Wikipedia:Help desk: Difference between revisions
Nicholas719 (talk | contribs) |
Maineartists (talk | contribs) →Image upload: Comment |
||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
* Per U.S. Copyright .Gov [https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html] "Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device ... Copyright exists from the moment the work is created." What am I missing here? [[User:Maineartists|Maineartists]] ([[User talk:Maineartists|talk]]) 15:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
* Per U.S. Copyright .Gov [https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html] "Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device ... Copyright exists from the moment the work is created." What am I missing here? [[User:Maineartists|Maineartists]] ([[User talk:Maineartists|talk]]) 15:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
*:US copyright law [[:History of copyright law of the United States|has changed several times]] over the years. The definition of the word "published" as used in the context of copyright law has also changed over the years. The page you've linked to represents the current incarnation of the law, and it applies to current day works (or works created since the law was last changed); it doesn't, however, automatically and retroactively apply to works created under older versions of the law. There was a time when US copyright law required individual [[:copyright notice]]s for all creative works (excluding some exceptions) as well as [[:copyright formalities|formal registration]] of any claims of copyright ownership. The lack of either of these two things was seen as an invalidation of claim of copyright ownership.{{pb}} Since copyright notices often appeared in the border of an image or on the back side of an image, {{u|Yann}} searched for front and back images of that particular post card. It's also why Yann searched for examples of other post cards published by the same company from around the same time. Yann was looking to see whether the one example they found online wasn't just an anomaly or otherwise modified in some way but was actually a good indication of how the post card company was "publishing" these cards. All Yann did was tweak the file's licensing so that it more accurately reflected its copyright status. Yann didn't do this to try to claim credit for uploading the image: you're still being credited as the original uploader of the file.{{pb}}Being frustrated is understandable, but trying to imply there's some kind of double standard in place so thay everything you do is crapped upon while everything everyone someone else does is praised is not understandable and not OK. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 00:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
*:US copyright law [[:History of copyright law of the United States|has changed several times]] over the years. The definition of the word "published" as used in the context of copyright law has also changed over the years. The page you've linked to represents the current incarnation of the law, and it applies to current day works (or works created since the law was last changed); it doesn't, however, automatically and retroactively apply to works created under older versions of the law. There was a time when US copyright law required individual [[:copyright notice]]s for all creative works (excluding some exceptions) as well as [[:copyright formalities|formal registration]] of any claims of copyright ownership. The lack of either of these two things was seen as an invalidation of claim of copyright ownership.{{pb}} Since copyright notices often appeared in the border of an image or on the back side of an image, {{u|Yann}} searched for front and back images of that particular post card. It's also why Yann searched for examples of other post cards published by the same company from around the same time. Yann was looking to see whether the one example they found online wasn't just an anomaly or otherwise modified in some way but was actually a good indication of how the post card company was "publishing" these cards. All Yann did was tweak the file's licensing so that it more accurately reflected its copyright status. Yann didn't do this to try to claim credit for uploading the image: you're still being credited as the original uploader of the file.{{pb}}Being frustrated is understandable, but trying to imply there's some kind of double standard in place so thay everything you do is crapped upon while everything everyone someone else does is praised is not understandable and not OK. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 00:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
:Thank you, [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] for this detailed explanation. I needed it in writing so that I may reference in the future. This all started because I uploaded the file as PD and was immediately placed up for deletion. As I said from the beginning, in a rather condemning but actually based-in-reality sort of way, I just didn't know how to "get around" the ins-and-outs. ("All Yann did was tweak the file's licensing so that it more accurately reflected its copyright status.") How one editor denies PD another justifies OR. Just saying "I researched" doesn't make it legit in some eyes. I've not only seen it numerous times, but I've been on the receiving end of it many times (as my WikiCommons talk page can attest). I'm perplexed as to how eBay was used as a reliable source for research since: "eBay has only been used as an auction source at WP." Not a reliable source to back a claim for copyright. I do not remember ever seeing or reading this: "It's also why Yann searched for examples of other post cards published by the same company from around the same time." - as the ''church'' was ''built'' in 1958, the postcard does ''not'' claim any date of creation. There was a very fine line that was skirted here; but with the support of Yann (a Wiki-Admin) and yourself, I feel better in uploading PD with an explanation that is sensible to en-WP for single use. Let's see how it works out for me. [[User:Maineartists|Maineartists]] ([[User talk:Maineartists|talk]]) 11:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Requesting a template change == |
== Requesting a template change == |
Revision as of 11:11, 8 May 2024
- For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
- Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
- Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
- For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
- New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).
May 5
Categories
Could someone please look at Steven Ward (TV personality), and let me know (or simply fix) whatever glitch is preventing the categories from appearing? I'm not seeing whatever is causing that. Thanks. Keystone18 (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Better? Joyous! Noise! 03:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- There was a stray "<!-- " in the text, that marks the beginning of "hidden text," or text that is only visible in the edit window. There was no ending symbol, so everything after that was hidden from view. You can see where it was here
How does one add stub tags below the categories using the VisualEditor?
When creating new pages. If they're added as templates, they're placed above the categories, which is incorrect. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Reference numbers 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 16 are all in RED - they are all from the same book (written by Money) as is reference number 20 (which is correctly done by me just now) so all of these other references should be the same - except without the quote that is evident in reference number 20. Also Reference number 25 is also in RED. Please fix these all - unfortunately I cannot. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Done. The {{harvnb}} tags were looking for a book defined as
Money 1911
, which was already done in the bibliography - but defining it again in reference "20" meant they didn't know where to point. Every one of those references is now pointing towards the bibliography. 25 was just missing a title. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Ref number 12 should have a publisher and I got it all wrong. please fix. thank you. Srbernadette (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
which citation are you struggling with specifically? I've added a publisher to "Our Schools and Colleges" which was #12 at the time of editing. But I noticed that #11 "Robert Woodward Papers" has an empty publihser field, but more importantly it's a broken link. If you could provide a working link to that source then I or another editor could probably fill out the rest of the citation for you. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Citation style
Hello! I was recently trying to fix an article (Turkish calligraphy) with an "unclear citation style" tag, and I found that the article had a tie between APA's citation style and Wikipedia's Citation Style 1. I was wondering which style I should use (the first article version used APA, but APA doesn't have a method for adding archive URLs to prevent link rot). DaZyzzogetonsGotDaLastWord (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Is Fandom considered a reliable source for citations?
I was just wondering about this. Shoron100 (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Shoron100: As Fandom wikis are user-generated, they are not. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also see WP:FANDOM. CodeTalker (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Mobile version
Hello,
On the page Hôtel de la Marine, the first paragraph of the introductory part does not appear above the infobox but under it on the mobile version (mobile phone). I was wondering why this was.
Thanks!
2A02:A420:6C:AFE:8932:CAD8:7485:EB73 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- It can happen when {{coord}} is placed early outside the infobox. I have moved it to the end.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Image upload
So this keeps happening to me but no editor that places a template will actually assist me. They only add a "See:[WP]" to WP pages that are so extensive, it is impossible to weed through it all. What is so frustrating is that there are thousands of similar images uploaded that seems to comply with (or get around) WP policy yet I can't seem to find a way. So - could someone please (without simply linking me to a page to read about WP policy) actually tell me how to upload this correctly? I've just never understood why an editor who knows who, wouldn't just upload it correctly then take all the steps to have it deleted. But that's beside the point, and probably will generate a thread conversation that is separate from my original question. I really just need help to learn so I can do it correctly in the future. I've tried to upload sheet music covers from the 1920s and 1930s (which WP has dozens), and yet mine are deleted because it wasn't uploaded correctly. I'm at a loss here. If anyone could take the time to really help me, I'd appreciate it greatly. Here is what I am facing right now: Talk Page Image, Copyvio. Maineartists (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- When you uploaded the image, you said it was in the public domain. How do you know? Where did the image come from? These things matter a lot for images uploaded to Wikipedia. Mokadoshi (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Does the image comply with WP:NFCCP? I don't think this page is extensive at all. (Also, pages like WP:FAIRUSE are long but it's policy. It's long and linked for a reason.)
I've just never understood why an editor who knows who, wouldn't just upload it correctly then take all the steps to have it deleted.
See burden of proof, it's your responsibility to upload it correctly if you want it to stay. Having an understanding of policy would help immensely with that. - As for how: for the resolution, see WP:IMAGERES. There's a tool linked that can help you find the decreased dimensions to comply with policy if you don't want to do the math yourself. If you want to, the formula is there. Adjust the image as necessary with the plethora of online tools available for that purpose. (Or, you can also just tag the image with {{non-free reduce}} after uploading.) Go to WP:UPLOAD. Click "Upload a non-free file". Fill the form out. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 18:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Ayakanaa. You are the first editor who has actually shown me "how". Rather than explained WP policy, copyright law, burden of proof, etc. One quick question: the link on Image resolution here: this tool is actually in a foreign language? Am I missing something? My image is only W 7.33 H 4.81 with a Res of 96 pix/in / 244KB. I can't imagine that is too large. I am currently going back in and listing this Postcard image (that's where it came from, Mokadoshi - from my own collection 1958) under Non-Free File. Hopefully I'm clicking all the right boxes to satisfy. Fingers crossed. Maineartists (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ayakanaa OK. I tried again by using your directions and links: [2] Would you mind looking at the upload and see if I did everything correctly? It would seem that I am missing a few things on the page even though I filled everything out upon initial process. Thank you. I really appreciate your taking the time to help me. Maineartists (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Maineartists Looks pretty good, I've tagged it with {{non-free reduce}} so a bot can make it smaller for you (non-free images have to be quite small: if you read WP:IMAGERES, it mentions that no more than 100k pixels should suffice – your image exceeds that). You should put it on Union Church (Wiscasset, Maine) now. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 21:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, Ayakanaa. How can I ever thank you? After all this time. With just a few explanations and exact links to properly upload, I finally was able to upload a non-free image. All because of you. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Ayakanaa@Maineartists When you upload a non-free image, a bot automatically turns up after awhile and reduce the size as needed. Edit history like this [3] is fairly typical, all automatic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Maineartists Looks pretty good, I've tagged it with {{non-free reduce}} so a bot can make it smaller for you (non-free images have to be quite small: if you read WP:IMAGERES, it mentions that no more than 100k pixels should suffice – your image exceeds that). You should put it on Union Church (Wiscasset, Maine) now. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 21:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ayakanaa OK. I tried again by using your directions and links: [2] Would you mind looking at the upload and see if I did everything correctly? It would seem that I am missing a few things on the page even though I filled everything out upon initial process. Thank you. I really appreciate your taking the time to help me. Maineartists (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Ayakanaa. You are the first editor who has actually shown me "how". Rather than explained WP policy, copyright law, burden of proof, etc. One quick question: the link on Image resolution here: this tool is actually in a foreign language? Am I missing something? My image is only W 7.33 H 4.81 with a Res of 96 pix/in / 244KB. I can't imagine that is too large. I am currently going back in and listing this Postcard image (that's where it came from, Mokadoshi - from my own collection 1958) under Non-Free File. Hopefully I'm clicking all the right boxes to satisfy. Fingers crossed. Maineartists (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Maineartists, unfortunately, copyright is an extremely complex matter and there are many lawyers who spend their entire careers dealing with the complications. Here is a very basic overview from the point of view of someone trying to upload an image. Think of any given image as either "free" or "non-free". It is your obligation to determine which. Free images are either in the public domain so copyright laws do not apply, or they have been freely licensed by the copyright holder, most commonly under an acceptable Creative Commons license. Such free images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, but you must furnish convincing evidence that the image is actually free. The vast majority of contemporary images that you find in books, magazines, newspapers and on websites are protected by copyright and therefore "non-free" . They can be used on English Wikipedia only if they meet the stringent and limited conditions described at Non free images. Interestingly, the example you chose of
sheet music covers from the 1920s and 1930s
is an edge case. The general rule (there are exceptions) is that copyright of such a cover lasts for 95 years, and that copyright expires on January 1 of the following year. So, any such cover published in 1928 or before is in the public domain, and works published in 1929 enter the public domain on January 1, 2025. And so on as the years pass. The bottom line is that you can upload public domain or correctly freely licensed images to Wikimedia Commons. Non-free images that fully comply with strict standards must be uploaded to the English Wikipedia instead. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC) - @Maineartists: Just going to mention a couple of things. First some good news, the file you uploaded of this church that's currently being discussed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Union Church (Wiscasset, Maine).jpg has a really good chance of being kept. A Commons' administrator named Yann was able to find a version of the post card online and verify that it image is within the public domain. Yann relicensed the photo as {{PD-US-no notice}} which is an acceptable license for Commons. So, if as seems certain, the Commons file is kept, the local file you upload as non-free content will no longer be needed and can be replaced by the Commons one. You could do that now, but it's probably better to wait until the Commons discussion has been formally closed and the file kept. Non-free files are required to be used in at least one article per non-free content use criterion #7 and those not being used in at least one article are eligible for speedy deletion as "orphaned non-free use" per speedy deletion criterion F5. The second thing is not so good and might prehaps seem to be a little rude, but I think it's probably time someone said something to you about it. It seems that every time you post asking for help with your image uploads, you begin the discussion pretty much the same way: you seem to blame others for your inability to understand relevant policy oir complain that they aren't asking your questions the way you want them to be answered. All users are volunteers and those answering your questions are doing so in good faith. For sure, Wikipedia and Commons policies related to file licensing can be hard to understand, especially for a new user; however, you are no longer a total newbie and things shouldn't be so impossibly hard for you to understand. What's going to eventually happen if you keep going on and on about how difficult and confusing things are every time one of the files you upload is challenged is that someone is going to wonder whether you're learning from your mistakes and whether you lack the competence to be properly uploading files. I'm not trying to be mean by making this observation, but I've seen quite a few posts by you related to file uploads which pretty much start the same way as this one does. You really should drop all of this "woe is me" stuff and simply ask your questions. Relevant policy pages are what they are and people are pointing you to those pages because they contain information you need to know if you're going to be uploading files to either Wikipedia or Commons. It's OK for you to ask questions, but it's not really OK for you to keep complaining that people aren't answering them the way you expect them to be answered or that things are too hard to figure out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why did you say this "If this file is kept, it should be used to replace the non-free version currently being used in the main infobox" here: [4]? It is the exact same postcard. I am confused. Regardless of how it is uploaded, it still remains the same image with the same printed back stating "Published by". Maineartists (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Pictures uploaded locally on en-WP can be used on en-WP. Pictures uploaded on Commons can be used on any WMF-project, like all the other WP:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Gråbergs Gråa Sång That obviously means something. Can you please explain? For us simple folk. And how it pertains to your original statement? This is the only way I'm going to learn, obviously. Both images are on WikiCommons currently.[5] Yes? Yann uploaded differently, but correctly. Also Yes? I did not. Neither originally as a PD or here after guidance: [6] (Not as PD) Yes as well? Please explain. Maineartists (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Files uploaded to English Wikipedia are "local" files in the sense that they can only be used on English Wikipedia pages; for example, they won't display on other language Wikipedia pages or other Wikimedia Foundation pages. Files uploaded to Commons, on the other hand, are "global" files in the sense that they will work equally as well on all Wikimedia Foundation project pages that allow files to be used. Each of these projects, however, is its own entity within it's own local policies and guidelines related to file use; so, even though Commons files will technically work on all these projects, there might be local restrictions in place that limit their use.The file you uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content was done correctly per the advice you were given; that file, however, is no longer needed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy because the Commons file was kept and is more than capable of serving as a free equivalent to any non-free image used for the purpose of primary identification of the church. The licensing of the local file could be converted to the same licensing used by Yann for the Commons file, but that would basically just be creating two identically licensed files of the same image when there's really only a need for one. Moreover, there's no real rason for English Wikipedia to host a file locally when essentially the same file exists on Commons. That's why the file you uploaded locally as non-free was nominated for deletion. Even though you might feel that you're somehow being targeted here, what's happening isn't unique to you or this particular file; it's something that happens quite a bit as free equivalent images that are capable of serving the same encyclopedic purposes and non-free files uploaded locally to English Wikipedia are found and uploaded to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Gråbergs Gråa Sång That obviously means something. Can you please explain? For us simple folk. And how it pertains to your original statement? This is the only way I'm going to learn, obviously. Both images are on WikiCommons currently.[5] Yes? Yann uploaded differently, but correctly. Also Yes? I did not. Neither originally as a PD or here after guidance: [6] (Not as PD) Yes as well? Please explain. Maineartists (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Pictures uploaded locally on en-WP can be used on en-WP. Pictures uploaded on Commons can be used on any WMF-project, like all the other WP:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why did you say this "If this file is kept, it should be used to replace the non-free version currently being used in the main infobox" here: [4]? It is the exact same postcard. I am confused. Regardless of how it is uploaded, it still remains the same image with the same printed back stating "Published by". Maineartists (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Not "woe is me", Marchjuly, but pure frustration. Just now, I left a comment here: [7] for the second uploaded image that Ayakanaa helped me do correctly; yet it was placed up for deletion discussion. Yet, how is this possible? I placed my first upload as PD because it was a postcard with no copyright notice. But it was immediately placed for deletion due to editors citing "most certainly copyrighted" and that the uploading editor (me) is bound by burden of proof and another stating that the postcard stated: "Published by Owen Arts Color - Newcastle Maine (Lyman Owens, artist)" which would constitute copyright." Yet Yann simply uploads the exact same postcard by the same publishing entity (with the vertical text on the back) under PD and for some reason, it's perfectly fine. So no, it's not woe is me. It's (as you say) "years" of running up against this at WP and getting more and more frustrated. Thanks to Ayakanna, I am actually now learning something here at WP; and certainly from all this back and forth from editors who seem to be "interpreting" WP policy. But at least I'm learning and trying. I hope you can understand this from my point of view. Maineartists (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- UPDATE: There is a current discussion here:[8] that is just full of contradictions and only confirms my initial claim that there are certain WP editors that have a way around certain WP policy. Yann defends uploading the image as PD (which mine was deleted for PD even though it's the same Postcard) for reasons: "In the absence of proof, it is quite sensible to think that the postcard was under a copyright. Fortunately, I found an online copy showing the back and the absence of a copyright notice, therefore proving that the postcard is in the public domain." Really? The back text is the exact same as mine: "Published by Owen Arts Color - Newcastle Maine (Lyman Owens, artist)" with a postmarked date of 1987. I thought PD was 1929, 70 years after artist death, etc. I added the only tag that WP allowed other than "This is my own work." So I was questioned: You added a licensing tag stating "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of their rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.", where was the evidence for that? Where's the evidence for Yann stating there is no copyright? He answered another editor who questioned by saying: "Yes, I have checked other postcards from the same source. They all lack a notice." Isn't that WP:OR? Regardless, it seems, as Yann says: "it is improbable that the copyright was renewed, but that's more work to check." Wow. I guess this is how WP works and is supported: "You being a Commons-admin, I'll take your word for that" Gråbergs Gråa Sång . Maineartists (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- This was on Commons, not WP, but:
- You stated "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of their rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission." and didn't "get away" with that.
- @Yann stated "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice." and uploaded the other side of the the postcard to confirm the statement. If you think this is "getting away", complain on Commons.
- Commons is strict on these things, and WP possibly even stricter, but for me it's clear you used the wrong license, so the deletion-attempt was not surprising. More surprising was Yann's "rescue", which deserves credit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am really shaking my head at all of this. It is all the same exact image from the same exact source. All you're saying is I didn't upload it correctly because I don't know the "ins-and-outs" yet I thought - with the help of an experienced WP editor - I had. Now another editor comes and uploads it under PD and just says: "It's safe to say ..." and all of a sudden, it's accepted. He gets credit and I get (once again) a slap on the wrist. I honestly think if I had done what Yann did, (which I did as PD but it was immediately placed up for deletion here: [9]) I would have been thrown to the wolves. I was specifically told the word "Published" means "Copyrighted". Which the text on the back states. Am I wrong? So I come here to ask how to do it correctly and I'm told I'm whining. But I did upload it again correctly (or so I thought) - not PD - with the help of an experienced editor,[10] and it gets placed up for deletion because a Wiki-admin uploaded the same exact postcard as PD. Maineartists (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Per U.S. Copyright .Gov [11] "Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device ... Copyright exists from the moment the work is created." What am I missing here? Maineartists (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- US copyright law has changed several times over the years. The definition of the word "published" as used in the context of copyright law has also changed over the years. The page you've linked to represents the current incarnation of the law, and it applies to current day works (or works created since the law was last changed); it doesn't, however, automatically and retroactively apply to works created under older versions of the law. There was a time when US copyright law required individual copyright notices for all creative works (excluding some exceptions) as well as formal registration of any claims of copyright ownership. The lack of either of these two things was seen as an invalidation of claim of copyright ownership. Since copyright notices often appeared in the border of an image or on the back side of an image, Yann searched for front and back images of that particular post card. It's also why Yann searched for examples of other post cards published by the same company from around the same time. Yann was looking to see whether the one example they found online wasn't just an anomaly or otherwise modified in some way but was actually a good indication of how the post card company was "publishing" these cards. All Yann did was tweak the file's licensing so that it more accurately reflected its copyright status. Yann didn't do this to try to claim credit for uploading the image: you're still being credited as the original uploader of the file.Being frustrated is understandable, but trying to imply there's some kind of double standard in place so thay everything you do is crapped upon while everything everyone someone else does is praised is not understandable and not OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Marchjuly for this detailed explanation. I needed it in writing so that I may reference in the future. This all started because I uploaded the file as PD and was immediately placed up for deletion. As I said from the beginning, in a rather condemning but actually based-in-reality sort of way, I just didn't know how to "get around" the ins-and-outs. ("All Yann did was tweak the file's licensing so that it more accurately reflected its copyright status.") How one editor denies PD another justifies OR. Just saying "I researched" doesn't make it legit in some eyes. I've not only seen it numerous times, but I've been on the receiving end of it many times (as my WikiCommons talk page can attest). I'm perplexed as to how eBay was used as a reliable source for research since: "eBay has only been used as an auction source at WP." Not a reliable source to back a claim for copyright. I do not remember ever seeing or reading this: "It's also why Yann searched for examples of other post cards published by the same company from around the same time." - as the church was built in 1958, the postcard does not claim any date of creation. There was a very fine line that was skirted here; but with the support of Yann (a Wiki-Admin) and yourself, I feel better in uploading PD with an explanation that is sensible to en-WP for single use. Let's see how it works out for me. Maineartists (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Requesting a template change
I've forgotten how to summon a template editor to request a template change on its talk page. Simply posting a new thread there has proven ineffective. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: You can use the template {{Edit template-protected}} for this. RudolfRed (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's it! Thanks much. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
May 6
Ref number 6 is in red, please fix if you can! Thank you as always. And Sorry115.70.23.77 (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- The red error message include a link to the help page: [12] which explains what the error is. You just need to remove the special character from the title. RudolfRed (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I tried and failed - please fix if you can, sorry! 115.70.23.77 (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Readd the "title", this time without rogue characters. 126.254.160.46 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why is it that the only people we're told are buried in the churchyard have the surname Middleton (and don't seem notable)? 126.53.182.173 (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Members of the Middleton family are notable - should we remove this? and can reference 6 be fixed up pelase. I cannot do this and I am sorry 115.70.23.77 (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed the ref issue with this edit. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 03:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- How is it that they're notable 126.205.243.176 (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed the ref issue with this edit. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 03:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Members of the Middleton family are notable - should we remove this? and can reference 6 be fixed up pelase. I cannot do this and I am sorry 115.70.23.77 (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I tried and failed - please fix if you can, sorry! 115.70.23.77 (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, reference 5 is in red and, sadly, I cannot fix it up. Please repair it. I will stop attempting to edit. I am not good at it. Thank you 115.70.23.77 (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed with this edit. There was a typo, with 20244 as the year instead of 2024. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 05:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Need help for some content correction and linking of a wiki page to a correct person.
Hi, I need help for some content correction and linking of a wiki page to a correct person. I tried to do it earlier 2-3 times but by giving some reasons saying this is not correct way or some verifiable reason the page and edits were discarded. I tried to add a page Draft:Satish Kumar (scientist) and made a correction of a Padma awards list as it was linked to wrong person. But it was discarded. Kindly help me on this. Govne (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Govne, you are the creator and the most recent adder of material to Draft:Satish Kumar (scientist). This still has very little content; what part of it needs correction that you can't do? What do you mean here by "linking a wiki page to a correct person"? Where did you "[give] some reasons"? (You have provided no edit summaries. Back in February, you did write something on Draft talk:Satish Kumar (scientist), but I don't understand it.) And currently the draft says that this fellow is an "Indian scientist" but fails even to say whether he's a physicist, a chemist, or whatever. -- Hoary (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Article
I wrote an article on Concordium and clicked publish and it's been 3 days nothing happens, when will there be a reply ? MrViktorgr (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- In that context, "Publish" means "publish this as part of Wikipedia for people who know where to find it". If you want User:MrViktorgr/sandbox published as an article, first you have to make clear your relationship to this, and I quote, privacy-centric, public and permissionless blockchain based on proof_of_stake mechanism to ensure resource-efficient operation of the network along with enhanced security among participants. (Carefully read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.) And once you've made your disclosure, you have to make considerable improvements to User:MrViktorgr/sandbox, which currently reads like corporate advertising, and has no doubt amiably intended but unfortunately incompetent referencing. Eventually, if/when it's a decent draft, you submit it for consideration for promotion to article status. But that's a long way off. -- Hoary (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- MrViktorgr, the current version of your draft bears little resemblance to an actual, neutrally written, well referenced encyclopedia article. It cannot possibly be accepted without a total rewrite. Cullen328 (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
- Writing a Wikipedia article starts with finding several sources that meet those criteria (see WP:42 for more detail), and then, if you can find them, continues by forgetting everything that you know about the subject, and writing a neutral summary of what those independent sources say. ColinFine (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
About Aranamanai 4 Article
Hi, In the Article Aranmanai 4 there are some wrong informations updated. mr.sb.ramdoss is not a co-writer. He is just a seco d unit director. Also The Film Aranmani 4 is a Blockbuster hit film world wide, which is not mentioned. And, negative reviews are highlighted and positive reviews are ignored. I request yoi to consider these changes in the article Aranamanai 4.
Thank You. 27.4.7.70 (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- The place to make suggestions and requests for the article Aranmanai 4 is Talk:Aranmanai 4. Be sure to cite reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Why can't the Visual Editor be used in the Wikipedia namespace?
I find it easier to use compared to the source editor, and I use it almost everywhere, but why can't it be used in the Wikipedia namespace? Félix An (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Félix An: Many pages in the Wikipedia namespace are used for discussions and VisualEditor is not well suited for that. You can still use it. It's only the normal interface links which have been removed. You can start a source edit and manually change
action=edit
toveaction=edit
in the url, or install User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/VisualEditorEverywhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
In the "Key dates" section - in 2021 - please put italics on the newspaper "Rothwelll Times". I cannot work out how to do this on my old device. Thank you. Srbernadette (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Srbernadette. To put text in italics, you can put two apostrophes either side of the text, i.e.
''Rothwell Times''
. I'll leave that for you to do. -- D'n'B-t -- 07:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC) - What D'n'B says. Note that although a pair of apostrophes
''
looks like a single double quotation mark"
, the latter will not work for this purpose. Also, do not use a word processor for editing, as "curly" (also called "typographic") apostrophes won't work either. Incidentally, Srbernadette, this "old device" of yours fascinates me. What is it? -- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)- My device is a "Macbook Air". I have fixed up the italics issue - thank you again. Srbernadette (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Srbernadette. You seem to continually have issues editing Wikipedia, such as regularly formatting dates as 20244 instead of 2024. Is this a case of you not being careful enough when making edits? It has happened so often I find it hard to understand how you keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again.
- How can we help you get better at editing Wikipedia, as it is becoming somewhat tiresome when you continually make these basic errors and then come to the Help Desk and expect us volunteers to fix it for you.
- Perhaps you need to print out a cheatsheet or affix a post it note to your computer?
- Do you have suggestions on how you can improve your editing skills? Qcne (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- My device is a "Macbook Air". I have fixed up the italics issue - thank you again. Srbernadette (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Srbernadette, the oldest Macbook Airs are now 16, and computers that old can be iffy. If the key that should work for the single quotation mark doesn't work well, you might look into replacing the keyboard. The "E" key (of course a particularly important key for various languages) of a Lenovo ThinkPad of mine suddenly came to require repeated pounding in order to work at all; and I briefly had nightmares about the need to pay out for and properly set up a replacement computer. But a replacement keyboard was easy to find, cost much less than I'd imagined, and was no problem to install. I got three or four more years of carefree use out of that computer, before its internal power supply expired and I had to replace it with the computer at which I am now typing. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Preferred method to link to foreign language WP
I am expanding an English article about a French actress, including a list of appearances in French films with French directors, for most of which there are articles in French WP but not in English. I'd like to include links to the French articles. Which option is preferred for linking a list to French WP:
(1) {{ill|Article title|fr}}
template. This gives a list with a lot of red links, e.g. Les Moyens du bord
(2) [[:fr:Article title]]
, which shows blue links, e.g. fr:Les Moyens du bord
The second is more aesthetically pleasing, giving more blue and less red, but H:FOREIGNLINK says the first is best practice. Masato.harada (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Your aesthetic judgment is your own, but the reason the first is the best practice is that it is less of a surprise to the user what they are clicking on. It is poor practice to link easter egg terms where it is not clear what they are going to link to. So, to answer your question of "what is the preferred method": it is in fact what the help page has stated to be the preferred method. Remsense诉 09:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
{{ill|Article title|fr}}
is also preferred because it automatically omits the fr link if an English article is created. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Interlanguage link is the right choice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Incorrect definition
I want to let you be aware that when someone searches the word lewd, it goes to lascivious behavior...the correct definition lewd (adj) is inappropriate behavior....there is nothing sexual or sexual in nature to the word lewd. When you look into n most dictionaries there is an antonym used to show an example of something that is considered to be lewd, and they use the word LASCIVIOUS. This is only an example of something that may be considered inappropriate behavior. Please address and correct this as it is completely MIS-EDUCATING society, thank you 192.198.31.98 (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Like many words in the English Language, 'lewd' can have a range of meanings, and which is most common has changed over time. Currently it is most often used in meanings related to lascivious behavior, so in Wikipedia that is what a search on it redirects to. For example, the fairly extensive (1,690-page) Collins English Dictionary (1979) has the following entry (in full):
- "lewd (lu:d) adj. 1. characterised by or intended to excite crude sexual desire; obscene. 2. Obsolete. a. wicked b. ignorant. [C14 from Old English lǣwde lay, ignorant; see LAY3] — 'lewd+ly adv. — 'lewd+ness n."
- Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. For a more comprehensive reference to any word's past and present meanings, a dictionary is more appropriate: if you want to use an online one akin to Wikipedia, try Wiktionary, whose entry for 'lewd' is here. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.175.176 (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- The idea of a "correct definition" isn't really considered by Wikipedia which prefers common useage, Wikitionary (which prefers attestation) or as far as I'm aware, most profesional lexicographers who wouldn't consider it to be a meaningful concept. -- D'n'B-t -- 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Publication request
Hello, I would like to publish my company's page on wikipedia. What is the method for doing this? Thanks Matteone17 (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- You should not do this - see WP:PAID and WP:COI. If your company is notable, a volunteer will get around to writing the page. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to promote your company on. Girth Summit (blether) 13:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Matteone17 Wikipedia is not a directory of companies. Qcne (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Sandbox coach
Is someone assigned by default as a sandbox coach for me? I would like a capable person to clean up some edits I am preparing for the USAF Thunderbirds Diamond Crash page so I can just upload one change from my sandbox and it will look near perfect in one shot Cresterest (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- We don't really have the concept of a "sandbox coach". I suggest you post on the article's talk page, saying that you are proposing an edit that you have prepared in your sandbox, and wikilinking your sandbox. ColinFine (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- You say look near perfect in one shot. If you mean "one big edit covering five separate sub-topics", please don't. Instead use five small edits each covering just one sub-topic. Editing is a co-operative venture, best done in small, well-focussed edits, with the content of one sub-topic not being confused and burdened with unrelated edits about a different sub-topic. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
How to report pornographic links edited into articles?
Search on lyrics to Charlie Brown song "Why's Everybody Always Pickin' on Me?" Hover over links like "Beaver" and "Ivana Getchuharde" to see pornographic material not appropriate to the subject. (Adult genitalia in state of arousal.) Note: Good to know that Wikipedia covers porn appropriately, Kudos and thank you. But the above site is appropriate for children and has probably been maliciously edited. Posted here because no information how to report this. 76.53.131.250 (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Vandalism from this edit 1 January 2008.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Stop receiving "Your edit was published" notification
Ahoy! Anyone know if it's possible to stop receiving the "Your edit was published" notification? Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so. I find it irksome, too, since a lot of my edits are adding coordinates to articles and that damn thing pops up to obscure the coordinates when I save the edit. I have to wait for it to go away to make sure that I haven't committed some stupid error. Deor (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm, maybe that's something to propose at Village Pump, is it not? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 10:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Cocobb8 and Deor: See WP:Your edit was published. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks a bunch @PrimeHunter. Thoughts on proposing this to be added as an option under settings? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Cocobb8: I don't think it's significant enough for settings. Maybe Wikipedia:User scripts/List. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks a bunch @PrimeHunter. Thoughts on proposing this to be added as an option under settings? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Cocobb8 and Deor: See WP:Your edit was published. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Deor You can can click it to make it go away NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 13:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm, maybe that's something to propose at Village Pump, is it not? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 10:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Claude Cormier and primary sources
I recently noticed that Claude Cormier is marked as relying too much on primary sources, so I replaced a citation of an interview with him and a page from his company's website with an obituary about Cormier from Canadian Architect. However, after reading WP:PRIMARY, I am starting to wonder if I actually if did reduce the article's reliance on primary sources. Would an obituary count as a primary source with regards to Cormier's life? Still-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Butter (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Still-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Butter. A staff written obituary published in a reliable source is an independent, secondary source. Your edit was an improvement. Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. Looking back at it, I think I just overthought it; I assumed the various obituaries counted as breaking news and were thus considered primary sources. Your response is much appreciated in this regard. Still-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Butter (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Cliff Hanley
I recently added numerous updates to my father's page. They are no longer visible. This was a large amount of work by his family,. How can we have it returned? Joburley (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- First you need to formally declare your conflict of interest. Please click the link for instructions.
- The edits were removed as a copyright violation. You cannot simply use content from elsewhere. It must be summarized and cited. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, Joburley, an editor must not "editorialize". If some "reliable source" has termed a book a "classic", then this opinion may be attributed to that source ("called a 'classic' in the review in The Listener", etc; of course with a reference); but just because you or I happen to think it's a classic, neither of us may write this. And indeed you should not be adding anything to the article, instead making suggestions and requests in Talk:Cliff Hanley. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
May 7
How do I request Google to re-crawl a Wikipedia article?
I changed an article, but a day later, the old version still shows in the Google Search infobox. How do I request Google to re-crawl it? Félix An (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Félix An. Since Google isn't operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, I don't there's really much that anyone can do to help you here with something like this. You might just have to either try to contact Google directly or wait a bit longer to see whether Google eventually catches up to Wikipedia. In addition, if the article you're referring to is Lee Man-hee, you might want to be a bit more WP:CAUTIOUS with your edits because changing the content "religious leader" to "cult leader" as you did seems like a potential WP:BLP violation unless you can strongly back up such a claim with some really solid reliable sources. Furthermore, you seem to have more than a casual interest in the subject matter based upon WP:NPOVN#Lee Man-hee, which might also be another reason to be CAUTIOUS. Please remember that Wikipedia isn't really the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reminder. I have cited a WP:RS (New York Times) that was cited on the main article for Shincheonji. It would be important to state that Shincheonji is a cult, since as the main article states, citing NYT, "It is considered a pseudoreligion or cult by mainstream churches". Thus, the view that Shincheonji is a legitimate denomination of Christianity would be considered a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. I'm not trying to WP:RGW, but there were legitimately WP:SPA accounts making COI edits to the aforementioned article in his defense. Félix An (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- The article I was referring to was actually the one about emailSanta, since I asked Google to clear their cache, and it hasn't been re-indexed yet, so the Google infobox doesn't show up for that article. Félix An (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reminder. I have cited a WP:RS (New York Times) that was cited on the main article for Shincheonji. It would be important to state that Shincheonji is a cult, since as the main article states, citing NYT, "It is considered a pseudoreligion or cult by mainstream churches". Thus, the view that Shincheonji is a legitimate denomination of Christianity would be considered a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. I'm not trying to WP:RGW, but there were legitimately WP:SPA accounts making COI edits to the aforementioned article in his defense. Félix An (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- This might provide the information you are looking for ... might --> https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/ask-google-to-recrawl . User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Haha. Not possible at the scale of Wikipedia. Just let Google pick it up naturally. – robertsky (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Did someone say, "contact Google directly"??? Uporządnicki (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Haha. Not possible at the scale of Wikipedia. Just let Google pick it up naturally. – robertsky (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Deletion of X# (XSharp) topic
I see that the topic and references to the X# (XSharp) XBase development language have been deleted. Why was that done? This language is very much alive. RobertvanderHulst (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi RobertvanderHulst. The article XSharp was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XSharp (2nd nomination). If after reading through that discussion, you feel an error was made, you can ask the administrator who deleted the discussion for clarification by posting a message on their user talk page. The administrator's name is Liz. Just for reference, the article was also deleted more than 10 years ago per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XSharp as well, but apparently got re-created at some point. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- The deletion in 2009 did not have anything to do with the current XSharp page: we started this project in 2015. 185.238.130.61 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- The article XSharp, RobertvanderHulst, was most recently nominated for deletion as recently as April 2024 (and deleted in May 2024), as can be seen in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XSharp (2nd nomination). If the article deleted in 2009 was irrelevant to that deleted just this month (and I neither have checked this nor intend to do so), no matter. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with the workings of Wikipedia.
- What should I do to "undo" the deletion of the page? RobertvanderHulst (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- You can't undo the deletion of the page yourself. You can, however, seek further clarification as to why the page was deleted by discussing things with the administrator who closed the deletion discussion. If after discussing things with said administrator you still feel that the deletion of the article was not justified, you can request a Wikipedia:Deletion review. However, such reviews usually require some substantially new significant development showing that a mistake was made and that the subject really is Wikipedia:Notable for a deleted article to be restored. So, you should be prepared to make such a case if you want to avoid your request being summarily declined. Before you do any of this, however, you might want to carefully read through the "Wikipedia Notable" guideline page I linked to above, try to step outside of yourself and really objectively assess whether the subject matter meets the relevant guideline. This might be hard to do if you're somehow connected personally or professionally with the subject matter, but you have zero chance of having the article being restored if you're unable to clearly establish a credible claim of Wikipedia notability. If your self-assessment fails to clearly establish such a claim, there are WP:ALTERNATIVEs that might be more suited for hosting content about this subject matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- The article XSharp, RobertvanderHulst, was most recently nominated for deletion as recently as April 2024 (and deleted in May 2024), as can be seen in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XSharp (2nd nomination). If the article deleted in 2009 was irrelevant to that deleted just this month (and I neither have checked this nor intend to do so), no matter. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- The deletion in 2009 did not have anything to do with the current XSharp page: we started this project in 2015. 185.238.130.61 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why was it deleted, RobertvanderHulst? The AfD nomination reads: "This programming language does not have enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG" -- which of course looks like alphabet soup but means that the subject doesn't have enough "significant" coverage (as opposed to mere mentions, etc) in reliable sources (which must be independent of the subject) to be "notable", as this term is defined hereabouts. (NB This has nothing to do with the quality of the subject. Few would argue that "Fyre Festival" wasn't a crappy non-event, but its very crappiness got significant coverage.) The deleted article came with three references: "XSharp Home web site", "XSharp extension for Visual Studio (Microsoft Visual Studio Marketplace", and "Open Source X Sharp repo source code on GitHub". For "notability" purposes, that's a feeble collection indeed. -- Hoary (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Follow-up Drafts Reviews.
Hi,
I simply want to know where I can find information about the status of my drafts. It's been three months since I submitted them for review. Thank you!
Erin Erin1313 (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Erin1313 You just need to view your drafts; Draft:Erin Simpson is submitted and pending. As noted on the draft, it may take some time for a review due to a backlog, please be patient. You will get a message on your user talk page when action is taken on your draft. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! :) Erin1313 (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Erin1313 why did you re-submit your draft after I declined it? You didn't add a single new citation that proves notability. I have declined it again. Qcne (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! :) Erin1313 (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Erin1313 I have had a look at the draft and I am afraid your sources do not show you are notable under WP:NENTERTAINER or WP:NPEOPLE. Your sources are:
- An interview, cannot be used to establish notability.
- An interview/engagement piece which doesn't establish notability.
- An interview/baby piece, which doesn't establish notability.
- A simple listing, which doesn't establish notability.
- An interview, cannot be used to establish notability.
- An interview, cannot be used to establish notability.
- A Primary source, cannot be used to establish notability.
- Qcne (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I will also draw your attention to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erin_Simpson from several years ago - nothing much seems to have changed since then I am afraid. Qcne (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia listing of biography
Dear Friends
I wish to enlist my fathers biography in wiki as he is quite renowned name in administrative and political circle and have contributed to the development of country in earlier phase.
How can I have help from wiki on this and what all documents I need to share to check his eligibility Bhismak1962 (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NBIO will apply in this case. Generally there will need to be multiple in-depth coverage of your father from sources that are reliable and independent from him. Avoid using WP:ROUTINE coverag such as announcements of your father being appointed to certain roles. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- You already started, in your user page: the wrong place for it. I've moved this to User:Bhismak1962/sandbox. -- Hoary (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- This also sounds like a case where a conflict of interest may occur, regardless of whether you are paid to edit the article. Generally, you should avoid editing or creating articles where you are involved in some way. See also An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Angelita C. et al. v. California Department of Pesticide Regulation
I have two questions about errors on this article.
- Short description with empty Wikidata description -- there is only one wikidata, yes? I am getting sent to a translated page, but I think that is irrelevant. And not all that unreasonable, since I have had a French language browser on here. But. Here is the question: My edit history over there says I created (Q125816523) and I did this in English. Am I just waiting for some sort of pending changes review? My edit count over there is pretty low. Or is this a Wikidata helpdesk question?
- CS1 maint: date and year -- What is this complaining about? One of the references had both a date and a year because the SFN template wasn't working and this turned out to be over a non-standard date format. Mar/Apr2012 or something like that. The sfn documentation said it was ok to use both a year and a date, but Wikipedia documentation says a lot of things. But. I found the same article (Huang) in another place with a standard date, and the sfn works now. I realize I could edit my javascript to display the error but I would rather not right now. Can any of you tell me what that is all about?
Thank you for any brainpower applied to these problems. Elinruby (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think I am fumbling my way through the wikidata problem. Would still like an answer about the date error if anybody has one, thanks Elinruby (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Don't use both "date=" and "year=". (If you really need to express such facts as that your source is the "2003" issue of whatever and that it was actually issued in November 2002, then do this in some other way, e.g. by making sure that "2003" appears within the title.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: date and year is in:
{{cite journal|last1=Pelley |first1=Janet |title=Methyl iodide, a fumigant under fire: The Bush administration's approval of the pesticide is on trial in California's external scientific review. |url=https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es9023095 |journal=Environ. Sci. Technol. |year=2009 |volume= 43 |issue=18 |date=4 August 2009 |doi=10.1021/es9023095 |publisher=American Chemical Society}}
- The source says "Published online 4 August 2009" and "Published in issue 15 September 2009". I think you should stick to year when
issue=18
is given. Category:Short description with empty Wikidata description is not an error but just information you are free to ignore. A Wikidata description is not mandatory. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)- Aha I am looking at the wrong reference, thank you. So the secret is view source? Anyway, I am going away a happy camper and will consider this confirmation that the documentation page is out of date or something. Appreciated, all. Elinruby (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: Category:CS1 maint: date and year has code you can place in your CSS to see "CS1 maint: date and year" at the reference:
.mw-parser-output span.cs1-maint {display: inline;} /* display Citation Style 1 maintenance messages */
- It's also possible to view the html source with your browser and search for the text. Or copy the wikitext to Special:ExpandTemplates and search the result field. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you all. Elinruby (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Aha I am looking at the wrong reference, thank you. So the secret is view source? Anyway, I am going away a happy camper and will consider this confirmation that the documentation page is out of date or something. Appreciated, all. Elinruby (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: date and year is in:
- Don't use both "date=" and "year=". (If you really need to express such facts as that your source is the "2003" issue of whatever and that it was actually issued in November 2002, then do this in some other way, e.g. by making sure that "2003" appears within the title.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
person profile to be added
good day. What is the process if i would like to add someone's profile /history to this Wikipedia Bernadetteburrell (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Bernadetteburrell We don't have profiles here, we have articles. Your question would be similar to asking "what is the process for giving a violin concert at Carnegie Hall?" It takes a significant amount of knowledge and practice; while it is possible to dive right in, many who do this often end up frustrated and angry as work they spent hours on has things happen to it that they don't understand. I don't want you to have bad feelings here. I highly recommend that you first do things like edit existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial is a good idea as well.
- If you still want to attempt to write a new article now, you should first spend time gathering independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the person you want to write about(not interviews, brief mentions, or mere coverage of their activities) that you can summarize in an article. You should also read Your First Article. You may then use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft for review. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Captcha
I literally am typing the correct word but it says I'm not. LemonadeGirlll (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @LemonadeGirlll: We can't really help you fill in the CAPTCHA. However, we might be able to help if you tell us exactly what you were trying to change, and it's possible someone would make the change on your behalf, if you'd like. Tollens (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- In my experience, when Wikipedia presents me with a captcha and I get it right, it acts as if I'd got it wrong and presents me with another one. But I can ignore that and just carry on to the thing I was trying to access. Maproom (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Blue background for some history entries
Hi. What is the meaning of the 'alice blue'-like color background in the revision history here, for the two most recent edits? First I was thinking pending changes, that maybe someone forgot to add the lock icon, but I don't see any pending changes being added in the article history. Thanks. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think what you're seeing is the revisions selected for comparison via the "Compare selected revisions" button at the top of the history page. If you click one of the round buttons next to the (cur | prev) on each entry, the highlight should move to that entry to denote that it is selected. Tollens (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ah yes, of course. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Need help with the "Sanitized CSS"
I'm trying to create a styles.css here; But, when trying to use it here I'm Geeting this error. Please help me with it. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Vestrian24Bio: An administrator or template editor will need to change the content model of the page for you. If nobody does so within an hour or two (someone will probably see this here), feel free to add {{Edit template-protected}} to the talk page of that CSS page along with a request that the content model be changed to Sanitized CSS. Tollens (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- That should actually be {{edit interface-protected}}. Only WP:INTADMINs can change the content model of another user's (unsanitized) CSS page. You can also avoid this hassle by first creating the page as a subpage of Template:TemplateStyles sandbox/Vestrian24Bio/, then moving it to your userspace. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, of course. Not sure how I forgot that admins can't edit user CSS. Thanks also for the pointer to creating the page in template-space, meant to include that in my original reply. Tollens (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your guidance 🤗. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 06:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, of course. Not sure how I forgot that admins can't edit user CSS. Thanks also for the pointer to creating the page in template-space, meant to include that in my original reply. Tollens (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- That should actually be {{edit interface-protected}}. Only WP:INTADMINs can change the content model of another user's (unsanitized) CSS page. You can also avoid this hassle by first creating the page as a subpage of Template:TemplateStyles sandbox/Vestrian24Bio/, then moving it to your userspace. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
My contributions are removed but they are correct
Hello,
My contributions are correct as i was a producer and remixer for the band under a remix name ( I have a disk on my wall at home from the record company). I added my details to the page but it keeps getting reverted and i have no idea why, could you explain please?
Thank you. Deavall (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- The article appears to be I Want Your Love (Atomic Kitten song) and based on the username, you have added yourself as "Lee Deavall - Monolith Mix production, Q's Detonator production". This may well be true, but it needs a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Deavall, you added your name to the Lymm#Notable_people section. But the word "notable", when used here, means "having a Wikipedia article about them". You are not notable in that sense, so your name was removed. Maproom (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- ok, thank you for clarification. 86.154.176.76 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Louis Adamic
Louis Adamic died in Milford, not in Riegelsville (as you can see in his grave https://images.findagrave.com/photos/2007/192/6879688_118429111663.jpg). Can you change this information? 151.68.244.129 (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- The place of his death appears to be cited to a reliable source (though I haven't looked at the source mtyself, since it's behind a paywall). If you want to challenge that, you need to adduce an equally reliable source, which Findagrave is not (see WP:RSP#Find a Grave). If you have such a source, please open a discussion on the article's talk page, and try to reach consensus. ColinFine (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @ColinFine but the epigraph in his grave is reliable. 151.68.244.129 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, then it's up to you to argue that on the article's talk page. See WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @ColinFine but the epigraph in his grave is reliable. 151.68.244.129 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
How do I create a totally new page?
There are already companies with dedicated pages that operate in the same space as the one I want to contribute (see: Sila Nanotech) but the company where I am involved, that is actually ahead in commercialization, Group14 Technologies, has no presence on Wikipedia today. I can easily use the Sila page as a template so that users can have a handy way to compare the two. Memphremagog (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- You can use the general structure of Sila Nanotechnologies as a starting point for your article, but as you have an inherent conflict of interest with Group14 as someone "involved" with the company my best advice is to write a draft and submit it through Articles for Creation. Reconrabbit 20:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that I'm to disagree to some extent with ReconRabbit, though I agree with their final suggestion.
- My point is that the "general structure" is not relevant until you have laid the groundwork by finding the required independent substantial sources to establish that the company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Talking about the structure at this stage is like thinking about the layout of a house you want to build when you have not surveyed the site to make sure it's fit to build on, or checked local building regulations.
- I always advise new editors to not even think about creating a new article until they have spent several months learning about Wikipedia by making improvements to existing articles. Once they have an understanding of such fundamental concepts as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable sources and notability, then they can read your first article, and will have a possibility of creating an acceptable draft.
- This is in addition to the extra complication of trying to create an article about a subject where you have a conflict of interest: this is not forbidden, but it is likely to be even harder and more frustrating.
- You will need to bear in mind that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. , and that absolutely nothing from your personal knowledge should go in the article unless it can be cited to a reliable published source - and, in most cases, to a source unconnected with the company. ColinFine (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Updating a symbol used in an infobox
Hello, helpers! I have been tasked with updating an outdated logo icon that's used in the infobox on the right side of the Union Station page (among many other places). Looking at the infobox's coding, it merely says "symbol = Metrolink," but I don't know how to update that "symbol" to mean the new Wikimedia commons file uploaded as opposed to the current one. Can anyone help? Metrolinktrains2022 (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Are you employed by Metrolink? If so, you will need to make the Terms of Use required paid editing disclosure.
- You should also change your username to be more individualistic; you may do this via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS.
- Logos aren't typically uploaded to Commons, as doing so means that you are making it available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution. Logos are typically uploaded to this Wikipedia locally under "fair use" rules. You also claim that you personally created the logo. If you didn't, and if you don't want to make it available like that, you will need to request its deletion from Commons. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your answers. I really have absolutely no idea what I'm doing.
- I have added the paid editing disclosure. I'll request the username change.
- I looked at Wikimedia Commons and saw that previously a handful of logos had been uploaded. I'll make the request to delete what I've added and see how to upload it properly.
- Once it's all sorted, do you know how to change that symbol label? Metrolinktrains2022 (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- We all didn't know what we were doing when we started here. Don't worry, and thanks for working with us. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Username rebrand successful! Trainsyaytrains (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- We all didn't know what we were doing when we started here. Don't worry, and thanks for working with us. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- The best thing to do, once you have changed your user name and made the mandatory declaration of your status a a paid editor, is to post an edit request on the article's talk page, asking that somebody uninvolved update the logo with the one you've uploaded. (Note that this is not straightforward: Template:Rail-interchange says
The template maps f (where, how) → to brand, link, icon(s) allowing the whole of Wikipedia to be easily updated when a transport network switches operator, changes name or updates their logo
, but I'm not sure where this happens. - @331dot: C:File:Metrolink icon.svg claims that the relevant laws put the icon in the public domain. If this is correct, then Commons is the right place to upload it. ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Colin! I really appreciate your time explaining. Metrolinktrains2022 (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Metrolinktrains2022. In addition to information provided above by 331dot and ColinFine, that particular logo appears to be being displayed in infobox of the "Union Station" article via the template {{Infobox station}}; in other words, the file in question isn't directly found in the article itself, but it's be transcluded into the article via the template. So, to change the file, you will need to find where it has been in the template's documentation and then change it there. It looks like the file has been added to the infobox template via the templates Template:Rail-interchange and Template:Rail-interchange/doc/US#California. Since there are lots of moving parts and multiple templates involved, it would probably not be a good idea for you to try to update things yourself because you could make a mistake that would impact lots of other articles. Moreover, the "interchange" template is protected to prevent any such mistakes which means only certain users can edit it. So, you might want to ask for assistance with this at Template talk:Rail-interchange or Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains. Another thing to keep in mind is that non-free content (i.e. the "fair use" referred to above by 331dot) can't be used in this way (i.e. transclusion into articles via templates); so, whether the logo being used in the templates can be updated largely depends on the copyright licensing of the file you upload. If you're not sure what that might be, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or c:Commons:Village pump/copyright. Just make sure to provide a link to where the logo can be seen online to help others assess it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Very informative! And I agree--I probably should not attempt to do this myself with my rusty 2009-era Wikipedia editing knowledge (lol). Thank you so much! Metrolinktrains2022 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Metrolinktrains2022. In addition to information provided above by 331dot and ColinFine, that particular logo appears to be being displayed in infobox of the "Union Station" article via the template {{Infobox station}}; in other words, the file in question isn't directly found in the article itself, but it's be transcluded into the article via the template. So, to change the file, you will need to find where it has been in the template's documentation and then change it there. It looks like the file has been added to the infobox template via the templates Template:Rail-interchange and Template:Rail-interchange/doc/US#California. Since there are lots of moving parts and multiple templates involved, it would probably not be a good idea for you to try to update things yourself because you could make a mistake that would impact lots of other articles. Moreover, the "interchange" template is protected to prevent any such mistakes which means only certain users can edit it. So, you might want to ask for assistance with this at Template talk:Rail-interchange or Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains. Another thing to keep in mind is that non-free content (i.e. the "fair use" referred to above by 331dot) can't be used in this way (i.e. transclusion into articles via templates); so, whether the logo being used in the templates can be updated largely depends on the copyright licensing of the file you upload. If you're not sure what that might be, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or c:Commons:Village pump/copyright. Just make sure to provide a link to where the logo can be seen online to help others assess it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, Colin. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- The logo can be updated in the code of Template:Rail-interchange which currently includes
File:Metrolink icon.svg
. Users without the required right can click the "View source" tab and "Submit an edit request" button. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)- Submitted. Thank you, PrimeHunter! Trainsyaytrains (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi again Trainsyaytrains. Are you also c:User:Metrolinktrains? If you are, then there's a slight problem with the licensing you've chosen for File:Metrolink Icon 2022.png that you should address. The {{cc-zero}} license you chose states that you are the copyright holder of the logo, but this seems unlikley given everything you posted above unless "you" means "Metrolink (California)" in the sense that you've been granted the legal authority by Metrolink to represent them in matters related to intellectual property rights. Just being an employee of the company, for example, doesn't mean the company has authorized you to represent it in such matters; so, this logo is most likely not your "own work" and you can't license it as such. Another problems is that the logo itself seems to be way too simple under US copyright law to even be eligible for copyright protection; so, even if this was your "own work", there's nothing there that you could claim copyright ownership over. There are various reasons why something might be considered to be within the public domain; so, while your licensing choose isn't correct so to speak, it's a mistake that can easily be remedied by changing the licensing from "cc-zero" to {{PD-shape}} or {{PD-logo}}. You should then correct the file's description to change the
|author=
parameter to "Metrolink" and the|source=
parameter to an official Metrolink website showing the logo being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi again Trainsyaytrains. Are you also c:User:Metrolinktrains? If you are, then there's a slight problem with the licensing you've chosen for File:Metrolink Icon 2022.png that you should address. The {{cc-zero}} license you chose states that you are the copyright holder of the logo, but this seems unlikley given everything you posted above unless "you" means "Metrolink (California)" in the sense that you've been granted the legal authority by Metrolink to represent them in matters related to intellectual property rights. Just being an employee of the company, for example, doesn't mean the company has authorized you to represent it in such matters; so, this logo is most likely not your "own work" and you can't license it as such. Another problems is that the logo itself seems to be way too simple under US copyright law to even be eligible for copyright protection; so, even if this was your "own work", there's nothing there that you could claim copyright ownership over. There are various reasons why something might be considered to be within the public domain; so, while your licensing choose isn't correct so to speak, it's a mistake that can easily be remedied by changing the licensing from "cc-zero" to {{PD-shape}} or {{PD-logo}}. You should then correct the file's description to change the
- Submitted. Thank you, PrimeHunter! Trainsyaytrains (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- The logo can be updated in the code of Template:Rail-interchange which currently includes
- Thank you, Colin! I really appreciate your time explaining. Metrolinktrains2022 (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Install RedWarn in PT wiki is possible
I use TwinkleGlobl, Warnings and reversion and Fastbuttons to combat vandals. So this possible to install RedWarn in PT Wiki? Vitorperrut555 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Vitorperrut555 It'd be best to ask directly on that other wiki, this help desk is for questions relating to the English Wikipedia. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Cocobb8 Ohhhh.... Vitorperrut555 (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
May 8
Reference 191 is in the red, I cannot fix it. please repair if you are able to. Thank you 115.70.23.77 (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Add the journal in the parameter that's being mentioned. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I tried and failed - please assist and I am sorry, again. Thanks 115.70.23.77 (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why couldn't you fix it? Did you click on the "help" link in the error message that took you to Help:CS1 errors#missing_periodical. The message is now gone since the problem has been fixed, but, for reference, the template {{cite journal}} (aka {{cite magazine}}) needs to have the name of the "journal" being cited included in the citation syntax so that the
|journal=
parameter isn't left incomplete, which is what caused the error: the software is searching for the name of the journal but can't find it. It looks like the title of the publication cited is "Publications of the Thoresby Society, Second Series, Vol. 24 (Miscellany), 2013" or more specfically written in the syntax for that particular template as
,|journal=Publications of the Thoresby Society
,|series=Second
and|volume=24 (Miscellany)
. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)|year=2013
- Why couldn't you fix it? Did you click on the "help" link in the error message that took you to Help:CS1 errors#missing_periodical. The message is now gone since the problem has been fixed, but, for reference, the template {{cite journal}} (aka {{cite magazine}}) needs to have the name of the "journal" being cited included in the citation syntax so that the
- I tried and failed - please assist and I am sorry, again. Thanks 115.70.23.77 (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry - references 198 and 200 are from the same source - I have failed trying to do the "doubling up" thing - can you please do this. I will go to bed now. Sorry. 115.70.23.77 (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:NAMEDREF thoroughly. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- @IP 115.70.23.77. You seem to regularly posting at the Help Desk asking questions like this and the one directly above this thread. Your account has also been off and on since 2019. While nobody is expecting to be an expert in all things Wikipedia, by now you should be fairly familair with the basics of how to cite sources and how to find information on your own when you run into problems citing sources. Assuming that you're the same person asking all of these questions, you might improve your understanding of how citations and other things Wikipedia work if you stopped using the Help Desk as a crutch and instead tried to figure these things out for yourself. There are several examples in the Middleton family article in which the same source is being cited multiple times. Looking at the source code for those citations should help you figure out what you need to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Tenryuu, Marchjuly: please be more tolerant. Different people have different skills. I can add two two-digit numbers in my head; some can't, and will never be able to. Some can recognise the interval between two musical pitches; I can't, and will never be able to. The OP has long shown that she cannot follow WP's instructions for giving valid citations, and I doubt she will ever be able to. Badgering her about it is not helpful. (She also has what seems to me an inexplicable interest in relatives by marriage of the UK royal family; but it's no less explicable than the intrerest in sportspeople shown by many WP contributors.) She is always polite and coherent in her requests. Maproom (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I feel I'm being sufficiently tolerant. For sure, there's a learning curve to Wikipedia and I'm perfectly happy to help those having difficulty much in the same way I was helped when I first started editing. At some point, though, the training wheels need to come off and no longer newbies need to stop being treated as such regardless of how polite and coherent their requests are. Anyway, your
The OP has long shown that she cannot follow WP's instructions for giving valid citations, and I doubt she will ever be able to.
pretty much describes the situation to a "T" so there's not really anything more that needs to be said. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)- We pass featured articles with invalid references, several of our admins can't get the hang of referencing systems like sfn or harvp, so why not have a go at them? If you don't want to help, then don't help. Don't attack someone who asks for help. It just makes you look shoddy and mean. DuncanHill (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- DuncanHill, does any of the admins who can't get the hang of this or that referencing system repeatedly make the same requests for fixing their own botched attempts to use it? And in this thread I see no attacks by Marchjuly or anyone else. -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- We pass featured articles with invalid references, several of our admins can't get the hang of referencing systems like sfn or harvp, so why not have a go at them? If you don't want to help, then don't help. Don't attack someone who asks for help. It just makes you look shoddy and mean. DuncanHill (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I feel I'm being sufficiently tolerant. For sure, there's a learning curve to Wikipedia and I'm perfectly happy to help those having difficulty much in the same way I was helped when I first started editing. At some point, though, the training wheels need to come off and no longer newbies need to stop being treated as such regardless of how polite and coherent their requests are. Anyway, your
- I've now done the "doubling up" as requested. Maproom (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Tenryuu, Marchjuly: please be more tolerant. Different people have different skills. I can add two two-digit numbers in my head; some can't, and will never be able to. Some can recognise the interval between two musical pitches; I can't, and will never be able to. The OP has long shown that she cannot follow WP's instructions for giving valid citations, and I doubt she will ever be able to. Badgering her about it is not helpful. (She also has what seems to me an inexplicable interest in relatives by marriage of the UK royal family; but it's no less explicable than the intrerest in sportspeople shown by many WP contributors.) She is always polite and coherent in her requests. Maproom (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Marchjuly, on "the [question] directly above this thread": The two were about the same article, and identically titled. The editor showed no interest whatever in my earlier, polite (I think and hope) request not to give the same title to more than one message thread appearing on the same page, so eventually I gave up the attempt. Anyway, as the second thread here immediately followed the first, I removed its header; sorry for thereby making your message a bit harder to understand. -- Hoary (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Problem on publishing corrections
Hello :) I try to submit my draft after improving it, taking into account some comments from an editor, but when I press the publish button the following message appears "No stashed content found for 1219665912/544b45c1-06b0-11ef-890d-2fa6df159f4d". What must I do? Nicholas719 (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Erietta Kourkoulou-Latsi Maproom (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- e/c Hello Nicholas719. Are you referring to Draft:Erietta Kourkoulou-Latsi? Unfortunately that message means that your edits have not been saved. You need to save (ie publish) your edits at regular intervals. Shantavira|feed me 08:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll try saving more often. Hope I'll not disturb the editors :) Nicholas719 (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'd recommend periodically backing up your text in a word processor too, just to be on the safe side. Sorry you lost all your work. Qcne (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Will do that. Thank you! Nicholas719 (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'd recommend periodically backing up your text in a word processor too, just to be on the safe side. Sorry you lost all your work. Qcne (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll try saving more often. Hope I'll not disturb the editors :) Nicholas719 (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)