Help desk
< September 2	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 4 >

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.

September 3

Disambiguation page titles

Should the title of a disambiguation page be italicized if all of their entries also have italic titles? Asking because some of the Orangemoody socks had placed {{italictitle}} across many dab pages to get autoconfirmed. Altamel (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Altamel: WP:ITALICTITLE says that a title should only be italicized if it should appear like that in the body of text. According to MOS:DABINT, "the term being disambiguated should be in bold (not italics)." So no, the disambiguation title should not be in italics. You might also want to take a look at all the links too to see if they should remain italicized or not. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do, thanks! Altamel (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem Creating Wiki Page

I am still having issues with trying to create this Wikipedia page, this issue has been going on for months. For this page it wouldn't allow me to login so I have to create a new one then I received a message stating the account can't be created or it won't be active be since it appears to be advertisement and that's not the case at any assistance you can provide that would be great. I know it shouldn't be the hard to create a page. I am just trying to create a wiki page for a music producer and then link the other pages that he has written songs on to link to his page as well. Please Help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony "Pastor Shep" Crawford (talk • contribs) 01:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony "Pastor Shep" Crawford: I am assuming you mean the page Shep crawford. It was deleted as a purely promotional article. Please read WP:NOTPROMOTION regarding this policy. Wikipedia is not for promoting particular people. If the individual is notable, a page can be created for them but autobiographies are frowned upon and it seems like your username indicates that you may have a conflict of interest. If you want to create this article it must follow all of the Wikipedia guidelines including reliable sources, verifiability, and neutral point of view as well as the notability guidelines (specifically those found in WP:NMUSIC). In addition, to avoid any conflicts of interest you could use the articles for creation board. They will read your article and make sure it follows all the policies that Wikipedia has regarding articles. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article title italicised?

The article title for Sexwitch shouldn't be italicised, because it's an article about a band, not an artistic work (eg an album). But I can't figure out what's causing it to be italicised in the first place. It doesn't seem to be using the "italic title" template. What am I missing? Popcornduff (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are using the Album infobox in the article, it does an automatic ital title. Note that the image use is probably an inappropriately use WP:FAIR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, noted. Popcornduff (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornduff: {{Infobox album}} has an optional parameter |Italic title=no. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Google map

I am going to add some beneficial information to Wikipedia.org but I face a problem with add google.map, could you help me how to add google map page to Wikipedia?

For Example: I wanna show Kabul, Afghanistan to Wikipedia.org, I need Google map to show Kabul with accessibility to zoom in or out , can we do in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.224.127.58 (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot add other services like Google Maps to a Wikipedia article because those services are copyrighted. We can add map outlines and put pins to show specific locations (like a map of Afghanistan with a pin on the city of Kabul). But we cannot add what you are suggesting. Sorry. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that what we do have is the linked coordinates that appear at the top right in the article Kabul. Clicking on them takes one to a GeoHack page that links to a variety of online maps one can view, including Google Maps. Deor (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution of wording of 8/27/15 NLRB decision

NAC:Content dispute. All parties are advised to read the dispute resolution policy and the civility policy, to comment on content, not on contributors, and then to follow one of the dispute resolution procedures described in the dispute resolution policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HELP! Can an administrator resolve the last issue remaining to the NLRB decision (then-current) event on 8/27?

Changes made by myself and 50.89.166.63 have continually been reversed by 68.231.26.111, most times without comment, to an opening that infers the Obama administration stacked the decks of the NLRB so the decision on Browning-Ferris would favor employees. If that is problematic, would like no more edits/reversals on this item by 68.231.26.111. Please see the lengthy (sorry) discussion below for more info.

68.231.26.111 keeps erasing my and 50.89.166.63 posts, most times just an "undo," without discussion or response to our posts on 68.231.26.111 talk page, (s)tarting with this:

"The Obama Administration, through its appointment of a majority of board members on the Democratic-controlled U.S. National Labor Relations Board's 3–2 ruling in the Browning-Ferris case uses an expanded definition of joint employer when determining if a parent company shares responsibility for workers hired by a subcontractor or franchisee."

Before changing this wording, which seems biased, and after more research posted these comments to 68.231.26.111 talk page:

From Wikipedia -- "The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent agency of the United States government charged with conducting elections for labor union representation and with investigating and remedying unfair labor practices. Unfair labor practices may involve union-related situations or instances of protected concerted activity. The NLRB is governed by a five-person board and a General Counsel, all of whom are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate. Board members are appointed to five-year terms and the General Counsel is appointed to a four-year

President Obama appointed, and the Senate confirmed, all board members who participated in the Browning-Ferris case. "Two of the NLRB nominees confirmed were GOP picks — Johnson and Miscimarra — and Schiffer, Hirozawa and Pearce were Obama's nominees." http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/314503-senate-votes-to-confirm-all-five-nlrb-members

Yes President Obama appointed the Democrat majority. That's not unusual. President Reagan appointed 4 Republicans in 1981, giving the GOP an overwhelming majority. Between 1983 and 1985, Reagan appointed 2 members from each party and continued that balanced process throughout his presidency. President George HW Bush, 3-1. Clinton, 8-3. President G.W. Bush's first 7 appointments were Republican, the last 2 Democrat. Obama's, 7-4. Clinton and Obama appointments have favored Democrats; Reagan and both Bushes choices favored Republicans. A president will give his party the advantage during his term. https://www.nlrb.gov/who-we-are/board/board-members-1935.

The recess appointment issue with Block and Griffin is a moot point; their names were withdrawn as part of the compromise that resulted in these 5 appointments. It would not have happened if Senate Republicans didn't reach a compromise with Obama and Senate Democrats.

If it's been OK for Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, and GW Bush to have their party as the majority on the board, why does that not hold for Obama? The National Review article on this decision no longer includes the "Obama Administration" tag. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423261/nlrb-franchise-decision.

While I may not agree with all of (your) wording in the rest of the entry, I've tried to look at it from your point of view, as it seems you have also.

The (NLRB) majority states it used a definition from a 1982 judicial ruling, which changed in 1984. NLRB ruling http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4581d99106

and then re-entered the following to the NLRB entry:

The U.S. National Labor Relations Board ruling in the Browning-Ferris case uses an expanded definition of joint employer when determining if a parent company shares responsibility for workers hired by a subcontractor or franchisee. Democratic appointees on the panel split 3-2 with Republicans on this decision that upended the traditional arms-length relationship that had been in place since 1984. (at 03:54, 3 September 2015‎)

Expect when check later Thursday morning (ET), 68.231.26.111 will have undid this change. I have no experience with Wikipedia disagreements like this. So in addition to resolution of this matter, would appreciate info (and links) how I could have done this better. Thanks RaqiwasSushi (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RaqiwasSushi: If there is an issue with edit warring you might want to take it to the edit warring noticeboard. An admin might see it faster there as those boards are specific admin request boards. The help desk (while some admins do visit from time to time) is more for help from regular editors. If you do make a request at AN3, make sure you real all of the rules for reporting at the top of the page. --Stabila711 (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is about an edit war at Portal:Current_events/2015_August_27. It makes numerous references to the NLRB. Maproom (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am 68.231.26.111. Sorry have not had time to read this all yet give me time - but I do need to mention something right off that cannot wait - dont you think User:RaqiwasSushi that posting something seeking an administrative response which calls me all kinds of bad names is disengenuous since it should have in all fairness been noted on my talk page so that I might have the opportunity to read it also, formulate a response, and enlighten any admin reading this as to my side of the issue? --68.231.26.111 (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and it appears I have something more important to think about today then this defamation by User:RaqiwasSushi, that being "Wikipedia blocks hundreds of 'scam' sock puppet accounts" at http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34127466 --68.231.26.111 (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015#2015 August 27

RaqiwasSushi, 68.231.26.111: instead of continuing your edit war, and discussing it here, you should both be discussing the disputed edits on the portal's talk page, Portal talk:Current events/2015 August 27. Neither of you has yet written anything there. Maproom (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment here: I, RaqiwasSushi, have not received an edit war warning. 50.89.166.63 and 68.231.26.111 each received one on Aug 29. But clearly I'm involved. All future substantive comments on portal page. Thanks Stabila711 and Maproom for the help and guidance. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Michael Uslan

Why is Emmy Winner, Michael E. Uslan, born, raised and current resident of New Jersey, originator and Executive Producer of the Batman Movie franchise not on your famous from NJ list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.152.22 (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean List of people from New Jersey? Michael Uslan is on many New Jersey lists but nobody has added him to that one yet. The list is edited manually. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

username Preservica 270

Hi there I created an entry for a services company called Preservica. However, wikipedia currently lists Preservica as "User:Preservica270" etc How can I edit this entry so it doesn't say USER:PRESERVICA270 but only PRESERVICA I'm completely lost. Your help would be much appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preservica270 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 3 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

You had moved it firstly to Wikipedia:Preservica and then to Template:Preservica. I have now moved it to Preservica. Template talk:Preservica was your user talk page and needs to be moved back to User talk:Preservica270; I couldn't do that because of the redirect from your moves, but I've submitted a speed deletion request to allow the move back to take place. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the "article" is pure promotion and I have tagged it for speedy deletion. If it is recreated, it needs to be done from scratch by someone who does not have an obvious COI.--ukexpat (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preservica now deleted and user name blocked as a SPAMNAME.--ukexpat (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei

The seal of the institute in the infobox is shown as a white circle. However, the image file shows a clear cross on my Chrome browser, desktop version. Is anyone else seeing this? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cross clearly visible here with Internet Explorer 8. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help with IPA

I recently created several (25-30) ogg files of me pronouncing place names near me (Kentucky) that have somewhat unusual or unexpected pronunciations. I would like some help from an editor familiar with IPA to add those pronunciations to relevant articles. I don't readily see a place to ask about this. Could someone point me in the right direction or would someone here be willing to help? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Acdixon: Many thanks for your offer. I've copied your post to the talk page of WikiProject_Linguistics, a forum for editors with an interest in this topic. Hope you find the help you're looking for!: Noyster (talk), 08:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geonotice

Hi. How do I go about putting out a geonotice for an editathon that I am holding at Clitheroe Castle Museum, Clitheroe, UK? The details are here Wikipedia:GLAM/Clitheroe Castle Museum. I would like to be able to invite people within a two hour distance. Any other advice on how to advertise this event would be gratefully received. Jhayward001 (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhayward001: See the geonotice request page and follow the instructions. --Stabila711 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

pennsylvania waterways

Why has there been so many articles about Pennsylvania waterways in the "did you know" section on the home page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.128.32.17 (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is an editor who is very interested in Pennsylvania waterways and enjoys writing about them. That editor also enjoys seeing their work featured on the main page, and so frequently submits the new articles they create to DYK. If there was a similarly prolific editor who enjoyed writing about trains, or ships, or the history of Haiti, then you would frequently see those articles in DYK. Since DYK features new content it's biased towards the interests of the most frequent contributors. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses

As quoted in the Article on Jehovahs Witnesses. "Baptized individuals who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned." THIS IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE this statement should be removed. Anyone is quite free to leave the organisation without any repercussions. If individuals in the organisation choose not to associate with them afterwards that is a personal decision for them and is NOT SANCTIONED by the Organisation and in fact if they encourage others to do so they themselves would be at fault and receive appropriate counsel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabcomp (talk • contribs) 16:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As quoted in the Article on Jehovahs Witnesses. "Baptized individuals who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned." Addendum: This situation would only occur if they wrote in and said they no longer wish to be recognised as Jehovahs Witnesses. eg: A person may simply stop attending meetings altogether and not participate in any evangelical duties. In this situation they would NOT be shunned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabcomp (talk • contribs) 16:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an outdated practice? Could you point us to the documentation for the claim? Perhaps the policy varies by region? We have some JW experts here, so I expect that they will be able to check the facts. Dbfirs 16:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Officially" leave may be better wording. That's what perhaps OP is talking about. Yes individuals who officially leave (by writing a letter) are considered disassociated and they are shunned. Its an informed choice of those who leave, and its based on Bible principles. The Governing Body of the church can't go beyond what is written in the Bible, and if they did so members will leave the organization. The primary force that keep members together is their commitment to the Bible, not fear of getting expelled as some may claim. Though in controversial doctrines GB's interpretation of Bible is final, members are free to have their own opinion as long as they don't profess that to other members and cause divisions. Those who decide to not identify themselves as JWs are free to quit associating with church, but still can have social interaction with its members. Family members who live in the same household are not shunned regardless, though any spiritual conversation is forbidden. Having said that the church don't police its members by knocking on their doors and see if they are practicing official teaching or not. Fazilfazil (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a contention on whether that statement should be put on the lead in the past. Its simply there some editors who have strong opinions feel that its notable enough to be on the lead. (though you will never find it in any other encyclopedia as a lead aspect, other than critical works) Fazilfazil (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fazilfazil, your blanket statements about alleged motivations and attempts to justify shunning based on arbitrary interpretations of scripture are not relevant to the discussion.

The statement is entirely accurate regarding the current practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. Whilst some choose to 'fade', those who formally leave are considered disassociated and subsequently shunned. It is also worth pointing out that those who 'fade' are still considered by JW elders to be subject to JW 'judicial committees' in the event that they believe the person to have committed some 'sin' (which might include celebrating Christmas or a birthday, or accepting a blood transfusion, or attending a different church), which is then 'handled' by JW elders if the person is still associating with JW members (i.e. if not already being infomally shunned); a determination of 'unrepentant guilt' by the elders, or refusal to cooperate with the 'judicial committee' are then considered grounds for disfellowshipping (or in some cases, a claim that the person has 'dissociated by their actions') and, consequently, formal shunning.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Mabcomp's entirely false claim that shunning is not sanctioned by the "Organisation", The Watchtower, 15 February 2011, page 32 states: "If you face a similar situation, please remember that Jehovah sympathizes with you. By cutting off contact with the disfellowshipped or disassociated one, you are showing that you hate the attitudes and actions that led to that outcome."--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the statement is false, but questioned its mentioning on the lead as if the article is about "Criticism of JWs". JWs cannot change their Biblical teaching based on the what some critics/former members wants it to be. Your lengthy arbitrary discussion and empty arguments on current JWs talk page with User:Gabby Merger shows you have a rafter is in your eyes, try remove that before counselling me. Fazilfazil (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JW shunning is a particularly notable aspect of the denomination that is frequently cited in reports about the religion, and is therefore warranted in the lead.. The claim that "JWs cannot change their Biblical teaching" is plainly circular reasoning, since all Christian denominations have their own interpretations of the relevant scriptures and most do not enforce shunning (particularly since JW interpretations of scripture on other matters are frequently subject to change and the shunning of 'disassociated' individuals was only introduced in 1981). Your personal attack, and your arbitrary interpretation and childish application of scripture are irrelevant (and the discussion shows my concise responses to Gabby Merger's lengthy comments).--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the right place for this discussion. Hack (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Validity

I had a question about a page's validity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tailshaker (talk • contribs) 20:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... what page and what's the question?~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tailshaker later proposed this article for deletion. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Performance group

Hello. I work for a performance group that has a 6 year old wikipedia page. We want to start over, delete the old content and add new content. Can we do that without getting a bunch of flags? Do you have any advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marnieglickman (talk • contribs) 20:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marnieglickman: generally speaking, you should not edit the page of the company you work for because you have a conflict of interest. So, no, you should not delete the old content and add new content to the page. As for the "flags" they are put on articles when there is a problem with them, such as not citing enough sources, not being written from a neutral point of view, and sounding overly promotional or like advertisements.

The best advice I can give you is

Declare your conflict of interest.
Use the article's talk page to recommend changes you would like to see made in the article.
Use {{Request edit}} to attract the attention of someone who can evaluate your suggestions and implement the changes, or explain why they are inappropriate.
Make sure to cite reliable sources that are not published by the company for any substantive changes.
Be patient; we're mostly volunteers around here and it may take a while for someone to respond to the request edit template.

If you have questions or want to talk more about this feel free to ask me on my talk page. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's HTTP compression

At Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 139#Wikipedia's HTTP compression I asked a question about Wikipedia's HTTP compression (see thread for details). We are having a bit of trouble figuring out some of the settings. Does anyone know where this is configured or better yet, what the settings are? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]