Help desk
< November 21	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 23 >

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.

November 22

Children in BLP

In a Biography of a Living Person, is it acceptable or not for children to be named and/or discussed if the children are not themselves famous?

More specifically, say a moderately famous person's son commits suicide. Is it acceptable to write about that suicide? Note that there are no other references to the person's children in the article.

Something about it just strikes me as inappropriate... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantha1961 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is cited by a reliable source then it should not be considered a violation of BLP but it might be an issue with undue weight. I think the question becomes is it significant to that person the biography is about. An example of appropriate weight is probably John Walsh and the murder of his son. My two cents. XFEM Skier (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While potentially possible, in general there is no good reason to and per WP:BLPNAME - they are generally only known for the 1 event of being a celebrity's child - the bar should be pretty high for including names of minor children. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I've seen lots of articles where relatives are named for no reason. AS XFEM Skier says, very often it's undue weight to name them. And in the case of underage, it's certainly inappropriate except for notable cases. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it might be true in regards to a Minor child in isolation, but for example, I would be fine if the article on State Senator Creigh Deeds included the name of his son who the police believe stabbed him and then committed suicide. The son in this situation was age 24.Naraht (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor removing my maintenance tags because they are "ridiculous" and "make a mess"

I have been involved in a dispute today, the subject matter does not matter for the purpose of this question, first I raised the alterations that I thought were needed to a range of articles on a talk page and on two noticeboards, got a consensus, not from very many people to be sure, but there was agreement that the changes should be made, so I started to do so and am not surprised to find myself now in a dispute with an editor who does not agree with those changes. S/he has reverted a lot of them, so instead of edit-warring I have put accuracy and point of view disputed tags on an article and a template. What does surprise me though and I am not sure how to deal with is that this user simply removes the "disputed" tags, telling me that I am being disruptive, the alteration I and others agreed should be made is "ridiculous" and the tags "make a mess". I don't want to get into a silly "I put the tags on,s/he takes them off" over and over game, but I don't want to have to accept either that the other user can just say" there's no dispute, you are disruptive". Is there anything I can do about this? maybe some way to ask for admin intervention without going to AN/I? ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One user agreeing with you does not make a consensus when trying to change a very old status quo. Changes should be made, of course, but not all those that you proposed. Your edits have been reverted by a number of users, not only the one you are discussing here without notifying him. You should have explained what it is that I reverted. Since you failed to do that, I will. You changed "Franz, Duke of Bavaria" into "Franz Duke of Bavaria" because it is supposedly more accurate and more neutral, being closer to the subject's legal name ("Franz Herzog von Bayern"). It is, of course, neither more accurate nor more neutral. It is merely a terrible abuse of orthography. You inserted dispute and POV tags because I reinserted the comma, claiming that the comma makes the article biased and inaccurate. Of course, the comma does no such thing. The comma is there because common sense requires it to be there. It is one of the most basic principles of punctation, and has absolutely nothing to do with your on-going crusade. If you believe that the title should be treated as a surname (i.e. without the comma), then you should not translate it. Mihály Kovács does not become Michael Smith, nor does Stefan Schumacher become Stephen Shoemaker. However, the man whose legal name is "Franz Herzog von Bayern" is known as "Franz, Duke of Bavaria" in English, much like Dana Elaine Owens is known as Queen Latifah. This is a plain case of WP:Use English. Surtsicna (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I wanted to get another opinion on here was whether it is OK for you just to revert my edits, remove the tags that I put on instead of getting involved in an edit war, tell me not to be disruptive, and put the article(s) back to the way they were before. I know you think it is ridiculous, I and Dougweller do not, I really don't want to have to go to AN/I or something about this,I did not go into the subject matter because I all wanted here was an outside opinion if it is OK to remove "disputed" tags from an article and dismiss the dispute as "ridiculous".Smeat75 (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

claiming a consensus within less than one day, unless you have 20 people all in agreement, is generally claiming a consensus before one exists. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, if you are in a dispute, there are dispute resolution avenues and such you can go to without going through ANI. And based off the information presented here by both you and Surtsicna, I think that context/subject matter was important here, and that the reverting was not out of line. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, forget "claiming a consensus" me and one other guy thought it was a good thing to do, and I am not surprised to be reverted. What I want an opinion on is "is it OK just to remove those dispute tags and tell me to stop being disruptive and making a mess?" And I think there will be dispute resolutions on the subject matter.Smeat75 (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said that the reverting was not out of line (something that I was only able to determine knowing the background). "Making a mess" may have been a tad incivil, but I believe the removal was justified in this situation. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the overwhelming majority of sources and standard English grammar would call for "Franz, Duke of Bavaria", it is not out of line to call the removal of the comma "ridiculous" and to call it "making a mess" when, because the "ridiculous" edit was reverted, someone spammed the article with inappropriate tags. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What RPOD said. Franz, Duke of Bavaria has a comma in English for the same reason that Diana, Princess of Wales and Philippe II, Duke of Orléans do. Cherry-picking a Wikipedia article that uses this accepted title format and attempting to change it to a nonstandard version without a wider consensus is not the way to improve the encyclopaedia. Neither is changing the focus of the dispute to the behaviour of the person who who reverted your attempt back to the accepted version and then got mildly and understandably testy when you tried to progress your point by adding inappropriate tags onto the article in question. If you want to focus on the issue, and discuss whether there is a case for changing how we punctuate the titles of all such individuals, a good starting point might be Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility). - Karenjc (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, RPOD and Karenjc. Unfortunately, the comma was again removed from the lead sentence and the inappropriate tags were readded today. Please see Franz, Duke of Bavaria. This rape of grammar is completely senseless. Surtsicna (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lincolnshire

The template for Lincolnshire used to include the category in its definition, so that all of the villages and civil parishes were included in the parent Lincolnshire category as well as the Villages in Lincolnshire and Civil parishes in Lincolnshire. I removed the category from the template, but all the articles are still listed in the parent category. I can't figure out what keeps them showing up. Thank you for any help. Jllm06 (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at WP:FAQ/Categories#Why might a category list not be up to date?, but then I was looking to see when you removed the category from Template:Lincolnshire and couldn't immediately find such a change; when was it? - David Biddulph (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was the Template East Lindsey (district). Jllm06 (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had just spotted the similar change at Template:South Holland (district). The FAQ may therefore be the answer. - David Biddulph (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will try the null edits.Jllm06 (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of "Everyday Edisons"

.

Google Hummingbird

I gave a blog link in the External links section and it was deleted. But many other blog links can be found in your references. Is it Wikipedia paid that the moderator can put their friends links only or paid links only. The link was - http://technologiesinternetz.blogspot.in/2013/11/how-hummingbird-has-changed-definition.html First I put this link under - References - the link was deleted. Later on i put this link under - External Link - Again it was deleted. Is it biased that only moderator or checker can do anything. Other blog links are visible but when i put my favourite blog they delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.74.24.62 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you probably can find many blog links in external link sections. And they most always are inappropriate and should be removed. You will probably find the fact that other articles have some crap that needs to be cleaned up is not really a convincing argument that you should be allowed to clutter bad links in yet another article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time and read WP:RELY, especially sections 2.3 Biased and Opinionated Sources and 3 Questionable and self-published sources. teratogen (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there any remaining blog links that you think should not be listed in the article, please note them below. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using Archive.org or Google Cache to fix dead links

If an article's reference has a dead link, is it acceptable to change the link to the Archive.org or Google Cache copy? teratogen (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Google Cache, as these quickly become dead too. Archive.org is ok, however, it is generally better to use a CS1 template (eg. {{cite web}} with archived links, as they can have |archiveurl and |archivedate , leaving the original URL intact. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See more at Wikipedia:Link rot. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

kinfra

KINFRA

K N Srikumar, Sr media advisor KINFRA, KINFRA House Sasthamangalam Trivandrum- 695010 ph 04712726585 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.238.36 (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is the help desk, for asking questions about using or finding your way around Wikipedia. You seem to be trying to create an article, but this is not the place to do it. Unfortunately your text also breached Wikipedia's strict rules on copyright violation, because it appeared be cut-and-pasted directly from other websites, so I have removed it. Wikipedia:Your first article is a good place to learn more about how to create articles that comply with our policies! and the Wikipedia:Article wizard is there to help you create and submit it correctly. -Karenjc (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting this copy+pasted text on random (?) Wikipedia pages (1, 2, 3, 4, ...) as this just wastes the time of the volunteer editors who put things straight again. Instead, since you are the media adviser for KINFRA, you should have a look at the Wikipedia guideline on conflict of interest and its summary page. I also recommend that you register a named account, so that other editors can leave you messages more easily. Since your IP address has changed several times already today, you may not have seen the messages left for you at, for example, User talk:122.167.198.10. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Lampoon

The wiki article on Harvard Lampoon tragically and erroneously states that Douglas Kenney and Henry Beard are the co-founders of Harvard Lampoon. Truthfully, one of the longest published humor magazines was founded by a girl and only a girl. Submissions by other humorists, even if they're well liked by the girl, are not accepted for life.. Also, Harvard Lampoon is in no way associated with any college and the college which is near the Harvard Lampoon is not named Harvard, but everybody in the whole world knows that. Please correct the mistakes on your wiki article so that I could sleepy happily :) Also, National whatever is not associated with Harvard Lampoon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.232.26 (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable published sources for the information, you are welcome to edit the article, giving the sources. Alternatively, the talk page Talk:Harvard Lampoon is the right place to discuss improvements to the article. --ColinFine (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Lampoon makes no claim to be founded by Douglas Kenney and Henry Beard. Their only mention is: "An important line of demarcation came when Lampoon editors Douglas Kenney and Henry Beard wrote the Tolkien parody Bored of the Rings." This post sounds like attempted humor. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the article in question is "The Harvard Lampoon is an undergraduate humor publication founded in 1876 by seven undergraduates at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts." Considering that Harvard University had no women undergraduates in 1876 (or for decades thereafter), one can only assume that 66.216.232.26 is trying to be either clever or insulting. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article on John McKelvey - Actor

I submitted a page on John McKelvey, the actor, some months ago. So far nothing has happened. I am new to submitting articles to Wikipedia, and I confess that I do not understand all the terms, protocols and stuff. Can anyone help? Has my article been received? Is it in the right format? How does it become part of Wikipedia?

Regards,

Arthur Hill Ganzyratcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganzyratcher (talk • contribs) 08:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly looked at your draft and would say that when it gets reviewed it will be declined. While you have 3 references at the end I don't see that they are referencing particular data and don't meet the reliable source requirement for Wikipedia. It is also not formatted correctly for a Wikipedia article. I suggest looking through WP:YFA. My quick Google search did not return any reliable sources but you might be able to find more. Good luck XFEM Skier (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was submitted in August. Have it been missed for reviewing somehow? The backlog is not that long, is it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was created back in August but not actually submitted. The correct template was applied this morning by User:Rankersbo in this edit, and it has now joined the queue for review. - Karenjc (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn´t know the difference. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the submission was actually made in the previous edit, also this morning. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what is said above, IMDB is not a reliable source. See WP:RS/IMDB. Dismas|^(talk) 10:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Campbell McKelvey reads like a biography. However, it appears that you got the information from John McKelvey himself (Resume and 'A Life in the theatre' a personal recollection by John McKelvey). Wikipedia uses sources that are independent of the subject (here, independent of John McKelvey) to determine whether to have an article on the topic and determine what should go into the article. Resume and 'A Life in the theatre' a personal recollection by John McKelvey are not sources that are independent of John McKelvey. From his career, he likely has received newspaper, book, and/or magazine coverage that is independent of John McKelvey. Look for and use those independent sources to rewrite the draft. For an example basic biography formatting, take a look at James Le Jeune. The best examples are at Category:FA-Class biography articles. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone knowledgable about the workings of Google searches and deleted articles?

Hi! Brief summary: An article was created, tagged for deletion, and then deleted by me. Editor asked a question on my page (turns out the article was an autobiography) , and then deleted that, but I responded on her talk page. In the meantime, she raised a request at WP:REFUND, and got a response on her talk page.

Summary over! She has now asked a question regarding Google searches and how to stop the deleted article (which is stating that she is non-notable) cropping up when people search her name. I don't know enough about the workings of search engines to be able to help her. Can anyone stop by her talk page and help her out? Thanks! Stephen! ^Coming... 10:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've observed that when I post a new Wikipedia article, the article turns up almost immediately in a Google search. (Google's bots are probably crawling Wikipedia 24/7.) It usually is listed down on the Google search results page, but rises up over the next few days. I assume the opposite would be true for a delete page such as "Mina Ghabel Lunde - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia".Google search. Perhaps over a few days, the Google search of the Mina Ghabel Lunde Wikipedia article will drop down in rank and eventually disappear once the Google bot reports back to Google that there is no such Mina Ghabel Lunde Wikipedia article page. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to rename the category

Hello,

what is the procedure to rename the category title which return wrongly.

Regards Ananthesha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananthesha (talk • contribs) 14:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of categories is done at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism text not findable in Wikisource

As reported by User:Discmon in Talk:Escalator, there is some vandalous text appearing in the article, but the offending text appears nowhere in the Wikisource. My guess is that it comes from a vandalized template or Wikicode, but I don't know how to localize it further. Can anybody help fix this, or at least direct me to where to ask for more expert help? Thank you. Reify-tech (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was due a server cache. I purged the page and it's gone. This is the edit. Cheers, --Glaisher [talk] 17:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wish to add names to incomplete list of those already identified as 'Men of Santiago de los Caballeros, Dominican Republic'

Hello as found on the the Subject/headline above, I have been trying and failing to edit/add names to the list acknowledged as accepting additional names. Each name of this page has a corresponding page number to locate, and learn more about, and the root of this page was the story about a popular and famous, Dominican artist named Yoryi Morel, whom I knew well as I did the members of his family. I knew many other persons of Santiago as well, a landlocked, second city of the D.R. I would like to add names of people I remember to this page. I have not logged in with Wiki, and I appreciate all of its volunteers as I too wish to become one of. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.48.15 (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add links to the actual pages you are referring to, without them it is very difficult to figure out what you are talking about. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is talking about Santiago de los Caballeros, where Yoryi Morel is mentioned. Although User:TheRedPenOfDoom has removed some redlinks from the "Notable people" list, as of 1 November, Morel was not on that list, so has not been removed recently (I haven't gone right back), so I'm not quite sure what the IP is referring to. Arjayay (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the IP user is trying to add new Notables to the page, and is finding that his red links fall victim to the Red Pen. He's not complaining about Morel's page being missing. I think he wants to know how his additions can survive (and perhaps, how they can have pages like Morel's, too.) The best answer is probably that to justify their belonging on the list, (if they are indeed notable) the subjects first need to have article pages written on them to assert their notability. --Kdtully (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And of course we would not have a list of "Men of..." any place; merely of "Notable people of...". --Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle twinkle

Hey guys,

I don't know what was wrong with my TWINKLE, but its not working properly for me for the past hour. Is anybody having the same issue or its working properly? -- L o g X 18:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reported on the Twinkle talk page here: Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Glitch?. Dismas|^(talk) 01:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]