check out Wikipedia:CHEATSHEET for some details on how to format your draft with sub-headings, sections and similar. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

..., and you could also usefully read WP:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not very nice language

I was reading about Hunter Moore. There was a direct quote from him that used the F word a couple of times. Is there any way this could have been edited to not be so offensive? This may seem prudish, but my 76-year-old mother reads things on your website and I know she would be taken aback. Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.70.63 (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the very few times that Wikipedia is not censored is used correctly. Far too often, the claim of "censorship" is used for the removal of questionable BLP information. In this case, the subject of the article used language that was "not very nice", and quoting the precise language used by the subject of the article was appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

Can I also make profile like actors on wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikash59 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vikash59: I a not sure what you mean. If you are asking if you are allowed to create articles about actors, the answer is yes. However, they must be notable and you must include citations about the actor. Piguy101 (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If you mean, can you make a profile of yourself, please read autobiography for why this is strongly discouraged. Incidentally, Wikipedia does not have profiles. It has encyclopaedia articles. There is a difference in purpose, and usually in content, between these. --ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference errors on Protein Wisdom (blog)

I have a cite error not defined for a footnote on my page. The original online article has been removed but I've found another quoting it. How do I fix the individual cite error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.92.181 (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The cite error message indicates that a reference was not properly closed. That is, <ref> should be closed with </ref> . Fixed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Submitting information

I would like to know how to add information to WKIPPEDIA. We would like to list our company history and information as we are celebrating our 50th year in North America — Preceding unsigned comment added by TREEISLAND STEEL (talk • contribs) 18:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have a conflict of interest if you work for the company. Also, it appears that your user name is in violation of Wikipedia policy on user names because it is a role name representing a company rather than associated with an individual. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If your company is notable (i.e., it has been written about, at length, by reliable sources independent of the company, such as major newspapers, or books from reputable companies; but not blogs, directories or press releases) then Wikipedia could have an article on the company; but you should not write it because of your conflict of interest. You best bet is to collect the reliable independent references required, and post a request at requested articles. --ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Concern on AjoChhand machine

Since Robert McClenon commented in my talk page that my comment is not in good taste, so he deleted it, I found it is not deleted, therefore I deleted it. I do not want to abuse anyone or hurt anyone. --MasaComp (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It is generally not a good idea to delete "merely uncivil" comments from Wikipedia pages or article talk pages, because that can leave subsequent comments appearing not to respond to anything. (Comments that qualify for redaction or suppression are a special case.) (On a user talk page, the user has control and may delete the comments, although archival is preferred.) A better approach to comments that one regrets having made is to strike them by enclosing them in <del> and </del> . Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The place that these concerns should be addressed is Talk:AjoChhand Machine. There has been no discussion there, and that talk page does not even yet exist. I see no evidence that he is harassing you, or that he is removing content. He is applying tags to the article, and you are removing them, saying that you have addressed his concerns. Rather than removing the tags, I suggest that you request a third opinion or go to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Also, try to be civil. Your comments are harsh, and could be viewed as a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The article AjoChhand Machine appears to be a hoax, perhaps inspired by the Sokal affair. Maproom (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If the article is thought to be a hoax, but a well-constructed hoax, then it should be nominated for deletion via the discussion process. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe MasaComp may also be referring to David Eppstein's reversions of references to AjoChhand Machine that MasaComp has been adding to other articles. I have started a talk page for the article, which I suspect is nonsense. Rwessel (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Lets discuss Rwessel and Robert McClenon decide whether this is a hoax or not. I sincerely request all of you to check all related papers there. I am personally hurt seeing these views, I added to other pages because Wikipedia suggested, the article is "Orphan" add to other articles.--MasaComp (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Peter Liguori bio entry

As a representative of Tribune Company, I would like to request some help in correcting the entry for Peter Liguori. I want to be respectful of Wiki's rules regarding the editing process, but the current entry needs badly to be updated.

Mr. Liguori's full title is President and Chief Executive Officer for Tribune Company.

The information on the page regarding his service on the Yahoo! Board is also needs to be updated--he stepped down from the board in 2014, concluding service that began in 2012.

Finally, much of his career prior to joining Tribune appears to be omitted. His full bio can be found here: http://corporate.tribune.com/pressroom/?page_id=5058

Liguori previously served as Chief Operating Officer of Discovery Communications. Before joining Discovery in 2009, Liguori served as Chairman of entertainment for the Fox Broadcasting Company. Prior to assuming that position in 2005, Liguori was president and CEO of News Corp.’s FX Networks since 1998, overseeing business and programming operations for FX and Fox Movie Channel. Liguori joined Fox/Liberty Networks in 1996 as senior vice president, marketing, for a new joint venture, which now includes Fox Sports Net, FX, Fox Sports World, SPEED and National Geographic Channel.

Prior to joining Fox, Liguori was vice president, consumer marketing, at HBO. He also held several positions in HBO’s Home Video Division, including vice president, marketing, and senior vice president, marketing. Liguori also has experience as a producer of the widely acclaimed independent feature film, “Big Night.” Prior to HBO, he worked in advertising at Ogilvy & Mather and Saatchi & Saatchi. Mr. Liguori served on the Board of Directors of Yahoo! from April 2012 to June 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.192.12.1 (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for not updating the article yourself, because that would create a conflict of interest. Please post your requested changes at the talk page, Talk:Peter Liguori

I have made two small changes that you recommend, as they are supported by the source you cite.

Neither your request nor the source lists his activities in chronological, or reverse chronological, order, making things harder for a helpful editor. Maproom (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

references

how many references do i need to publish an article. There's a minimum number needed?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LBAZN (talk • contribs) 20:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It depends. See Wikipedia:Notability, and tell us the subject if you want more specific advice. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It the quality, depth of coverage, reliability and independence of the references, that count, rather than the number.
An entire article in a major international newspaper or magazine, may only be only one reference, but this is substantial, reliable and independent. 25 mentions in passing - e.g. inclusion in a list, count for almost nothing, as they are trivial; 25 blogs count as absolutely nothing as they are not reliable; 25 press releases, or websites connected to the subject are equally unacceptable, as they are not independent - please see WP:42 for a summary, but this is only a summary. - Arjayay (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit reference?

I wanted to make several edits to a film page and discovered that a quoted newspaper article about the film contained a factual error. Is that reference also editable on the Wikipedia page--I don't wish to edit the reference (the reference indicated the number I when it should have said III)? 71.95.96.138 (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It might be easier to understand your question if you told us which Wikipedia article, and which reference, it is about. Maproom (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Beta

What is that new option that says "Beta" for? It is located to the top right of my screen, between the words "Preferences" and "Watchlist". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a link to a page where you can enable some WP features in beta. Just click on it for the options. Rwessel (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's just a shortcut to the "Beta features" tab at Special:Preferences. I guess the Foundation wanted more exposure. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, why didn't you just click it and see what it was? Dismas|^(talk) 00:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I did click it, and it's all Greek to me. I don't even know what the word "Beta" means. Hence, my above question. I assume it is some type of computer lingo. And, as is typically the case, people who are well-versed in computer lingo and jargon (unrealistically) expect all others to be equally well-versed. When one clicks on that "Beta" link, there is clearly no explanation as to what it is all about. It's just has a bunch of check-mark boxes, presuming that we are all supposed to know what they are talking about. I clicked the link; it was clearly unhelpful. I saw a "brand new" link recently included with all of the other links I had been accustomed to seeing. So, not knowing what this "Beta" business is all about – and I still don't know – I decided to post a question here. All of the other seven choices (links at the top right of my Wikipedia page) are common everyday words and thus self-explanatory (My User Name, Talk, Sandbox, Preferences, Watch List, Contributions, and Log out). To all of a sudden see a strange word like "Beta" pop up in there is odd; and it should be explained somewhere more clearly. Most people do not know what the word "Beta" means. It is not an everyday word of common usage. It is not a self-explanatory option. It is clearly the jargon or language of a specific group; I suspect something to do with computer lingo. Nonetheless, it is not a word for the layman. Hence, its appearing out of the blue on my Wikipedia Page merits some better explanation. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I see now that it was more confusion over the term itself. Beta is the release of, generally, software that needs testing outside of the people who developed it before it can be released to the general public. Dismas|^(talk) 04:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Also all Greek and a confusing device the laymen rejected. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Many users may not know what Beta software is but Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures has explanatory text and displays this at the top for me: "Here are some new features we're considering for Wikipedia. Please try them out and give us your thoughts, so we can improve them based on your feedback." Are you not seeing that? If so, what is your language setting at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal and your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 120#Introducing Beta Features and Media Viewer for information when the Beta link was added in November 2013. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I do see that sentence. I think that this explanatory sentence should say something to the effect of what User Dismas stated above: "Beta is a program by which Wikipedia is testing out some new computer options, and we'd like to get you to start using these new features" ... or something like that. Or, in the alternative, the word "Beta" at the top right of the Wikipedia page should be changed to "New Features" or some such. Let's make Wikipedia (and its new features) accessible to all editors, not just those who are "privy" to the lingo and jargon of computer programmers. You (Wikipedia) are turning people away – that is, discouraging use of the Beta features – when you don't explain the word to laymen and simply expect them to "figure it out" on their own, with no guidance or direction. And, I assume, that is the very opposite result that a Beta release is trying to achieve (less user input and beta testing as opposed to wider exposure). If people don't know what that word "Beta" means (at the top right of their Wikipedia page), they are not going to bother to click on it. They will assume it is something that is not applicable to them or is of no interest to them. And, I would venture, most regular editors here do not know what the term means. If the word "Beta" was changed to "New Features" (or something equally inviting), many more people would be clicking on it and, thus, participating in the Beta testing. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)