Help desk
< May 25	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 27 >

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 26

Self Nomination.

Hello I would like to self nominate myself to be an admin. I have planned to write many articles in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azxluraa (talk • contribs) 01:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Azxluraa, you just started. Give yourself time! You need at least several months of contributions as well as learning a lot of rules and procedures before even considering becoming an admin. But welcome to the Wikipedia. Herostratus (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Azxluraa: There's no need to become an admin to create articles; many non-admins have done so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Azxluraa: You asked a very similar question three days ago (here). Nothing has realy changed since then. The folks over at RFA expect an extensive history showing experience in all or many areas of of admin work. One ability that is commonly questioned is perhaps the ability admins need the most - the ability to act calm when everyone around you is on an escalation trip. Even I would, right now, not consider myself siutable for an RFA today or in a month. I see that you have created a nomination statement as User:Azxluraa/sandbox. I still stand by my opinion that any nomination now is guranteed to fail. But when is the correct time for an RFA run? This question does not allow a universal response. I would say, the ideal time for you is not before three years have passed from this day, but it might be more, and it might be less. If you want to go absolutely sure, wait until a very experienced editor, an admin or a very experienced non-admin, asks you on User talk:Azxluraa if you want to be an admin.

Finally, some words about adminship. Adminship on Wikipedia just means that you have a few extra buttons which would be irresponsible for everyone to have them. Adminship is less like the job of Albus Dumbledore, because admins don't settle content disputes, but more like the job of an Argus Filch, who tries to keep the castle clean. Admin can be an awfull job to take, because you will often find yourself cleaning up things left behind by vandals, PR outlets, and people trying to have it their way. Don't expect to get too much thanks for the admin job. And finally, self-nominations are discouraged on the english Wikipedia, because 99% of the self-nominators greatly overestimate their chances of getting through. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further investigation I have detected that User:Azxluraa/sandbox is not just an RFA, but an RFB. My advice is the same, WP:NOTNOW. Getting a Burecrat is even harder than getting admin. I would strongely reccommend that you leave that idea aside for the moment, and focus on improving the encyclopedia by other means. You can visit the Task Center if you need ideas. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion Zygmunt Haas

I proposed Zygmunt Haas for deletion with a "prod". I hope I did it right. This maybe could have been an A7; there are two references to faculty lists; one reference to a paper that is described as an area of interest to the subject; and the rest of the refs are to papers written by the subject. Also, this article is an autobiography.

FYI, I have been hanging out here for a few months, making occasional edits for spelling. I am a computer programmer, and "behind the scenes" areas are interesting to me. I have read a bunch of old Teahouse, Help Desk, and VPT archives when I have been bored... so I have picked up on a few things like the weird lingo Wikipedia uses! 73.127.147.187 (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your contributions, and for stepping up into a new area.

It's difficult to give a definitive answer to your question, but in my opinion the article is *definitely* not a candidate for CSD A7, since it does make an assertion of notability, mainly that he's chairman of an important department at a campus of a very large state university for starters. CSD A7 is more for like "Joe Smith is a nurse" or whatever, I think.

Nor PROD, really. WP:PROD says it is for "uncontroversial" deletions, which pretty much means its unlikely that any reasonable person would object. But deleting this article wouldn't be uncontoversial. Heck, I might vote to keep it - probably not, after looking and not (right off) finding any good sources. But I mean a case could be made that he's a chair of an important department, wrote this and that, did this and that, that he's notable enough -- and that's not including if someone maybe comes up with an interview or article about him, or something. The criteria for deleting an article is not necessarily what sources are in the article but what sources might be added to the article. And one way to find those is to set a posse looking for them, which nominating the article for deletion via WP:AFD would do. The article quite probably won't pass AfD, but you never know, and "probably won't" isn't good enough to PROD an article. Surprises do come up sometimes. And it's a good article really, and it doesn't look to be hurting anything, so there's no super hurry to get rid of it. It deserves a full airing out and consideration at WP:AFD. Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should I let the Prod expire and then go to AfD? There's no hurry. The chairmanship thing is sourced to his own faculty; I thought non-independent sources (along with interviews) could not contribute to notability. Of course, I am fairly new here. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And, thanks for the info! 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct, non-independent sources could not contribute to notability. And indeed the person is most probably not notable by our standards. However, non-independent sources can contribute to establishing facts. So a faculty bio contributes zero to determining Wiki-notatbility, but still establishes the fact that he's head of the department and wrote all those articles etc., which some editors could say "Head of a major department at a UT campus should automatically be sufficient to support an article" or something. Not super likely, but you never know.

So, if you did take the article to AfD, what could happen is: 1) since we are not rule-bound, the community could decide that, guideline or not, we should keep an article on the person, since there's clearly enough there to make an article, and/or 2) getting other eyes on the matter, we might find that there are sources we haven't found yet which do help establish notability.

If the PROD expires, the article will be deleted, and that's not something I'm going to stop. However, why not remove the PROD and take the article AfD instead? This would e the proper move in my view and best follows the rule (others might disagree) and maybe educational. Your call though. Herostratus (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the PROD. Zygmunt Haas is a professor and the requirements for a Wikipedia article are given in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The references are fine for an academic, though the article could be improved. He is the chairman of a department at a major university and an elected Fellow of the IEEE, which is one of the examples given for meeting the criteria. Reference 22, which is the reference given for the award, definitely discusses him. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thanks for all the info. I would have removed the prod after reading User:Herostratus's reply, so I'm fine that User:StarryGrandma removed it. It sounds like the responses here lean toward keeping the article... even though it looks like 90 percent of the refs are to his own papers... I will leave it alone now. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to get the QID of any page in a template?

Hi, I've been trying to create some templates to generate information on article directly from wikidata. But the problem I'm currently facing is how to generate the wikidata entity id (or QID) directly from the name of the page. In the WikidataIB module, I have discovered the getQid function which returns the Qid of the page where i'll be using this function. But I'm looking for a function or template that will return the Qid of the page that's name will be provided as argument or parameter. For example: {{Get Qid|Wikipedia}} should return Q52 (The Qid of the wikipedia article.) - Syfur (Chat) 03:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need a module that invokes wikibase.getEntityIdForTitle( pageTitle ) See The Wikibase docs for info. Best place to ask a technical question like this is at WP:PUMP/TECH - X201 (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional comment. Read up on what article content is and isn't allowed to be extracted from Wikidata into Wikipedia. It may save you a lot of work. - X201 (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I request for an exception for "Deletion of all fair use images of living people"?

I would like to request for an exception for the photo of "Miss K" on the front page of New York Times regarding the policy "Deletion of all fair use images of living people". Miss K is a volunteer nurse during the 2019 Hong Kong protests whose right eye was shot by the Hong Kong police. The teenage girl has been anonymous, a.k.a. Miss K by the media, and now disappeared for a political asylum by a unknown country as she has been wanted by the China/Hong Kong police. Therefore "their image can be captured by a Wikipedia photographer and released under a free license" doesn't apply to Miss K. I would like to update the said front page to Wikipedia but I don't want to violate the "Deletion of all fair use images of living people" policy. I noted that there were at least two exceptions for the policy: Osama bin Laden and Crash Test Dummies. I believe the situaion of Miss K is similar to bin Laden in 2007 (when the exception was granted to bin Laden) to a certain extent: People will not be able to take free license picture for Miss K as she will be hiding in the coming years. Therefore I would like to request for an exception. Thanks. --Scorpionmathew (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a policy, but an essay. The actual policy is at WP:Non-free content, and in particular you need to make a convincing case that criteria 1 applies (I doubt you'll be able to make a convincing argument there). I also seriously question why you would want to put a photo of someone facing persecution onto a website that sees literally millions of readers every month. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean I need to upload the image first, waiting for someone to delete it, and then at that time I will argue at the deletion page regarding why point 1 of this guideline doesn't apply? And for why I would like to upload the image, that is because the page is the front page of New York Times who have millions of readers, so it is almost certainly that everyone who are keen on looking for Miss K already have that image in hand. If I upload the image to Wikipedia will only make the image additionally expose to those who are not looking for Miss K. The image serve an educational purpose in the article of Miss K's shooting case to illustrate the influence and social impact of the case. That's why I talked about the example of "bin Laden in 2007"--Scorpionmathew (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

btw, I noted from Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 that "For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable". In the future, Miss K is not likely to get her right eye shot by gunfire again, making an eye patch being a symbol in the social movement. Therefore new images are not likely to serve the same purpose as the frontpage of New York Times in 2019. Thus I think that photo can fulfill the fair use criteria.--Scorpionmathew (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no fair use image at Crash Test Dummies? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the image is now used in the article Crash Test Dummies. But from the current version of the "Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people" article, Crash Test Dummies is listed in one of the two exceptions. That's why I thought there must be somewhere I can discuss with the Wikipedians to request an exception.--Scorpionmathew (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to gather the fair use rationale before, rather than after, and you're probably in the right place to try and figure it out. You may have explained why the image is potentially non-replaceable (I'm not saying you have), but you haven't explained how it should be used (WP:NFC#8). Do we have an article about this person, or this image, or this shooting, where the image helps us fully understand the topic? Is there any discussion about this image in any article? If not, the correct order would be to write the text first, in the absence of any image. The only chance I think you could have of providing a rationale, is if the newspaper's front page forms part of an article. You should also ignore Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people entirely, as it is not a guideline, and pay full attention to Wikipedia:Non-free_content. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A certain article I think already exists...

Hi. I checked the tag #new user moving out of userspace, and found this article about mask refusal. I feel like we already have an article about this, but I'm not sure of its name. Does anyone know where it is? versacespace leave a message! 12:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States#Attitudes and Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic#Society_and_culture, both of which are well-developed articles that have sections discussing mask refusal. Neither of these suggest currently that the new article is a more detailed account. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: thank you for the response. Do you believe this should be an article? If not, should I send it to AfD or will a bold redirect suffice? versacespace leave a message! 13:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VersaceSpace:. I'm no expert in how this should be tackled, although I note that there is already a discussion going on at Talk:Mask refusal. I guess anyone interested will take this up there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surname disambiguation — dual listing

Many surname pages include lists of people represented elsewhere in disambiguation pages, as

Foo Butler (disambiguation), several people, including:

Foo A. Butler (), Australian rules fooballer
Foo B. Butler (), Australian Rugby League fooballer
Foo C. Butler (), Australian Rugby Union fooballer

which I have on occasion found useful, rather than hiding a lot of potentially useful information behind the name of the dab page, and have in some small measure promulgated the practise. I presume it's recommended somewhere, or at least condoned, but haven't found mention in MOS, though I may be using the wrong search terms. Doug butler (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug butler:. I think that the general advice is at MOS:DABNAME but it notes that Articles only listing persons with a certain given name or surname, known as anthroponymy articles, are not disambiguation pages (using a word "anthroponymy" I've never heard of!) which links to WP:APOS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Michael for your prompt reply, but it doesn't answer my question, which really boils down to: when I add missing names in a surname page and someone reverts it on the grounds the names are covered in a disambiguation page, should I accept their deletion with good grace, boldly revert with an argument, or revert with a reference to MOS or an essay, which is usually a clincher. Doug butler (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a surname page (and it's linked on the dab page), they should not be on the dab page too. ~~Contested, possible exception: I got into a disagreement with another editor who argued that someone much more famous than all other candidates should be on the dab page.~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I appear to have been wrong. MOS:DABNAME does state, "People ... should be listed in the main disambiguation list of the disambiguation page only if they are frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g., Elvis, Shakespeare)." To me, that implies there can be only one such exception per name. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. What I'm referring to is making surname "anthroponymy" pages as complete as possible by including names which seem to be excluded by virtue of being in a dab page. Crosby (surname) is an example. Around half the Crosbys for whom there is an article are not listed because they are in dab pages, including two Dave Crosbys and a Canadian priest at David Crosby (disambiguation). Anyone looking for a Father Crosby would have a hard time. Doug butler (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. What I normally do is put them in the surname page if the sublist has three or fewer entries. More than that, I just put/keep the sublist link in the surname page. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hello, is there a way I can publish without my article taking a long time to get reviewed. Can it get published in a few hours or right away? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azura C (talk • contribs) 19:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Azura C: This is the only edit I'm seeing so far being made from this account. Did you edit this draft under a different name or without signing in? Wikipedia doesn't operate on deadlines; the backlog of drafts isn't a queue, and reviewers are more inclined to pick out drafts that interest them first. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am wondering if I draft an article if I can publish it write away? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azura C (talk • contribs)

You can. It can also be deleted right away if it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. That happens a lot, and will lead to a lot of frustration if you think you have put in a lot of work on something and see it deleted quickly. Instead, you should try to learn a little more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and whatnot, before diving right in and publishing an article. --Jayron 32 20:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Azura C:, you have declared a conflict of interest (COI) on your user page so I have posted some information about COI on your talk page. In particular Wikipedia:Conflict of interest recommends that, where you have a COI, you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly. Also, please do not edit your posts on talk pages once they have been replied to. I have reversed your edit to your previous post. TSventon (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the draft (Draft:Coney Waffles), there is no way that it is acceptable for Wikipedia in its current state: the lack of references and the overtly promotional tone would be grounds for outright rejection. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a definite WP:COMPANY fail. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wikilink in External link (Becker's Hospital Review)

Is there a syntax restriction regarding an External Link formatted as:

[https:squigly.com [[John Doe]]'s History of [[catfish]] in [[Lower Pickadilly]] gardens.pdf]

which shows up as a PDF-icon followed by a regular wikilink to catfish and the line of text is not the usual clickable link. Only the PDF-icon on the left is a working link. (actual case is in Becker's Hospital Review) Pi314m (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In attempting to resolve the above, I looked at Help:Wikitext#Blend link; could the appostrophe after [[John Doe]] be the problem? Pi314m (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Each link can only go to one destination by definition. wrapping multiple links is unsupported because it leads to Unspecified behavior when the user clicks on the link. The Wikipedia software therefore converts this as if it was written as [https://squigly.com ] [[John Doe]]'s History of [[catfish]] in [[Lower Pickadilly]] gardens.pdf. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pi314m. Just wrap the brackets in nowiki tags (e.g., <nowiki>[[</nowiki>), i.e., you can use (see in edit mode): [[Russell Investments]]' Lisa Schneider's Becker's article: Five Questions Hospital and Healthcare Fiduciaries Should Ask Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitext question

I've recently been planning on making a new design for my user page, but there is one problem, I'm struggling to make the border wrap around the userbox group template. Necctaylor (chat) 19:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a defunct (but still historically preserved) project called the Wikipedia:User page design center. There are lots of subpages there with information and tips you might find useful. There are no longer Wikipedians actively managing the project, but you can poke around and see if anything catches your attention. --Jayron 32 20:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are screenshots of Wikipedia pages covered by the same license as the contents themselves?

We're writing a book about doing research and wanted to use a screenshot of a Wikipedia page, one of the entries in English. The purpose is decorative but also to help students orient to the format of the page. Are screenshots covered by the CC by SA 3.0 license as the contents are? If not, what are the rules? 73.186.42.151 (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Hopefully you can find the answer at Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to try asking at WP:MCQ, a noticeboard for copyright questions. Someone there may be able to help. --Jayron 32 22:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, not necessarily. Only the text of an article is provided under the CC BY-SA license, so screenshots containing only this text may be freely distributed under the terms of this license. However, articles also frequently contain copyrighted images and logos, which may be subject to different restrictions.

If your screenshotted article includes an image from Wikimedia Commons, then you may need to provide attribution to its author. If the article contains a non-free image, such as a copyrighted character like Mario, then usage of this image may not be permissible under fair use.

Additionally, the Wikipedia logo and wordmark are trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation, and are subject to the WMF:Trademark policy and WMF:Visual identity guidelines. If your screenshot includes any of these logos, you may need to acquire permission in order to distribute it in a commercial publication.

The above is not legal advice, and I am not a lawyer. Best wishes! RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 01:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]