Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 December 9

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.

December 9

Proposal to consolidate articles in the marketing communications/ advertising subject area

I am not sure that I am posting my query in the right place, but here goes...

I would like to propose a way to consolidate and rationalise the increasing number of articles in the marketing communications and advertising area causing high levels of repetition. At the moment there are many articles that canvass the same subject matter, using slightly different terminology.

In the broad area of marketing communications, articles that cover more or less the same content include:

Integrated marketing communications IMC - covers the marketing communications mix which is also known as promotion

Marketing communications - all marketing communications should be integrated, so this article covers the same material as integrated marketing communications

Promotion (marketing) - promotion is simply another term used to describe marketing communications, so this covers the same content as the two preceding articles

Promotional mix - a truncated version of the article on Promotion (marketing) so also covers the same content

In the area of advertising, articles that cover similar content, albeit with a different perspective, include:

Advertising - article contains an uncomfortable mix of socio-historical aspects of advertising, and advertising as a managerial function.

Advertising management - this article is currently being restructured by self; a plan for completed article can be found on discussion page

History of advertising - claims to be a more detailed version of the Advertising article

(NB: The article dedicated to Advertising is heavily skewed towards a history of advertising in terms of verbiage. It contains only a very cursory treatment of advertising management. The discussion of the socio-historical aspects is fair. The management of the advertising function is perfunctory, low level and contains serious omissions and other flaws. Thus the article on Advertising and History of advertising cover very similar content.

In addition to all this apparent repetition, there are also articles dedicated to specific elements of the promotion mix, including Personal selling, Direct marketing, Direct response media, Direct response television, Sponsorship, Public relations and many more (too numerous to itemise) which simply repeat material already covered on the articles listed above.

It seems to me that the number of repetitive articles combined with different and confusing titles needs some kind of rationalisation. For any user with a limited understanding of marketing communications, it would be very difficult to navigate the proliferation of articles that canvass the same subject matter, leading to real difficulties locating relevant information easily and causing confusion about which articles are superior or more accurate. My feeling is that this type of repetition is not only unnecessary, but it is counter-productive.

I would like to propose that this unnecessary level of repetition be avoided by the following recommendations:

1. The article on Advertising be devoted to the socio-historical study of advertising. This would mean that it be removed from the Business and Economics portal and become part of some type of humanities/ social science portal)

2. The article on Advertising management become the main page for any discussion of advertising as a managerial activity in the Business/Economics Portal

3. The articles on Promotion (marketing), Promotional mix, Integrated marketing communications and Marketing communications be merged into a single article entitled "Integrated marketing communications (IMC)" because this is the preferred terminology used by marketers and advertisers (and also because there is very strong opposition to any removal of the IMC article -see article's talk page).

4. The myriad of minor pages devoted to individual elements of the marketing communications mix (personal selling, direct marketing, sponsorship, as listed above) be made into dictionary definitions rather than free-standing articles.

5. That some type of disambiguation be devised to direct users to relevant pages when they search for articles in the area of marketing communications and/ or advertising.

I have noticed that some editors, after having confronted pages like Advertising, which contain an uncomfortable mix of social, historical and managerial topics, tend to decide that they need to develop their own new page dedicated to a specific area such as History of advertising. Thus the raft of articles lacking in a clear focus is contributing to the proliferation of new articles and playing into this unnecessary repetition.

I have posted comments about this level of repetition on the discussion page of most of these articles. However, based on prior history, users on marketing pages only post comments or respond to issues about once in every 8 years! So, I am not holding my breath waiting for any reply to my suggestions. I wonder whether some kind of intervention from Admin might speed up the process and help to remove repetitive content and rationalise these pages in the marketing area? BronHiggs (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Image help

I uploaded an updated poster of Fifty Shades Darker (film) yesterday at File:Fifty Shades Darker film poster.jpg. Someone reduced it for me. I went to look over the picture again only to see that the previous version is still there. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: I'm confused at the problem here. The previous versions have to be removed by an administrator and per policy that will happen seven days after the {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} template was placed on the page. The previous versions of the image will be removed after the 14th. There is nothing more for you to do. --Majora (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: That I know. The issue I have is that an old version of the poster is being displayed rather than the newest one. Please see the file history at the bottom. There is the hidden reversion of a poster I downloaded, the reduced image, a new poster I uploaded and then the reduced version of the new poster. However, the main image is showing the old poster. That's what I don't understand. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Er...it is? I'm seeing the most recently updated version on my screen. Which would be this one: https://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/en/2/2d/Fifty_Shades_Darker_film_poster.jpg. The article also shows this image. I did remove the sizing in the infobox as the infobox does that automatically. --Majora (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: Yes, it is. Please see this poster I uploaded yesterday. Now, see the most recent revision. Also, please see the thumbnails in file history. Do you see what I am saying? Please disreagrd my issue. My browser's cache had not been erased and was showing an old poster. My apologies! Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I was going to suggest the cache next actually. Glad everything is alright. --Majora (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Set up archive on talk page

Hello, how do I enable auto archiving on my talk page ? Thanks. Js82 (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Js82: The instructions can be found at Help:Archiving a talk page#Automated archival. You can also see an example of this on the top of my talk page if you wish. --Majora (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Majora:, thanks a lot for your response. I put in the code from your page at the top of my talk page, but I do not see any archives set up. (I guess topics older than 30 days should have been archived based on "algo=old(30d)"). Is there anything else that needs to be done too ? Thank you. Js82 (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Js82: I turned the counter back to 1. If you kept it the way you had it the bot would have started at Archive 2. You don't have to do anything else. The next time the bot runs it will begin archiving. I also have my archive setting purposefully higher than most. My archives max out at 200,000 bytes since I find that having a lot of archives is pointless. Feel free to mess with that setting as well. It is the maxarchivesize one. The {{talk header}} has automatic archive navigation built into it. So as soon as your archives exist it will appear. The bot archives things once a day. Not sure if you missed it yet but it will being archiving within the next 24 hours or so. --Majora (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind explanation and help !. Js82 (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Is my sandbox private?

Is my sandbox private or can anyone view it? I need to know this because I don't want anyone to view what I'm going to write (I don't know if I needed to say that) Thanks! Ramister (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Every page is viewable to everyone unless it is deleted by an admin. It isn't technically your sandbox. It is stored on the servers of the Wikimedia Foundation and you have agreed to release whatever you have written there under the license stated at the bottom of every edit box. You can view my sandbox and I can view yours. --Majora (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

On English Wikipedia the entire User: namespace, User talk:, Draft: and Draft talk: namespaces are automatically not indexed....meaning most search engines including Google, meaning most readers will not find them. However anyone may search and view them Wikipedia directly by using the Special:Search option.--Moxy (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Please remember that the Sandbox is there to help work on articles for Wikipedia, not for other personal use. You might like to read Wikipedia:Misuse of the sandbox, which starts out with: "The sandbox is a page where users can make test edits and preview them. Users have more freedom when editing the sandbox ... however, there is still a degree of editing restrictions in the sandbox; for example, users may not post libelous or defamatory material. Such content may be considered vandalism and removed at any time, and repeated infractions can lead to a block." --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it is very much not private; anyone in the world may look at it. Further, like all Wikipedia pages, every past revision is also stored and available for anyone to look at. (You can give it a hard-to-guess name, but anyone can find it via Special:Contributions/Majora.) Actually deleting anything from Wikipedia is a rare and deliberately restricted process; see WP:REVDEL. But it is understood by all that sandbox material is rough draft and not ready for public comment.

What you can do is write the draft, then when you're happy with it cut and paste it to another page and delete the original page, thus rendering the edit history non-public. (WMF still has a copy of such deleted pages, but special permission is required to see it, and nobody will bother.) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Contributing. Donating and why.

I would gladly donate but everytime I tried to edit some jerk would delete the information. I hold a PhD and served 14 years in the US Army until my last deployment I was injured. I served in roughly 5 campaigns / "wars / operations". Additionally, I had 10 deployments!! I received all my education post injury / medical retirement. I'd LOVE to contribute and see NUMEROUS issues within the military info.. if you created a "hierarchy" where people can't delete what you contribute you'd have far more contribubitions!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.155.82.245 (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use original research. All material is just a summary of professionally published mainstream academic sources (generally avoiding primary sources because, again, we don't use original research). If you edit with those two ideas in mind, very little you add will get deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Template help & disambiguation

The following articles have templates within templates that construct a link to the article National Park Railway Station when passed National Park. However, this is a disambiguation page.

The links should be:

• National Park railway station, Manawatu-Wanganui in Ohakune Railway Station
• National Park railway station, Manawatu-Wanganui in Otorohanga Railway Station
• National Park railway station, South Australia in Bridgewater railway line

How can this be fixed? MB 04:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The South Australia one was easy, see this edit. The other two were dealt with by this edit gto the relevant template. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Where can I find guidance on criticizing another editor for making some corrections while not fixing other parts of an article?

I know not to do that, but I can't find the page that spells it out (not for me, you understand). At least I think I once saw such a page. Chris the speller ^yack 05:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. How about Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service - Editors can contribute as much as they want? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

 – I think that will get me where I need to go. I'm grateful. Chris the speller ^yack 14:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Change of copyright status

An image was uploaded to Commons from Flickr, which was ostensibly under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license at the time. However, the original image hosted on Flickr has since become All rights reserved. Should the image on Commons be deleted now?

Original image on Flickr: [1]
Image uploaded to Commons: [2]
Derivative of image uploaded to Commons: [3]

Ypna (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved [4] Ypna (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Seeing your own edits on your watchlist ?

Hello, Can I get to see my own edits also on my watchlist ? Currently I only see edits made by other users. Thank you. Js82 (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure! Go to Preferences, click the Watchlist tab and deselect 'hide my edits from the watchlist'. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Js82: Hm, looks like I forgot to ping you. Here we go. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot !! Should have done a better job of figuring that out myself. Js82 (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome—and we all overlook the obvious from time to time, don't worry about it. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Uploads in mobile version

When I search for my uploads on enwiki from the mobile version, I get my commons uploads as a result... why is that?--The Traditionalist (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Odd. It depends on the search method. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Uploads/The_Traditionalist and http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Uploads/The_Traditionalist both give Commons uploads. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:ListFiles/The_Traditionalist and http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:ListFiles/The_Traditionalist both give enwiki uploads. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Traditionalist has an "uploads" link to Special:ListFiles while http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:The_Traditionalist has an "Uploads" link to Special:Uploads, so desktop users are probably more likely to find their way to Special:ListFiles with local uploads, and mobile users to Special:Uploads with Commons uploads. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It appears from phab:T50732 it's deliberate that Special:Uploads shows Commons uploads. It seems very confusing that it doesn't say so or have a link to local uploads. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The Sinclair Method - Why has this page been deleted? And why is there no deletion log?

Also, when I click on a link to The Sinclair Method on https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/One_Little_Pill I am now redirected to the Wikipedia page for alcoholism.

Please could the editor responsible explain the basis for this decision to delete/redirect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:4AC5:1B00:5D09:A49D:D49:19E3 (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no deletion log simply because the page was not deleted. If you look at the history you'll see that it was moved to Sinclair method, and then you'll see from Talk:Sinclair method that this was merged into Alcoholism#Medications and it now redirects there. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no deletion log because the article was not deleted. In September 2016 Jytdog merged the content into Alcoholism#Medications and redirected the title there. The history of the article is still available. Click here and then look at the history. - GB fan 10:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The Sinclair Method deleted

Hello, yet again one of the most progressive and successful treatments for alcoholism has been deleted from Wikipedia. It is hugely concerning an activity so reckless could occur, but even further disturbing there is no record of its deletion. Millions are suffering and dying from this illness and I can only gather under some false pretext the most successful treatment (79%) is absent from Wikipedia. At what point can you ensure this _never_ happens again? The anti-intellectualism behind this need be rooted out and dashed from moderation activities. TSM has been featured on TEDTalk and just recently heard before the senate. Kindly address this error immediately. Lives are at stake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.64.108 (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

As has been said above, it hasn't been deleted. And of course lives are not dependent on what Wikipedia says. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, please assume good faith regarding other editors and their contributions. This is not a huge conspiracy, but likely an attempt to improve the content's structure and presentation. If you disagree with these structural changes, please start a discussion at Talk:Alcoholism. The help desk here is primarily for "questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia", as noted in the big blue message box on top of this page. GermanJoe (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The content in WP about the Sinclair Method is in the section mentioned above: "The Sinclair method is a method of using opiate antagonists to treat alcoholism by having the person take the medication about an hour before they drink alcohol, and only then. The opioid blocks the positive reinforcement effects of ethanol and hopefully allows the person to stop drinking or drink less.

References

We should talk about this at Talk:Alcoholism but just to say, I merged it because I found no independent MEDRS sources talking about this.

Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Odd behavior in navigation popups

This is not important, just curious. It may be evidence of an unimportant bug in navigation popups.

I have navigation popups enabled in "preferences" – "gadgets". When I hover over the link Brown-necked parrot, it shows me the first paragraph of the article, including the string "<em>Poicephalus</em> parrot". Where do the em tags come from? The word is bracketed by double apostrophes in the source code of the article, and by <i></i> tags in the article as served to my browser. Maproom (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It happens when there are italics markers inside a piped link like [[Poicephalus|''Poicephalus'' parrot]]. I reported it in 2014 at Wikipedia talk:Tools/Navigation popups/Archive 9#em tags in piped links with no reply. <em>Poicephalus</em> parrot produces "Poicephalus parrot" but popups does not generate correct code when it's inside a link. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleted contributions

When I click on "deleted user contributions", in addition to the showing me the deleted contributions, if any, it now shows me a large box entitled "Search for contributions". How do I eliminate the box and go back to the old display? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Large interface boxes like this happen when MediaWiki features are converted to use mw:OOUI. I think MediaWiki's OOUI looks bad. Place the below in your CSS to hide it. You lose the namespace selector for deleted contributions. Once something is converted to OOUI, I don't think you can get the old look back without coding it yourself in JavaScript or something complicated like that. You could add the code to Special:MyPage/skin.css to only hide it in your current skin and still have the option to change skin to see it. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

.mw-special-DeletedContributions .mw-htmlform-ooui-wrapper {display: none;}

Thanks, that did the trick!--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

mita overvliet

Hello mynme is mita overvliet and i would like to react to the article of mita overvliet. I was suspenden for 2 years ,first the ban was 4 years but after my case with the CAS in switzerland the IWF had to change there rules and make the suspension from 4 years to 2 years. This was done for all other athletes and actually my case in cooperation with the doping authorities in the netherlands was the breakthrough for it. Also my results where higher in some competitions, my results in the osmanaliev tournaments which isheld everyyear in kirgistan was 75/100 also remco eenink was ever realreally my coach i am only registrated in the netherlands because of my dutch paspoort. I trained 1,5 year in rumenia and 5 months in spain and 7 years in the bundeswehr in germany andand i live now in kazakhstan/russian border siberia where i train. I have been for 10 years in trainingcamps,and now i will start again. One ofthe reason my suspension was made from 4 years to 2 years was because there was a medical problem with my physical condition that included cervix cancer and was the reason of a high level of norandrosterone in the body,and the furosemide i honestly admitted and showed my papers frfrom the prescription from other competitions that was made by the docdoctor,for the competition in 2011 idid not have the right paper. This case is sensitive for me because i was so fighting hard anand it worked out,we have had always so many problems witwiththe weightlifting in the netherlands espacially the federation.things ae changing now because of remco eenink. My coaches where peter kaeks in germany and in kazakhstan anatoly vasilich liu-shin. But remco has been a soort of a sport psychologist for me. Sorry to write sso uch but i was upset with the information about mmyself on wikipedia.

The great gudmundur sigurdasson in iceland has teched me olympic weightlifting aand thats howit started. I hooe you guys can adadjust the information about me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitaovervliet (talk • contribs) 14:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The place to comment is at Talk:Mita Overvliet, including references to published independent reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Silly formatting question

I sometimes use a custom variation of "Citation Needed" to indicate a not-serious answer. Example:[5][6]

I use the following markup...

[ [[Citation (horse)|Citation]] [[Need, California|Need]][[ed (text editor)|ed]] ]

...which displays like this:

[ Citation Needed ]

I would like it to display as "[Citation Needed]" instead of "[ Citation Needed ]", but if I try to remove the extra spaces like this...

[[[Citation (horse)|Citation]] [[Need, California|Need]][[ed (text editor)|ed]]]

...I get this:

[[[Citation (horse)|Citation]] Needed]

So, is there some clever way to format my silly bit of markup so that it displays without the leading and trailing space? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You can put nowiki tags around each of the outer square brackets, thus: [Citation Needed]. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon, why not go all the way?^{[Citation Needed]}TimothyJosephWood 20:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Oops. Forgot to color the brackets. Try this:^{[Citation Needed]} TimothyJosephWood 20:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Even perfecter. I guess I should have added a ^{[Citation Needed]} after the word "perfect" above... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Homeopathy is not Psuedoscience

Homeopathy has actually been based on thousands upon thousands of bits of research that have been conducted over the last 150 years. It is based on certain principles which our modern American health care model does not have . You can disagree with the basic tenets, but the research and the logic is there. I am not saying much here because I have no idea where this will go just a test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.163.211.155 (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You should probably cite at least a few examples of those "thousands upon thousands of bits of research"? Ruslik_Zero 20:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The Federal Trade Commission just cracked down on homeopathic remedies. The new rules require packaging to effectively communicate two key disclaimers:

• "There is no scientific evidence that the product works."
• "The product’s claims are based only on theories of homeopathy from the 1700s that are not accepted by most modern medical experts."

Sources:[7][8][9][10] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You might like to read our articles on Placebo, Confirmation bias and Randomized controlled trial. Dbfirs 21:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

And for the position of Wikipedia, please read WP:FRINGE. --ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

2017 in baseball and music articles

What No Article about baseball in 2017 and no 2017 in music There's only 3 Weeks Left. come on get your lazy butts in gear now.68.102.57.28 (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:SODOIT and WP:NODEADLINE. Or you can post at WP:RA RudolfRed (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said last time you posted this (or something very like it) throwing insults at large numbers of volunteers is not an effective way of achieving anything. --ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Not convinced we need either, since 2017 hasn't started. Thus, we can't cover what's happeninh in baseball/music in 2017 without bring able to see the future. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Clint Conque Wiki Page

I was simply trying to make minor adjustments to records and update our head coach's picture on his wiki page and it went through fine yesterday. Now it is all coded and doesn't look correct. How do I fix this? I am not a coder and do not understand anything like that. Not sure what is the problem with the page now. Please help or simply correct it for me if possible. Not sure if I did something to mess it up or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notaroy69 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed (diff) --Fuortu (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Question about redirects/not automatically following them

Is there a way to set my preferences that I'm overlooking, or any other method, so that I do not automatically follow redirects to their target pages? Basically, I'd like wikipedia to treat every redirect I click as though the link has &redirect=no after it, if possible. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

2017 NCAA Division I FBS Football template

I Don't know how to make a template.68.102.57.28 (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Basically the same way an article is created. Except you put "Template:" in front of the title when you put it in the search box. Oh, and you need an account. †dismas†|^(talk) 01:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)