Help desk
< May 17	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

May 18

Bloys Camp Meeting

I can't believe you have nothing on this. I'm not a writer so you need to recruit one and investigate and include this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.2.158 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You use WP:RA to request a new article. Read the guidelines for notability first. RudolfRed (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help: school crest cannot be displayed on infobox

Hi,

I tried to add school's crest on the below pages' infobox but i don't know why the images couldn't be displayed. These two schools have school scrests on their English wikipedia pages, but they don't have them on their Chinese wikipedia pages, can someone please help me out or add the crest for me?

The pages are: 1: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%80%AB%E6%95%A6%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%B8%E9%87%91%E5%8C%A0%E5%AD%B8%E9%99%A2

2: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%A1%E7%88%BE%E9%A0%93%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%B8

Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.216.189 (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image that is used at Goldsmiths,_University_of_London is stored on the English wikipedia. It is not licenced freely, so it cannot be uploaded to commons. You will need to unload an image to the Chinese wikipedia if you want to use it there. RudolfRed (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is about the Cheltenham font ? how looks AB in Cheltenham?

What is about the Cheltenham font ? how looks AB in Cheltenham? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.104.238.74 (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question. Does our article on Cheltenham (typeface) help you? What do you mean by AB?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page

Hi, my page (The Friends of Hayes Meadow) has been deleted by an administrator stating i have breached copyright. I am a member of the PTA and have permission to use content from the website as I helped to create it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwikiwowwowwow123 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could deal with the copyright problem by having the organisation formally release the copyright. However, I foresee other problems. It is most unlikely that a PTA will reach Wikipedia's standard of notability. And as you are a person connected with the PTA, you have a conflict of interest, and should not be creating the article yourself. (By the way, it wasn't "your page", it was Wikipedia's.) Maproom (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem is that the language on the web site would likely be too promotional-sounding for Wikipedia to use.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slide show template?

French Wikipedia has this image slide show template. Does English Wikipedia have something similar? Brycehughes (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I know. The French Wikipedia does it with a lot of Diaporama code in fr:MediaWiki:Common.js which is loaded for all users. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Weird. Seems like something we'd want to implement over here. Brycehughes (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I pasted the markup from the French Wikipedia over here. The template is at {{Diaporama}}. I don't know if it is working, though. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was perhaps a poor idea, given that EN Wikipedia might not have the Javascript code needed for this. But maybe it can be made to work here as well. I also copied the template subpages over here. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. Thanks. I guess I'd be on a one-man crusade to get this working... if I had any idea where to go from here. Would I start by lobbying at the Village Pump to get the diaporama code inserted into en:MediaWiki:Common.js? Brycehughes (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Before trying to get the code inserted into the javascript page, I'd first ask at WP:VPT whether that would work at all (unless you know whether it does, of course), as I can't answer that question. After that you could start a discussion at WP:VPR. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Thanks again. Brycehughes (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-pages of my user page

Is there an easy way to find all the sub-pages of my own user page? I'm looking specifically for all "code" pages such as css and javascript pages that I have edited or created over the years with customisations of my working environment and tools. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Special:PrefixIndex/Dodger67 which is linked at the bottom of your contributions page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Edit: I forgot the namespace prefix. PrimeHunter has the link correct below. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) At the bottom of Special:Mycontributions is a "Subpages" link, in your case to Special:PrefixIndex/User:Dodger67/. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering has links to all skin pages, including red links. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Subpages#Finding_subpages -- Gadget850^talk 22:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Flag_of_Japan?ref=talk

Click "unreviewed".

I'm not sure how accessible these comments are now, but nevertheless it is disappointing that the racist obscenity that I flagged as abuse several months ago still has not been deleted. Could someone please delete this now. Thank you. 86.160.84.78 (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how accessible they are either – I had never seen such a page before, and didn't know they existed. I found one obscenity, and flagged it as "inappropriate". I didn't see anything racist. Maproom (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In which universe is the comment that begins "I screwed ten of dem japs..." not racist? If the comment was about n....rs (African Americans) admins would be falling over each other in heaps in the rush to delete it. It's not the first time I see totally unequal treatment of insults to different minorities here on WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see on the page when I first looked at it. Maybe I was only seeing some of the comments. Now by sorting "oldest first" I got to see the racist one (which Roger had already tagged as inappropriate). And the one that apparently disappeared when I marked it as inappropriate is now visible again. I don't understand how this page works. Maproom (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now "requested oversight" for both. This has made their contents invisible. I assume that an overseer will soon delete them altogether. Maproom (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good, let's hope it is resolved soon. Thanks. BTW does anyone know what the point of this "Article feedback" rubbish is? I've looked through a few of them and with very rare exceptions those that are not blatantly offensive are at best the incoherent blathering of living embodiments of pro-eugenics arguments. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that feature has been disabled now because, as you say, it attracted mostly rubbish. 86.156.22.226 (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the page itself: when you click on "See more feedback from other pages" you see that feedback continues to be posted, with many comments dated today. Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool helped me understand what's happening and Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5 looks like the current place for discussion. Seems like, far from discontinuing it, the WMF is looking at rolling it out to more of its other wikis. Have I understood correctly - do you have to opt in in order to see this stuff easily? Judging from what I've seen so far, you have to wonder what percentage of it is helpful for article improvement, as opposed to throwaway trolling and drive-by drivel, and how much work is involved in patrolling it for stuff that violates policy. - Ka renjc 18:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback. As I understand it, the original feedback tool was across all (or most) articles, and that was switched off after complaints. I think it may now be "opt-in" on a per-article basis, so maybe the new feedback you are seeing is on articles where it has been switched on. 86.156.22.226 (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Reece

Spencer Reece currently lives in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, on a Fulbright. The Road to Emmaus will be published in 2014, not 2013, with FSG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.92.77.25 (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source stating this? If so, you are free to change it yourself.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barry J Hugman

Dear Sirs

Sorry I messed up today on the Category English Footballers. I will learn more asap.

As the person who introduced all post-war player's info in 1981 with the launch of Football League Players' Records, published by Rothmans and supported by the FL and PFA, I was shocked to see how few acknowledgements there were to my work within the site. To be fair, birthdates, birthplaces, signing dates and much other material had never been available prior to my work which was updated over five further editions, ending in 2005. I have written 63 books, many of which were football annuals up to and including 2010-11. Much of the material was held within the FL and PL offices until I was allowed to get it to the public.

I understand that several authors of the many club books that followed my breakthrough work failed to acknowledge my work probably because they did not wish to be seen copying.

You will also see that I have a very large boxing site, Barry Hugman's History of World Championship Boxing. Much of this is a unique work taking in 30 years of research. With my name in the title it probably stops those who wish to get their hands on it.

I think Wiki is a great idea, but I would like some advice on how to reference my work on the individual players that have not already recognised what I have produced.

Sorry to go on, but I hope you understand where I am coming from.

Best Wishes

Barry Hugman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Hugman (talk • contribs) 18:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. Are you claiming that your works constitute some kind of uber-source status for our existing football citations to other sources; in other words, you feel you should have credit because they must have got their information from your work, whether they credited it to you or not. I know nothing about the history of football, and I have no reason to doubt what you say, but the fact remains that the referencing conventions require editors to cite the source they actually consulted. If people are looking up information about players in authoritative works you didn't write, whether or nor they credit you as their source, then they should cite those works as their source, not yours. Wikipedia has the greatest of respect for copyright and deals with copyright infringements on the site as soon as they are reported, so if you can point to any incidences of this, rest assured that they will be taken seriously. However, it is not really the place for disputes about credit in third-party sources, and, when editing here, please also note that WP:SELFCITE advises great caution when introducing citations to your own work. - Ka renjc 20:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photos not authorised

You have an article that has photos in it that I have not authorised you to use. I would like the content removed . These are MY photos and I do not want everyone and anyone looking at them. REMOVE THEM NOW!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.2.119 (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name or URL of the article? Which photos? -- John of Reading (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the photos on facebook? See this previous discussion. Your private photo is not on Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

linking from inside a quote

How should we link from a term within a quotation? We're not supposed to do it in the way we would if the term was not within a quotation. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:LINKSTYLE help? "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article." - Ka renjc 20:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP for sale

I see my work on WP posted for sale at Barnes & Noble at this page. I have never seen this before. What is going on.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Bookvika Publishing. VDM Publishing has been doing this for years and probably has hundreds of thousands of such "books". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also User:PrimeHunter/Alphascript Publishing sells free articles as expensive books. It was originally my plan to keep a full list of titles for potential book buyers doing Google searches before buying, but I soon gave up. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Republishers -- Gadget850^talk 22:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to that page, "Every contribution to the English Wikipedia has been licensed for re-use, including commercial, for-profit printing in hard copies." This is disgraceful and needs to be stopped. I wonder how many contributors actually understand that this is allowed? 86.156.22.226 (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain reasonably what you think is wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP may have missed what is written on every editing page: "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions". AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(And, "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.") --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that it can be redistributed. What is not obvious is that it can be redistributed by someone else for profit. How many people know that? How many contributors would be happy for their freely contributed work to be taken my someone else and used for profit? I am astonished if that is the case. 86.156.22.226 (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen stuff based on articles that I primarily wrote show up on Amazon - for high prices, like $75. I add a comment in the reviews that it is available for free on Wikipedia. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Wikipedia cannot stop people breaking copyright restrictions, but the idea that Wikipedia's terms actually allow people to reprint content verbatim for their own profit is truly shocking, and damages my entire faith in the project. If it is true then it needs to be changed. Failing that, there needs to be a warning at the point of submitting content saying "You are granting others permission to take your work and redistribute it for their own profit." 86.160.221.252 (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how we can make it any clearer: the license we grant when we edit here (the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL) is a broad license, permitting all forms of re-use, for-profit or not-for-profit. That has been true since the beginning of Wikipedia, and those licenses are by design irrevocable. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how such a licence (allowing other people to sell Wikipedia content for their own profit) could ever have been thought appropriate, nor why nobody else in this conversation seems to think it matters very much. 86.160.221.252 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See foundation:Terms of Use. Not sure how we can make it any clearer. --ukexpat (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A PDF of the WP article first mentioned - that on Tom Weisner - runs to 3 A4 pages or 5 if you include all the references. Barnes and Noble state the book has 82 pages and are selling it at $19.33. Although I can't imagine anyone being foolish enought to buy a copy, I'm intrigued to know how they pad out 5 pages to 82 - and how many complaints they get from people who have bought these productions. Arjayay (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These republishers usually put a bunch of related articles together. With more than 100,000 "books" by the same "editors", I guess the articles are selected by a program based on links or categories in Wikipedia. User:PrimeHunter/Alphascript Publishing sells free articles as expensive books shows what can happen when you let a program select the front page image of your "book": the book "History of Georgia (country)" is about the European country Georgia but has a cover image of Atlanta in the American state Georgia... Another example is a book about an American football team with a soccer player on the cover. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re the appropriateness of such a licence, have you considered the alternative, bearing in mind the way the WMF works and is funded? If we set conditions restricting reuse to not-for-profit users only, then how would we define what is and is not "for profit" (it's not straightforward), and who would make judgements about grey areas? This is a vast, vast work that is constantly changing and evolving, and every previous wording, available to anyone at the touch of a button, would presumably be covered by the same restrictions as this nanosecond's "current" version. How would we pay for sufficient resources to police our restrictions effectively, and fund any lawsuits resulting from abuse in jurisdictions all over the world with a wide variety of legal systems? From the donations currently paying a small staff and keeping the servers running? Paid advertising (gulp)? Even ignoring the basic principle of a free encyclopaedia whose properly attributed content is freely given and free for anyone to use in any way, any attempt to legally limit reuse conditions would tie the WMF to obligations that could radically change its work and the nature of what it can deliver. Surely the presumably very small number of people willing to pay silly money for something they can get for free is not half the threat to the project as the administration of any alternative system? - Ka renjc 18:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User signature without any links

I've found a fairly new user whose signature doesn't have the normal User and User Talj links. Please take a look at User talk:Rafaelcarmen#Your signature if you think you might be able to track down the missing links. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually this happens because a user doesn't set their signature preferences correctly when setting a custom sig. See Wikipedia:SIG#Customizing_your_signature. The box "Treat the above as wiki markup" should be checked ONLY if the signature contains a link like this: [[User:Jayron32|Userpage]]/[[User talk:Jayron32|Talkpage]] with the relevent pages linked. If the custom signature contains only text, that box should be UNCHECKED, and the software will provide the relevant links. --Jayron32 22:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion tags

I put Template:Db-a7 on Cosplay photography and someone removed it because I used the wrong tag. I can't find any tags for spammish original research articles. One website that is mentioned in the body is actually used as a source. There is probably COI issues with it. It is also a linkfarm and the only two sources are bloggish. Category:Cosplay may have similar articles but I don't wish to go through them. Also I used the same speedy tag on Pet photography which is original research, not notable, and no sources at all. What are the correct speedy tags or do they need to be dragged through AfD?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no correct speedy tag. Speedy deletion tags are narrowly defined, and this qualifies for none of them. You must use AFD or PROD. --Jayron32 22:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

concision and brevity

My most recent experience in developing and then submitting an article for creation made me aware that none of the guidelines for novice article-writers (as far as I can remember) included the advice—

"Be brief. Every sentence can be a summary statement of fact or information. Attempts to develop the argument or topic presented should likewise be brief. One or at most two illustrative examples and/or quotations is enough to make the point. Links can be provided to other articles and/or sources for further information. An article should not be exhaustively comprehensive, but should briefly highlight the important elements of the topic or subject. Persuasive points and developmental arguments can be left to source materials cited inline or in footnotes. This is the style and method of almost all encyclopedias, with the exception of those dedicated to technical expertise and highly specialized disciplines."

I did not find this advice in WP guidelines (did I miss it?). It would have saved me a lot of effort, and made the initial submitted material easier to evaluate. Please consider adding this. It would have helped a lot. Thanks. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Summary style maybe?--ukexpat (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]