Help desk
< July 10	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 12 >

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 11

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

I am getting this error. There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

The ref reads as follows:

^[1]

What am I doing wrong?

PS – I used to update pages years ago, but gosh you are making this hard – even with bullet proof references.

Tim Logan (Sequoia Crest) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SequoiaCrest (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SequoiaCrest: Your edit [1] added <ref></ref> at the start, probably because you accidentally clicked a link to make references. I have fixed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Tule River Middle Fork and its People", Malcolm Sillars, 2010, Bear State Books"

Why can't Wikipedia automatically sign all of my posts, so that I don't always have to type four tilde signs?

I am not very computer-savvy or tech-savvy. So, I don't understand how the computer "stuff" of Wikipedia works behind the scenes (i.e., the computer code, the HTML mark-up, or whatever all that stuff is). So, here is my question. Can't Wikipedia just automatically include a signature (or type the four tildes on its own) whenever an editor submits a post? (In other words, as soon as an editor hits "send" or "save page" or whatever, Wikipedia "knows" that the editor is posting something to a page.) I imagine that Wikipedia has this capability on some level. There have been times when I was not logged into my account (I was just logged in as an anonymous IP address, I guess). And, if I forgot to type the four tildes as my signature, Wikipedia would type some automatic notice that said something like "This was posted by User IP Address 123-456-789 on July 10 at 3:00 PM (UTC)". Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just spotted an example, up above, in the section heading of "Image Upload". In that section, one of the postings states: "Preceding unsigned comment added by LPD 26 Public Affairs Office (talk • contribs) 16:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing we don't want every edit to be signed (especially on article pages). If we were to enable automatic signatures for talk pages, then simply adding a WikiProject banner or the standard "this is a talk page, not a general forum" banner would force a signature, which isn't needed either. The "Preceding unsigned comment..." text is added by User:SineBot, but sometimes the bot breaks down, which is why everybody should sign their posts. Altamel (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You miss my point. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Preceding unsigned comment" messages are usually added by a bot, only in talk spaces. Not all talk spaces, only some of them, and I'm not sure which or why. It also signs only content that was added at the end of a section. Could the edit software be made to do the same thing? Maybe. Why doesn't it? I guess because the cost-benefit isn't there - 1. 99.9% of users seem to have successfully trained themselves to sign without thinking about it. Saving a comment is simply a two-step operation. Thus the enhancement would benefit maybe 1 in 1,000 users. The other 999 would have to re-train themselves. 2. Many new users take a little while to get trained, but it doesn't seem a serious problem. New users aren't leaving in droves because they can't remember to sign, there are ample other reasons to leave in droves. 3. Like the bot, it would only be able to auto-sign comments added at the end of a section. For text inserted above the end, it's not feasible to correctly discern whether a signature is needed or not. All users would have to understand this new, somewhat complicated behavior and adapt to it. 4. WP:FLOW will (eventually) replace the wiki editor for talk spaces, and it will sign automatically. I hope I didn't miss your point. Signed,―Mandruss ☎ 07:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well, that (WP:FLOW) is exactly what I am talking about. I had never heard of that before your mention of it. On that WP:FLOW page, the very first thing that is says is that the new "Flow" system will automatically sign posts. When is this FLOW project being implemented? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People have been asking that question since before I arrived two years ago. As far as I know, the answer isn't known and it will be rolled out when it's ready. You could probably learn more by exploring that page and the pages it links to, but I doubt there's much time estimate there. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Oh, I had assumed it was pretty much "ready to go". Guess not. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autosigning is only a tiny part of the Flow changes. Flow is controversial so there may be resistance from big wikis like the English Wikipedia. Such resistance has blocked other WMF initiatives after heated discussions. Nobody knows or can now what will happen. My only prediction is a lot of drama when it's attempted to switch to Flow. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well, the whole concept is new to me. I had never heard of any of this before now. But, I imagine, they can implement some components of the Flow Project, and not necessarily all of them. No? I can't see how auto-signing would be "controversial". Is there any valid argument against implementing an auto-sign function? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to see how anything like that could possibly work in the context of the current talk page system. As things stand, there is no clear definition of what a "post" might be, and so it's hard to figure out what should get signed. The core of what FLOW does is to establish the concept of a post in a discussion. Once you have that, signing it is utterly trivial. Rwessel (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. None of these should be signed: Adding a WikiProject banner or other talk page banner, adding categories, adding interlanguage links, adding a section heading to a post lacking it, adding a date heading to a new day with no posts yet, adding {{Reflist-talk}} to a talk section using references, editing an earlier signed comment by yourself, fixing formatting of an existing post. User:SineBot tries to guess using code which may be written specifically for the English Wikipedia and our practices (Special:CentralAuth/SineBot only shows edits here and at Wikinews). An automatic MediaWiki feature for all wikis would be problematic as long as talk pages are just general wiki pages where anyone can edit any part for any purpose. By the way, pages in the Wikipedia namespace are often not used as talk pages but for example guidelines. This help desk is in Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed to help SineBot. On the other hand, article drafts for submisssion by IP's used to be made in the Wikipedia talk namespace because IP's could only create talk pages. Edits to such drafts should rarely be signed except by the reviewers, and other wikis may still have such a system. The English Wikipedia has added a special Draft namespace where IP's can create pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are some posts that should be signed, and others not. But, Wikipedia currently has a system that already automatically signs some posts but not others. What's the difference? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current bot (User:SineBot) applies some heuristics ("rules") in determining what things should be signed. It's selective, yes, but not on the rules that it would need to actually do a good job. The "real" rules are beyond computers at the moment. It signs the stuff it guesses looks like something that needs to be signed with high probability, and doesn't sign the rest. So Sinebot is rather conservative in what it autosigns (it has to since it doesn't actually know what a "post" is). And that's the problem - under the current system only a mediocre solution is possible (and in place). And no insult intended to Sinebot here! It's mission is, in fact, impossible to carry out well, yet it's done a great deal of useful work. If you want better, you'll need something less free-form than a current talk page. Rwessel (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where to report de.wikivoyage.org admin?

If I believe that an administrator at de.wikivoyage.org has behaved improperly on that wiki, where would I report it? (I do not speak German but can get translation help if needed.) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Guy. I do not speak German so I looked for what one would do in English and found, for example, Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage talk:Administrator nominations#Where to discuss and nominate withdrawals of admin tools, the gist of which is that all discussion regarding admin problems take place on that page. If that's equivalent to the German Wikivoyage's procedures, then you would discuss this here--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the problem resolved itself: https://de.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Guy_Macon

I did notice on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Balou46 that this user has autopatrolled, bureaucrat, import, and sysop rights on de.wikivoyage.org. The bureaucrat right seems unusual. I am curious: how does one become a bureaucrat on one of the smaller wikis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs)

Try the lounge.[2] Bureaucrats are elected.[3] Doug Weller (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry charts of Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton

please fix up my "nee" words in the section titled ancestry on this page (listed above) titled - "Ancestry charts of Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton" I need help doing the accent over the word nee for both Diana, Princess of Wales (nee Diana Spencer) and further below on the same page, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, (nee Kate Middleton) Thanks M E Reed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.149.113.236 (talk)

Done.[4] I don't know which features your editing device include but many users have a "Special characters" dropdown above the edit box, and another dropdown below the box where "Latin" can be selected for various characters. Or write é which produces é. See more at É#Character mappings. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And {{nee}} works too, if you are so inclined.--ukexpat (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please tell me why my talk page isn't archiving?

It was working up until 4:26, 23 May 2015‎ but has stopped. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed by [5]. You were renamed 25 May 2015 and the bot only allows archiving to subpages of your talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Forgot about that! Thanks for fixing it, much appreciated. Just hope there aren't any other problems lying around from the rename. Doug Weller (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doug Weller/Menu hasn't updated the name so the links are not bolded on the corresponding pages. Instead there are blue links leading back via redirects. User:Doug Weller/talkheader needs some updates to make working links. The top of User talk:Doug Weller has some currently commented out code that I recommend updating while you remember it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I've fixed all that. Doug Weller (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the visit is not a horror movie

i an't edit it out, but the film "the visit" The Visit (2015 film) is not a horror movie. in the trailer it says a new thriller by m night Shyamalan.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCsULFGldi8) he also specifically says so on the live stream at nerd hq (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xckcs2qCGQU) around 2:15:00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaatje1903 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaatje1903, I suggest that you post yoru views at Talk:The_Visit_(2015_film)#Genre. DES ^(talk) 14:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Entries

Dear Sir, I have now posted several referenced items on MOD, Queen's Bodyguard and Sir Peter Fahy profile. All have been deleted even though I referenced the items in accordance with your criteria. Why are people allowed to remove these posts? All the posts referred factually with reference to things those particular organisations may not like about themselves but they were factually correct and substantiated by Freedom of Information requests from the organisations referred to in the post. Please assist. Ghandiesque — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghandiesque (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that Verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies.
IMHO freedom of information requests are not what we would consider verifiable - no-one can easily check-up that what you are stating is true.
FOI requests are clearly original research - this is not information that has already been published in reliable sources, which is what we use on Wikipedia.
Looking at the similarity of your edits, it appears you may be trying to promote a particular point of view, not a neutral one - I suspect these are the reasons other editors have deleted your additions.
Finally, in this edit your state "Our-ref", which suggests you may be representing some form of organization? - Arjayay (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Ghandiesque, in this edit you inserted an uncited paragraph, and later reinserted it (slightly modified, but essentially the same) twice after it was reverted (not deleted, it is still in the history). You never supplied a source.

With this edit you inserted a then uncited parageraph into Peter Fahy. You later referenced this with the somewehat cryptic (at least to me) cite of "GSA 2850/13-17th September 2013". (Is this a published source? Where is it available to a reader?) It is still in the article.

With this edit you inserted a paragraph sourced only to "FoI request dated 8th May 2015 -- UK Regular1 personnel of OF-6 NATO Rank2 with detail on ethnicity3, as at 1 January 2015 Source: Defence Statistics (Tri-Service)" Is this a published source? How can a reader consult it? TheClown90 reverted with no explanation.

In none of these cases did you (or anyone else) discuss the matter on the article talk page. So now, as per Bold, revert, discuss it is time to do so, Ghandiesque. I advise posting your specific concernes on the talk page of each article where you have an issue, citing the specific sourcce and how it supports your suggested content. Also indicate how the content is appropriate and relvant to the article, and including it would not give undue weight to a particular PoV. Remember that sources must be published so that any reader could (with some effort, perhaps) consult them, but they do NOT have to be available online. DES ^(talk) 14:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghandiesque: In addition to the above issues, if all the sources had been published then you would still break Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material, for example in [6]. If no reliable published source has accused somebody of wrongdoing then neither should Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edit showing strange pattern

Check this edit in Fountain pen. --Aero Slicers 15:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a bit more specific? What is the exact "strange pattern" you are talking about? I can't see any obvious major issues with that edit. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andythegrump corrected it just after my edit. --Aero Slicers 15:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the result of starting the paragraph with a space: see Help:Wiki markup. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added info to your citation. However your edit seems to make the paragraph flow akwardly. Perhaps it could be moved or reworded? DES ^(talk) 15:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping request template

What is the template for adding the ping request seen after I dream of horses' message in the "Welcome" section of this - User talk:203.173.154.63 - page? --Jpcase (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typing {{U|I dream of horses}} will "ping" I dream of horses: this means they will be notified that someone has mentioned them on that page. For instance, {{U|Jpcase}} produces Jpcase, which should have given you a small notification at the top of your screen. You can also just type the username manually, like you did in your message just there, or use {{Ping}}. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: - Thanks for the reply! I'm actually asking about the template in orange, in which I dream of horses asks the IP user to ping her if said user leaves a reply on that page. I've pinged people before, but have never seen this request and think that it could come in handy at times. --Jpcase (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. That notice actually seems to be part of I dream of horses' signature. The exact code used to create it was

<span style="border:1px solid #ffa500;background:#ffce7b;"><small>If you reply here, please [[WP:ECHO|ping me]] by adding <nowiki>{{U|I dream of horses}}<nowiki> to your message.</small></span>

. I don't think there's a template that produces that, although I could be wrong. If you want to use something similar, you could perhaps copy the code to your sandbox or somewhere you can access easily (changing "I dream of horses" to "Jpcase") and copy and paste the message when you need it. I assume I dream of horses wouldn't mind you stealing their idea. :P — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: Haha, okay cool! It's a great idea on her part - is there a process by which something like this could be adopted as a template? I think that a lot of people would probably find it useful. --Jpcase (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jpcase Anyone can do so by simply creating a template page including a sitable modification of that code. Well, anyone who is autoconfirmed. But it is strictly forbidden to use a template in one's signature, so one would still have to add the template manually. I'm not sure how many users would find it worth while, given that. DES ^(talk) 17:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: If it was turned into a template, then couldn't it just be added before the signature (as I've done below)? I'd mainly use this in similar contexts to the page cited above, where I dream of horses was leaving a generic welcome message for an IP. I wouldn't want to be pinged for every single reply that I ever receive, since I'll be watching the article talk pages and most of the user talk pages that I've contributed to. But I don't want to watch the talk page for every single IP that I give a generic welcome or warning to, nor do I like to watch pages like this one, that have high activity and many discussions that are of no relevance to me. So that's where a template like this could be a good one to have around.

If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|Jpcase}} to your message. --Jpcase (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you may do that, Jpcase. Anyone may. But if this is to be a generic template for anyone to use, it would need a parameter for the user name, and would probably need to be subst'd on each use. I'm not sure how many users would choose to do that, but you can create such a template if you care to. I'm just guessing about what people might use, and i've been wrong in the past. DES ^(talk) 17:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: Well, I can't speak to what others would do, but having to substitute my username wouldn't be a deterrent for me. Alternatively, the template could simply say, "If you reply here, please ping me". The second part wouldn't necessarily be needed when talking to experienced users. There could even be two different versions, right? I don't know how to create a template myself though; how exactly would one do this? Is there a help page on the topic or a place where I could suggest the idea to someone who is familiar with creating templates? --Jpcase (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a quick version of the template at User:Bilorv/ping. Feel free to move the page somewhere into the template namespace, or create a redirect to it. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just created {{Request ping}} and a shortcut to it {{ReqP}}. DES ^(talk) 19:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. {{subst:ReqP|name}} is faster and easier to remember. One question I had when making the template: is there a magic phrase that will automatically write the poster's username? Similar to Special:Mypage, but with just the user's name rather than a link anywhere? This would save you even having to type your username when you used the template. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, Bilorv. There is, although I hadn't used it before now, it is {{REVISIONUSER}}. However it will change wih every edit unless it is subst'd so any template that uses it must be used with subst: also. Jpcase, what do you think now?DES ^(talk) 20:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: @DESiegel: Looks great! Thanks for setting that up! If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|Jpcase}} to your message, and signing it. --Jpcase (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: @DESiegel: Hold on; what's the problem with using {{REVISIONUSER}}? I'm using that in the template right here - If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|Scsbot}} to your message, and signing it. - and it works fine, as of right now. But are you saying that it will get messed up once a different user edits the page? --Jpcase (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpcase: Yes, now a different editor has edited the page, the previous post here has changed. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes it will, Bilorv, unless subst is used. Look at this page and your use above now without editing it. DES ^(talk) 20:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vahvistus/Socialist Alternative (Malaysia)

I wrote this article last year but it was deleted as my references were not considered independent enough. I have added references and left a message at User talk:Spartaz but a message on his page says he is not active and does not mind if decisions go to other editors. How do I go about getting someone else to decide whether I have shown notability. Vahvistus (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vahvistus: Sorry, but it's still likely to be deleted. Blogs (i.e. anything on Blogspot or Wordpress) are pretty much never used as a source, since anyone out there can make one.

The sources cited also have to specifically mention the group in the article text. I can't find the words "Socialist Alternative" or "Sosialis Alternatif" in relation to Malaysia in the following citations:

http://offensiv.socialisterna.org/sv/884/cwi/5135/ - Technically "Sosyalist Alternatif" does appear once, in a link to an article on Turkey.
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/intl.htm - Mentions some groups called Socialist Alternative (or similar in their native languages), but not for Malaysia.
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/6765 - Search says it appears somewhere on the page, but won't highlight it, which appears to mean that it's in one of the links for other articles, or comments on articles, not that in that news article itself.
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4749 - This article says that an alternative to the current government is needed, and that that alternative needs to be socialist, but it is not specifically about a group called "Socialist Alternative." Then again, it is not being used for a statement about the group, but for a statement that fails WP:NOTSOAPBOX. We don't allow anyone to tell the reader what sort of government is needed, capitalist, socialist, anarchist, fascist, or whatever.
http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/611 - This source doesn't mention Socialist Alternative at all. It refers to socialism as an alternative form of government once, but does not name a group called Socialist Alternative.
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5168 - As with the other Socialistworld.net article, the words do appear somewhere in links or comments, not the actual article
http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/2384 - How does this source explain the difference between two groups when it doesn't mention one of them?

What I recommend is gathering multiple (as many as you can find) professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of the group, summarizing each without addition or commentary, and then arranging them to place overlapping statements together. Then read the article, but imagine it was about a capitalist group, or try reading it from an anti-socialist perspective. If you feel that the article is preachy, tone it down -- we don't allow any article to tell a reader what to believe about politics. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: Thanks for that. It seems the name is a problem. Most of those references refer to CWI in Malaysia, I will change the article to reflect that synonym. It started out as a small stub but it was referred for deletion after a few days so I added more information to get the references none of which satisfied other editors in the deletion discussion. The Marxist.org website is generally a definitive reference but in this case they have put a link to the groups blog page without using the name. I will look for an alternative reference. Vahvistus (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: Could you run your eye over these two versions. I have done my best to address the points you made. The group uses blogspot as there own website was attacked https://sosialisalternatif.wordpress.com/

The Marxist.org site uses an old strap line instead of their name but it links to their page and is considered the best online reference for all Marxist matters. I prefer the first version as it has material in it that took me a long time to find. The sandbox version has all that stripped out. I will appreciate any comments you make. User:Vahvistus/Socialist Alternative (Malaysia) User:Vahvistus/sandbox

Vahvistus (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The non-English sources in the sandbox version might work if they meet our reliable sourcing guidelines -- but I can't work with Malay well enough to make any decision about that. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I delete a wikipedia entry that I created?

How do I delete a Wikipedia page that I created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leatherjacketcat (talk • contribs) 18:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Leatherjacketcat: Assuming you're talking about Mr 27 Days, then the easiest way is to delete all the text, and replace it with {{db-author}}. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox picture

I would like to upload an image on the Stacy Doris page. I do not find any infobox all ready for a picture upload. I have read much of the material about boxes and uploading pictures. I see what text to put in, but it is not clear -whether it needs a box to be already present to put the image and caption into -how to select and upload an image into the editable wikipedia entry page. Please help me.

Many thanks, Wattsirod — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wattsirod (talk • contribs) 18:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should read Wikipedia:Uploading pictures. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template question

I would like to place the following template at the top of articles where I have a financial connection (COI) and have contributed to the page substantially, in order to ensure compliance with the Federal Trade Commission's astroturfing laws and established ethical best practices, which require that someone with a financial connection provide a "clear and conspicuous" disclosure to readers.

A major contributor to this page was sponsored by _______.

I realize there are already disclosures of my COI on the Talk page and my user page, but legal precedence is that this is not sufficient and guidance from the Federal Trade Commission is that disclosures at the bottom of an article or that you have to click through to find are not adequate. There are arguments for it both ways and I would like to seek community consensus one way or another. Here kvng removed the template, noting that my COI is already disclosed on Talk, while here Sulfurboy suggested I go ahead and use it.

My question is, where would one go to seek consensus about something concerning templates? Also, am I just wasting my time? I wonder if there is even a debate to be had, or if consensus would be so far against it that it is not worthwhile to pursue. CorporateM (Talk) 21:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorporateM, it is hard to say, but I think this should be put to a site-wide RFC, as such a placement might be considered an unwanted self reference. There has in the past been resistance to notification templates on the article, as opposed to on the talk page, but this one seems reasonable to me. I note that the 2012 court decision you mention seems to be from a lower-level court 9If I ahve understood the German court system correctly, which i'm not at all sure that i have) and may not be a final precedant. There seems to be no US or UK court case yet. But I can see where you want to be conservative in such matters. DES ^(talk) 21:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a complex issue. I have a partner in Germany whose lawyer said they feel it is kosher so long as there is a disclosure in the edit history, because it's right next to the text being added. However, with the Bright Line on the English Wikipedia, I have no control over whether the editor adds a disclosure in the edit-summary. Also, this seems to contradict the FTC's guidance, which basically says the disclosure needs to be at the top of an article (typically this guidance is referring to blogs). I pinged a couple WMF lawyers on Twitter a while back and they had varying opinions. To what extent Wikipedians should concern themselves with my efforts to be lawful is also up for debate. Next thing you know we'll have a template "A Republican contributed substantially..." There have been discussions about it in the past on Jimbo's Talk page, but the proposed templates were ridiculous, contentious and involuntary. CorporateM (Talk) 22:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many ways to meet a requirement that COI be mentioned in the edit history, e.g. WP:SUMMARYONLY. Find a way to do what the lawyers are asking for. This is usually the best way to work with lawyers. Also, as I mention below, lawyers will not agree on this until more case law is developed. ~Kvng (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments on the German case: 1/ The Wikipedia community is likely overestimating the import of this because it is exciting/flattering to have Wikipedia in the center of this. 2/ The judges' statement that, the average reader of Wikipedia articles expects to find objective and neutral information is pretty disconnected from reality. CorporateM, if this issue is not causing a tangible problem for you, I would encourage you to carry on with your work and address this issue in whatever way makes local editors comfortable. A site wide RFC is unlikely help anything. The only thing that will actually improve resolution, unfortunately, is additional case law. ~Kvng (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very good advice @Kvng:. I have been in touch with a contact at the FTC, because I have been encouraging them to establish a legal precedence with regards to covert advertisements on Wikipedia for years. I got the impression they were more interested in cases where the edits themselves are misleading, which I think is a good attitude. They did ask if it was even possible to provide an FTC-compliant disclosure, which is a good question. But any RFC is likely to end with "no consensus" anyway. Unless someone jumps in with radically different advice, I think I will attempt to incorporate the template where I can and see if editors involved in that particular page support it. There are quite a few things after all, such as COI itself, that are left in perpetual non-consensus. CorporateM (Talk) 22:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Tule River Middle Fork and its People", Malcolm Sillars, 2010, Bear State Books"

[1]