Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2006 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 1 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 3 >
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 2[edit]

Dealing with images[edit]

I have a number of questions about images and licensing.

1. If a band hands the band leader's camera to a casual passerby to take a band photo, and they never hear of the passerby (who may not have ever heard of them) ever again, they do not know his name, and they develop the photo and want to give it to us under a free license are they not able to own it and give us licensing because they didn't take it themselves even though it was their camera? Therefore should I tell a band to only use the self timer if they ever want to take a photo they own themselves when including themselves in the shot because the passerby owns it technically if he takes their camera and shoots the photo for them?

I would think not. Technically, the passerby would own the photo, but there's no way of locating them or them locating us. So I think it's safe to use those kinds of photos because the passerby's owning the image is rather flimsy. ~ Flameviper 16:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

2. What is our current stance on watermarked images? I saw this question asked previously by someone else at a talk page but the question was ignored and now suddenly I need to know the answer because I'm encountering a number of situations where a photo is available but has a watermark of a photographer's name and sometimes his email addres on it. I know that if he gives the photo to me CC by SA 2.5 I am allowed to alter it, providing I list the alteration, but sometimes removing a water mark may remove data from the image or crop it in a way that is bad.

As far as I know, watermarking is allowed. However, watermarked images look sloppy and unencyclopedic, especially if there is a large watermark , an inappropriate watermark, or a graphic used as a watermark. So you should try to stay away from watermarks unless it is abcolutely neccesary. ~ Flameviper 16:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

3. I need to locate a French-speaking editor familiar with copyright and licensing to help me communicate to a French photographer interested in letting us use a photo. But he does not yet understand CC by SA 2.5, so I cannot upload the image until he understands all the issues and he finds it confusing. I have email and can talk to the French editor in English at my email address and connect him with the photographer but I would like to upload and maintain the image since I know the details of who is in the photo. I wouldn't mind the French editor getting the permission done though. Or to find out if it's not really what the photographer would want to agree to. I don't want anyone agreeing to a license they really don't agree with if that ever comes up. There are plenty of advantages that can be mentioned to the photographer though since it's just one photo and can bring his other work attention by linking to his website and so forth in the photo description page. I'm also asking things to an admin by email but he is very busy and can't always answer.

Contact me at my talk page or email me regarding item 3. I now have received licensing permission on the image from the French photographer, but I still wouldn't mind having a French speaking Wikipedia editor just check in with him to make sure he doesn't have any further questions. He knew he had time to wait but went ahead and cleared it for the license.

4. I'm also confused using Wikimedia Commons for uploading free-licensed photos, as suggested to do by Robth with regard to how to tag things correctly to point to articles in the English Wikipedia in the photo description page. If I just put [[ and ]] around the article title while in Wikimedia Commons creating the article tag, it appears red, but maybe this page has the answer? I guess maybe I put [[wikipedia: at the beginning and then the article title and the closing brackets to make the tag work?

I think I see now how to do #4, and that article does seem to provide the answer. Still need help on 1 through 3. – Bebop 01:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. I also don't understand whether I can edit a photo description page while logged into my Wikipedia account an image that appears in a Wikipedia article but which I uploaded into Wikimedia Commons or do I have to be in my Wikimedia Commons account to edit info on the image?

Ok, I see that I can't edit a Commons page while in Wikipedia, never mind #5. – Bebop 01:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. I assume album covers being used for illustrating an album continues to be ok but definitely they don't want promophotos any more, from what I've read lately. Album cover scans are fair use so long as they illustrate an album and not people, I understand, unless someone is going to say we never use any sort of fair use item. I have some work to do on something related to an album cover but in general, it is often hard to find photos from a past time period for a group that's been out since 1979, an album cover scan of a key past album can sometimes be a very helpful illustration in a historical discussion. I've seen them used in at least one article that achieved featured article status too. – Bebop 12:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Is it better for the photographer to send the Permission directly to the Permissions email address and just copy the editor on it or for the editor to forward the permission to the Permissions dept themselves? I have been forwarding it but I'm wondering if it's even better when the photographer sends it directly. The only problem with that would be if the photographer doesn't write the permission correctly the first time, thus ending up with a bunch of extra emails to the permissions dept. till it's written properly, in the case of people who don't understand what you're asking them the first couple of times.

I think that it would be greatly more useful if the photographer sent the permission directly to the Permissions email address and then copy the editor. I guess that the other way is fine, too, but it's kind of hacky. ~ Flameviper 16:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks,

– Bebop 00:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as no one's been able to answer your question promptly, I advise you to try asking at WP:VPP, where people might be more knowledgeable. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 09:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 1 seems unambiguous. There is nothing in copyright law that gives copyright to the owner of the camera; it rests in the photographer unless it is transferred or is a work for hire. Signed legal paperwork would be needed. Notinasnaid 10:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This would mean that any time someone who never sees you again, doesn't know you, and can't remember they even took the picture says "ok" when asked to snap a quick shot of you with your camera, which I've even had people ask me to do before when they were vacationing where I live, they entered into a copyright relationship with that stranger/passerby now owning an image the camera owner can't even put it on their own wall since they don't know who took it and can't ask permission. Even though the passerby took the photo without identifying himself or qualifying the terms of his taking the photo, the person who has all rights in the image on your camera's storage media is the stranger who doesn't know you or how to contact you, so you don't really have permission to even keep the image and should destroy it, if the above is "unambiguous". Anyway, I'd like to make sure this is the correct answer on #1, and I still hope for help on the other questions. I have now also posted the questions at Village Pump as Patstuart suggests. — Bebop 12:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. Except that since you own the print from the film you do have the right to put it on your wall. And you do have the right to keep it. Copyright is the right to copy, not the right to own. It's rather like buying a painting. You have the right to hang it, but not the right to sell copies, put it on a web site etc; you have the right to sell the painting (though in some countries you must pay the original artist a proportion of any increase in value). Or so it seems to me. No, I am not a lawyer, and don't know how to apply this to a digital photo. I doubt this has ever been tested either. Notinasnaid 11:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic word for user name?[edit]

Is there any way to get the name of the current user from within a template (e.g., like {{PAGENAME}})? I looked at the list of magic words and didn't see one, and none of the tilde variations seems to do it, but perhaps I'm missing something so I figured I'd try here as a last resort. In case it helps, this is for a user message template, and I want it to say "If you have any other questions, leave a message on my talk page," where the link is to the page of the person who left the message, not to me! Matchups 03:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{BASEPAGENAME}} is what your looking for. It is used in {{welcome}} for something like that. Oh, you want -current- user.... umm...
How about this. Include a variable in your template for the user's name. For example:"If you have any other questions, leave a message on [[User talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]],". Once you do that, you can access that variable like this: "{{morequestions|username}}" Does that help? ---J.S (T/C) 05:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll probably do that, but when I started out, I was expecting to be able to do it automagically. Matchups 02:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most In-line references[edit]

I'm curious as to what article we have encountered has the most in-line references. What is the most in-line references that anyone has seen in any one article? Johntex\talk 04:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John_Doolittle had at one point 50+. The Holocaust has 58 currently... but the most I know of right now is... George_W._Bush (currently with 108). The more controversial the subject, the more citations it's likely to have. ---J.S (T/C) 05:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict has 198 sources. Since some of them are referenced more than once, I'm not sure how many references it has. It also has a lot of revisions, but not as many a the GWB article.--Kchase T 05:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your replies. I should re-phrase my question for greater clarity. What I meant was - what article has the highest number of distinct sources used as in-line references. The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is exactly the type of article I am looking for. Does anyone know of an article with more than 198 in-line sources? Johntex\talk 05:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not I'm curious... I'll check a few of the most edited/linked to articles and see what I can come up with.

So after checking all that I didn't find one with more then 160. ---J.S (T/C) 09:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Few more:

Usualy when an article gets to this large it ends up getting broken into smaller articles. ---J.S (T/C) 09:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the information. Johntex\talk 02:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By comparison, Paul McCartney has 359(!) in-line references. (Shows what our priorities seem to be. *g*) -- transaspie 14:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editting Dispute[edit]

What do I do in the case of an editing dispute? I have a more neutral source, but the (IP) user in question can't accept that. What do I do? The article in question is Tennessee_Volunteers_football Dlong 04:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :Well, first off, it looks like he's right: List of SEC Conference Champions. Second, you can warn him about the WP:3RR; but be wary of it yourself. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Oh, national championships. No, he's wrong. Warn him about WP:3RR, which I'll do. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try WP:MC. ~ Flameviper 17:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

JNANA YOGA SADHANA[edit]

I want to present my work, which is based on the indial philosophy, to reach the NIRAKARA ie., the shapless form of God, and became immortal. Please inform me how to upload the file containing photos and text.

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual and is really not intended for such things. In any case, it's also not advised to write about yourself or subjects you are close to. Sorry.--Kchase T 05:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is also not a place for original research. Please see WP:NOR. Basically, we are a secondary source and we only write about things that have already been published elsewhere. Johntex\talk 05:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
jnana yoga is notable, however, we already have an article on it. See jnana yoga. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What should I name this article to distinguish it from others?[edit]

I want to create the article Sacred Heart Medical Center (the one in Spokane, Washington), but from the Sacred Heart disambig page, it seems there are quite a few hospitals called that. What is the proper way of dealing with this, considering someone might create an article on another one called SHMC? Should I use Sacred Heart Medical Center (Spokane)? Should I create it at Sacred Heart Medical Center and then if someone else creates another article, move it? I found nothing in the MoS about hospitals, but I'm sure there has to be policy about how this should be done. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either Sacred Heart Medical Center (Spokane) or Sacred Heart Medical Center is fine, in my opinion. If multiple hospitals with the same name pop up, the page can be moved or a disambig template can be put up in the beginning. However, it is the safer route to use the pre-disambig'd page, to prevent future confusion. You may want to consider making Sacred Heart Medical Center a disambiguation page, too, which can be linked from Sacred Heart. So, overall, there is no real answer, that I know of...just use your best judgment. —Keakealani 07:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I was wrong - there are only two hospitals named Sacred Heart Medical Center. However, there are a number of institutions called "Sacred Heart Hospital" or derivatives. Am I required to link to those in the SHMC disambig page? Or should I keep the hospitals on the Sacred Heart disambig page, and link the SHMC disambig page too? (see User:Wooty/sandbox2) It seems sort of odd to link a disambig page to a disambig page. Also, should I add "for places named Sacred Heart Medical Center, see *pagename*" to the main Sacred Heart article, as well? (see User:Wooty/sandbox) Sorry if this is confusing... EDIT: Finished a very rough draft of the disambig of Sacred Heart Medical Center at User:Wooty/sandbox3. --Wooty Woot? contribs 09:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there are so many, you should probably take a step back and ask yourself whether the institution(s) are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Why is this hospital notable, while hundreds of thousands of others in the world are not? Notinasnaid 10:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but this one is the largest hospital in Eastern Washington. I can see the others not being notable (such as the small hospitals mentioned in the disambig) but this one, and maybe the Eugene one, are definitely notable. --Wooty Woot? contribs 10:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the only reason to claim notability? Hospital size doesn't really make it important other than to those in the neighbourhood. Is there particular pioneering research being done there? Nobel prize winners on the staff? A unique approach to patient care? A nationally reported medical scandal? Notinasnaid 10:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the fact it is the largest in Eastern WA, (actually, according to this source, is "the major medical center between Minneapolis and Seattle" & "provides services to the population of metropolitan Spokane and to large portions of Eastern Washington, Northern Idaho, Western Montana, and Northeastern Oregon.") it has 124,000 google hits, is in Google Finance, and is larger than other hospitals kept in AfD (see precedents: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edendale_Hospital, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mater Private Hospital, et al). Is covered by local papers (Spokesman Review, The Pacific Northwest Inlander), been involved in court cases (Nguyen v. Sacred Heart Medical Center). It is not a research hospital (it is Catholic, I believe), and "scandals" are not the only measure of notability (though of course they can certainly help - see Jake Brahm). --Wooty Woot? contribs 10:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so long as you are confident, and include assertions of notability in your article. Better to have this debate first, rather than possibly lose work later. Notinasnaid 11:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different language, same article interelationship[edit]

I created a French version of University of Zimbabwe The French article has back links to the English article as well as the German article. Both the English and German articles do not have full cross referencing. How do bots operate? What can be done? part 07:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, eventually the bots will get around to it, probably, but it could take quite a while. You usually just want to add them manually, e.g., [[fr:Université du Zimbabwe]] to the end of the article (I speak no French, that's my best guess) to both articles. It's usually better to do them by hand. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 09:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to delete[edit]

how to delete an image that you contribute on this website?

You can't delete it; an administrator has to. To get it deleted, place {{db-author}}, and an admin should delete it within a few minutes. —The Great Llamamoo? 13:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit a list of links?[edit]

Hello I have added this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_FIS_Nordic_World_Ski_Championships

How do I add 1980 to the list of links at the bottom of the page? Thank you.Stavol2 15:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Click Edit on that page. At the bottom of the edit page, just above the Categories, it will show Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page: (or something similar) and below that a link to Template:Nordic skiing World Championships. Click that, and then you will be at the template. Click on edit on that page. Then you can add 1980 to the table. Be sure to preview and make sure your edits work well, as that Template is used on every one of those pages. Good luck. --MECU≈talk 15:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It works. Thanks very much MECU for your quick response!

Revert a redirect[edit]

Somebody did a redirect on the disambig page for Option, so that the "old" discussion page disappears, and a "new" one appears. Can this be reverted? It is hiding the original discussion which raised concerns. JohnClarknew 20:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The old disambiguation page is here. The old talk page is here. If you wish to revert the change yourself then go to the first link, open the edit window and save it without making any changes. --Cherry blossom tree 20:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TKU, cherry blossom. I am your slave from now on! JohnClarknew 21:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How to determine efficiently the title by means of the version id?[edit]

Hi,

I'am using the Wikipedia XML dump to extract some information. I would like to determine (online, dynamically) the title of an article by using the id retrieved from it. Background: It costs much less memory usage to store only the version id.

Is there a way to get the title of an article by using the version id? I do not want to check the HTML page to retrieve the title. It would be great, if I can get the title through a redirected URL. I know, that there exists a permanent link to each article. The title and version id are used here. I thought, there have to be a URL redirect, if I am providing only one of them.

I checked the Http HEAD of some articles, but the header information does not provide enough information.

Thanks, Dennis

If no one can give you an answer here, you might try WP:VPT. Hopefully, however, someone else will know. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I just started writing two replies, and find that both are wrong! It seems MediaWiki does now have an API, which could be put to exactly this use - for instance info on page 42 (or as real XML or even PHP serialization format...)
That's really quite cool... - IMSoP 23:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?[edit]

Why did the Greg Brown (actor) page get deleted?

The deletion log says CSD A7, nn bio, which means it was considered non-notable. It's necessary to explain the notability of your subject in the article you create. If you disagree, you could try going to deletion review, or recreating it. I would suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:BIO before any of this, however. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to filter "articles only" in Wikipedia XML dumps?[edit]

Hi,

I am wondering, if there are some kind of templates to filter exactly the articles from a XML dump (pages-articles.xml.bz2). I downloaded a version with current versions, but it also provides templates, image information and so forth. I do not want to parse 4 million pages in the dump, but rather want to get the 1.5 m articles.

I am currently throw away: - disambiguations (pattern (disambiguation)) - all kinds of other information; the title of a page contains ":"

Are there any other kinds of unwanted information in XML dumps?


Best regards, 

Dennis

Get an XML version of an article through Special:Export by using the version id only?[edit]

Hi,

last question for today :) I am pleased, that I am able to retrieve a XML representation of each article by means a wiki/Special:Export. I am wondering, if it is possible to use this script with a version id. I know, that i can add a limit for retrieving the latest x revisions of an article, but I do not know the article title.

I am working on the Wikipedia dump and storing version ids. I need a simple way to get the title of an article.

Thanks in advance, 

 Dennis


I can answer it by myself: /w/query.php?what=content&revids=12345678 141.54.158.24 13:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bocked IP[edit]

My IP was blocked for persistant vandalism. After I looked at my IP's contributions (not my username, my IP) there were what seemed to be hundreds of contributions that were not made from my computer. How could this happen and how could I prevent it from happening in the future.

Well it could you are using aol I think this is a possible reason (I am not positive), or it could just be the fact that your IP address could be used by many people (i.e library school, business) but I am not 100% sure.__Seadog ♪ 23:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ISPs periodically shuffle IPs around between their customer, so your IP was previously used by (potentially) lots of different people. Some ISPs do this more than others - AOL the most, where some users (it seems to depend on which part of AOL you're in) get a different IP for each edit. There's not much you can do about it, but unless you're on one of the super-fast-switchy ISPs you should be blocked for others' vandalism only very infrequently, and the autoblock note you'll receive in that event should tell you how to get the autoblock lifted (which should be fairly straightforward). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

html code[edit]

Hi I was wondering if you could make an option in the Preferences to edit the pages in html code? I prefer to make pages in that format, and although this is similar, it is also different and has new tags/different tags/deleted tags, so it's pretty confusing.

No, it's necessary to type in wikiformat. It's possible to type in HTML, but it's highly discouraged (some things, like <B> are never done, others like <TABLE>, are); besides, I think you will find, that after just a few minutes of use, you will quickly come to like the wikicode better. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 23:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see... thanks Axle12693 00:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that doing so will pretty much inevitably be "fixed" by another user because of the it is so highly discouraged, as noted above. So regardless of your preference, doing so will end in wasted resources.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2006_December_2&oldid=1138523497"