175.38.42.62 (talk) →Error: please assist |
Midori No Sora (talk | contribs) →Middleton family 2: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 415: | Line 415: | ||
==[[Middleton family]]== |
==[[Middleton family]]== |
||
Ref number 58 is in red - partly. I get so confused. I will have a break. Please fix. Thank you [[Special:Contributions/175.38.42.62|175.38.42.62]] ([[User talk:175.38.42.62|talk]]) 01:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
Ref number 58 is in red - partly. I get so confused. I will have a break. Please fix. Thank you [[Special:Contributions/175.38.42.62|175.38.42.62]] ([[User talk:175.38.42.62|talk]]) 01:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
||
:{{fixed}}. The year on the source read "20023". 🛧[[User:Midori No Sora|<span style="color:#32CCB9;text-shadow:0.2em 0.2em 0.2em #69CC77;">'''Midori No Sora♪'''</span>]]🛪 (<small>[[User talk:Midori No Sora|<span style="color:#0066cc;text-shadow:0.2em 0.1em 0.2em #ffcc00;"> '''☁=☁=✈'''</span>]]</small>) 01:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:59, 26 December 2023
- 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.
December 22
Editor conduct
Is it permitted to never use edit summaries? Is it merely a nice thing to do, or is it in some sense required? For example, Ptb1997 has had editors post on their talk page about using edit summaries as far back as 2015 (2014 is you count their first welcome message), with 6 distinct editors asking them to use edit summaries. One section (User talk:Ptb1997 § Edit summary) is rather insistent, with no acknowledgement from Ptb1997. The xtools summary is telling: 9.8% of 25,564 edits with edit summaries. This is an annoying thing in general (editors not using edit summaries), but it's rather egregious someone has been doing this for 8 years, asked/warned multiple times, and still does it. What makes it worse is most of them are small edits, and in chunks of say 20 at a time to an article, so when these appear in a recent changes feed I watch, it is quite the pain to sift through. Kimen8 (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Kimen8, while use of edit summaries is widely considered to be a best practice and is strongly encouraged, providing edit summaries is not currently required by any policy or behavioral guideline. Accordingly, an editor cannot be blocked or otherwise sanctioned solely for failure to use edit summaries. If there are several behavioral probelms to deal with, then I think that most administrators would consider the edit summary issue to be an aggravating factor. Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's extremely unfortunate. It should be considered disruptive editing, or the same as using misleading edit summaries.
- Failure to provide an edit summary puts a burden on every other editor who wishes to watch an article for changes: instead of simply reading edit summaries (and trusting them accurate), an editor now must either view each diff in its entirety, or view the range of diffs (not sure the technical term, but where you view all say 20 diffs as one combined diff). Either way, this now requires an editor to review the content of every change, when it should be the case that viewing a high-level executive summary is required. I'm not sure how this is acceptable, as it is against the spirit of cooperatively building an encyclopedia, to not do minor work to help reduce unneeded work other editors must put in. It is seemingly the case in those I've been (frequently) bumping into who have a lot of edits and refuse to use edit summaries, that they have been told, sometimes repeatedly, and yet they do not respond to this request, whether to acknowledge it or refuse it; that is, the request to them to use edit summaries goes ignored, repeatedly. Is there any way to start a discussion on this somewhere more impactful? Kimen8 (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, Kimen8. A milder version of what you're suggesting (merely asking for a summary rather than requiring one) is a frequently proposed-and-then-rejected proposal. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Lovely. So editors can effectively monopolize an article by making 50+ edits, back to back, with no edit summaries, such that anyone wishing to also work on the article must delve into the content of the diffs. The fact that some behavior is laid out and expected to be followed but, per that link you have provided, other behavior is treated as it it can't be laid out and expected to be followed, is baffling. Anyway, this is the first truly discouraging encounter with WP policies I have run in to so far as it is on the face obviously behavior that puts more work on other editors, in a cooperative environment, and would not put undue work on the editor making the changes. Kimen8 (talk) 11:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Kimen8, the editor you've reported here was blocked for a week in 2022 for unexplained edits, and more recently indefinitely pblocked from mainspace for failure to communicate with others, but that block was overturned. Total lack of communication can in fact lead to sanctions.I'm sure you're aware of how to compare selected revisions in an article history, which will combine an arbitrary number of diffs for review. It looks like this editor almost exclusively does minor copyediting and link retargeting. I personally wouldn't worry too much about checking each of their edits: if they had more problematic edits, the lack of edit summaries combined with the problem edits would have led to a block much earlier. Also, their most recent three edits have summaries, and they have a formal warning about edit summaries in their most recent unblock message, so they may be improving and may also be on thin ice if not. Folly Mox (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- What confuses me is the obstinancy of those refusing to use edit summaries. Despite there being great benefits that are not hard to explain, there is principled refusal to use them, simply because it is not required. For those too lazy to write edit summaries, there are canned edit sumaries or even few-character abbreviations that are commonly used for simple edits.
- I, again, do not see how this does not fall in to disruptive behavior when this is a cooperative project. If editors are required to abide by MOS and other behavioral and conduct guidelines, because they make a cooperative project run smoothly, I do not see why this is any different. Kimen8 (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've seen lots of editors brought to ANI for refusing to use edit summaries, which typically results in no action or a warning. The same goes for MOS noncompliance, trivial cosmetic edits, high error rates, and other undesirable behaviour. I think the underlying principle is that if the content edits are genuine improvements, even if there are problems we want to allow the editor involved to keep making them. If enough people complain about the same editor, usually something happens. There are tradeoffs. Folly Mox (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Very well. Thank you for the discussion. Kimen8 (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- FWIW, I'm fundamentally in agreement with you that people really should use edit summaries, especially if repeatedly asked to do so, and I think Ptb1997's block log indicates that admins have concurred that this is a problem.As to trusting the edit summary as accurate with respect to its edit, this is something of a dangerous practice. Many editors (including me) treat them more like git commit comments in that sometimes they're representative of the edit, but not necessarily so. It's always safer to review the contents of a diff or series of diffs. Folly Mox (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Very well. Thank you for the discussion. Kimen8 (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've seen lots of editors brought to ANI for refusing to use edit summaries, which typically results in no action or a warning. The same goes for MOS noncompliance, trivial cosmetic edits, high error rates, and other undesirable behaviour. I think the underlying principle is that if the content edits are genuine improvements, even if there are problems we want to allow the editor involved to keep making them. If enough people complain about the same editor, usually something happens. There are tradeoffs. Folly Mox (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Kimen8, the editor you've reported here was blocked for a week in 2022 for unexplained edits, and more recently indefinitely pblocked from mainspace for failure to communicate with others, but that block was overturned. Total lack of communication can in fact lead to sanctions.I'm sure you're aware of how to compare selected revisions in an article history, which will combine an arbitrary number of diffs for review. It looks like this editor almost exclusively does minor copyediting and link retargeting. I personally wouldn't worry too much about checking each of their edits: if they had more problematic edits, the lack of edit summaries combined with the problem edits would have led to a block much earlier. Also, their most recent three edits have summaries, and they have a formal warning about edit summaries in their most recent unblock message, so they may be improving and may also be on thin ice if not. Folly Mox (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Lovely. So editors can effectively monopolize an article by making 50+ edits, back to back, with no edit summaries, such that anyone wishing to also work on the article must delve into the content of the diffs. The fact that some behavior is laid out and expected to be followed but, per that link you have provided, other behavior is treated as it it can't be laid out and expected to be followed, is baffling. Anyway, this is the first truly discouraging encounter with WP policies I have run in to so far as it is on the face obviously behavior that puts more work on other editors, in a cooperative environment, and would not put undue work on the editor making the changes. Kimen8 (talk) 11:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, Kimen8. A milder version of what you're suggesting (merely asking for a summary rather than requiring one) is a frequently proposed-and-then-rejected proposal. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- And it's far from unknown for editors to put deliberate fake edit summaries, often to hide dubious edits. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that is obviously an issue. But if you are watching recent changes feeds, and do review an editor's edits for a while, you can generally get an idea of whether someone's edits are good or not. Of course at any moment someone can do something bad, but the point is, with an edit summary, and with someone who is generally fine/good, having an edit summary saves having to view individual diffs as they come by, or perhaps even choosing not to go view the diffs at all (after a burst of edits). Kimen8 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- And it's far from unknown for editors to put deliberate fake edit summaries, often to hide dubious edits. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
How can I Add George Washington Carver Regional High School, Rapidan,VA
Carver High School, do not have in Virginia, George Washington Carver Regional High School, Rapidan, Virginia 2601:547:1500:BDB0:F8EE:85C7:D521:6CE6 (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- a high school is not automatically notable, but most are. It must be notable to have a Wikipedia article. See WP:NSCHOOL to see how to determine notability. If notable, then read a few Wikipedia articles about high schools to get an idea of what a good article would look like. Then proceed to WP:YFA. -Arch dude (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- You might also find Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice to be helpful. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
What am I supposed to do here
I'm being pretty lazy and transferring only photos I consider to be low hanging fruit to commons, and I've run into an interesting error, related to this file. The copyright on the architecture has expired and it seems to have been created by the uploader so I believe it's good, but I'm blocked from importing it to commons because the first upload somehow does not actually have an image. I'd assume that's some bug early mediawiki software had, but what is the expected repair for these really old files that are somehow missing an image on one of their revisions? I've run into this a few times but I thought I was doing something wrong. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- PARAKANYAA, technical problems with Commons are best discussed at Commons, which is a separate project from the English Wikipedia. Commons:Village pump/Technical is probably the best place to ask. Cullen328 (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- I mean the problem is with a file that was originally uploaded to the English Wikipedia so I think the problem is more on this end of things. But oh well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- PARAKANYAA, the file is currently hosted and readily available here on English Wikipedia, so there is no problem here. You want to move it to Commons, and so that is where the problem is and where the expertise is, in my view. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- There was a problem here as reported. The file history had two entries but the oldest version was missing the file and displayed an error when you tried to click it. They were uploaded within a day by the same user with the same resolution so I assume nothing significant has been lost. @PARAKANYAA: I have deleted the non-existing file. That sounds self-contradictory but it seemed to work. Administrators can see deleted files but this one is still missing from that feature. Try if you can import to Commons now. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter Worked great, thanks! PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- There was a problem here as reported. The file history had two entries but the oldest version was missing the file and displayed an error when you tried to click it. They were uploaded within a day by the same user with the same resolution so I assume nothing significant has been lost. @PARAKANYAA: I have deleted the non-existing file. That sounds self-contradictory but it seemed to work. Administrators can see deleted files but this one is still missing from that feature. Try if you can import to Commons now. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- PARAKANYAA, the file is currently hosted and readily available here on English Wikipedia, so there is no problem here. You want to move it to Commons, and so that is where the problem is and where the expertise is, in my view. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- I mean the problem is with a file that was originally uploaded to the English Wikipedia so I think the problem is more on this end of things. But oh well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Problems with new article
Hello, so I made an article in Spanish (called: "BCL-M5") which is a translation of the English article, the problem is they're not connected and the Spanish article doesn't exist in wikidata. Here's its link: https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCL-M5 Gattor1 (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Gattor1 - go to BCL-M5 in the English Wikipedia - there should be a list of languages (on the left in my layout, but you may have a different one) click on the pencil symbol and add the Spanish version to the list of languages on the Wikidata page. Save and exit. Reloading BCL-M5 should show the Spanish version. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Gattor1 (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Done. I've gone and added it to Wikidata, though it might take some time before it becomes available. If you're using the now-default skin of Vector 2022, you have to go to the top right corner where there's a icon with a number of languages. Clicking on that opens a dropdown menu, from which you can click
Add new languages
at the bottom to bring you to the Wikidata page for it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Can a YouTube video from Sky News be used as a reliable source?
On the article about the 2023 Prague shooting, another user has linked a report by Sky New's official YouTube channel, is this type of reference permitted on Wikipedia?. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 🎄 16:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- @StarryNightSky11 Yes, the official channel inherits the reliability of the source. See WP:RSPYT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Michael D. Turnbull Cheers. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 🎄 18:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Electrical Stroke
Is there such as an Electrical Stroke? 2600:8800:9D02:6F00:47:DE5E:A837:14A0 (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi there! As stated at the top of this page, this place is meant for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. For other types of questions, you can try the reference desk. GoingBatty (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Remove deletion
I request undeletion of my article Professor Thomas L Blair. What to do? 2A00:23C5:6786:5901:7C40:C323:CAFF:81EB (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thomas L Blair was moved to Draft:Thomas L Blair at 19:16, September 23, 2021. It was deleted as an abandoned draft at 20:58, March 25, 2022 after 6 months with no edits. If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13 Meters (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I can't change my title
subst:Uw-displaytitle|Netheart can't type:| or use {{DISPLAY TITLE:Netheart}} It's didn't work at all BingJiao (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- @BingJiao: Hi there! It appears that you are trying to change your user page User:BingJiao to an article about a company called Netheat, which is not allowed (see WP:UPNOT). Therefore, it has been deleted.
- Creating a new Wikipedia article can be quite challenging, especially if you have a conflict of interest (COI). To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction, and spend a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. When you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple published independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the company, and determine whether they demonstrate that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you would declare any COI on your user page. Then follow the instructions at Help:Your first article and summarize what the sources have published, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting for review, declines, and rewrites, before an article is accepted. Hope this helps. GoingBatty (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- thank you for reply BingJiao (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @BingJiao: Oh, I missed answering your question. {{DISPLAYTITLE}} can only make a limited number of changes to how the title of a page is displayed, such as the use of italics or lowercase letters. See Template:DISPLAYTITLE for some examples. GoingBatty (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- thank you for reply BingJiao (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Watch all pages within category
Does anyone know if there’s a way to add all pages within a category to my watchlist/to watch all pages within a category? Apologies if there’s an obvious answer that I’ve missed! Best, —a smart kitten[meow] 23:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- @A smart kitten: Hi there! Help:Watchlist#Alternatives to watchlists states that you can use Related Changes to monitor changes to pages belonging to a category. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @GoingBatty Thanks for the pointer - that looks like it could be helpful :) —a smart kitten[meow] 00:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
December 23
Free access vs Open access
What is the difference between free access and open access. When should I use Template:Free access and when should I use Template:Open access? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Almost always prefer
{{free access}}
(if such a template is even necessary – for the cs1|2 templates ({{cite book}}
etc), it is not necessary). I tend to delete{{open access}}
on sight as inappropriate or unnecessary. - Open access implies reusability. Reusability requires an agreement between the publisher and the reuser. Wikipedia has no business inserting itself between the publisher and the reuser.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- What about in an instance where the corresponding OCLC identifier marks the work as being open access? (Example here) Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Don't trust WorldCat. The Access free link is dead; WorldCat is not the publisher; WorldCat describes the work as an ebook.
- The work has been archived at the Wayback Machine. The publisher is Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO); only the publisher can define the open-access status of a published work. In this case, CLACSO licenses the work as CC BY-NC-ND (see Creative Commons license § Six regularly used licenses for a definition). To me, a 32-page paper does not an ebook make. The metadata say that the document is Doc. de trabajo / Informes which Google translate gives as 'Working document / Reports'; not a book. Don't trust WorldCat.
- The CC BY-NC-ND license indicates that the source is free-to-read so if you must apply an access indicator template to this source,
{{free access}}
is the more appropriate. In general, free-to-read external links should not be flagged (free-to-read assumed as the default state). When such sources are not free-to-read, that is when to apply an access indicator (|url-access=registration
or|url-access=subscription
in cs1|2 templates or an appropriate template from Template:Free access § See also). - —Trappist the monk (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Can't argue with that. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- What about in an instance where the corresponding OCLC identifier marks the work as being open access? (Example here) Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Problem in the infobox
I'm not an expert on infoboxes, but I would like to warn you that on the province of Catania page the infobox is completely wrong and highly confusing (I think it's due to the fact that there is "{{Infobox former subdivision" instead of "{{Infobox settlement"). JackkBrown (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @JackkBrown: We're not experts on the province of Catania. The best place to have this discussion is the article's talk page, along with a detailed description of what you think is "completely wrong and highly confusing" in the infobox output. GoingBatty (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- I fixed one problem, a "Coordinates" field with no visible content.[1] The other clear problems to me are the placement of the "Area" heading and the duplicate "History" heading. That may be general problems in the used infobox. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @JackkBrown & @PrimeHunter: I reported the duplicate "History" heading at Template talk:Infobox former subdivision#Edit request 23 December 2023. GoingBatty (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @JackkBrown & @PrimeHunter: The duplicate "History" issue in {{Infobox former subdivision}} was kindly fixed by Jonesey95. GoingBatty (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @JackkBrown & @PrimeHunter: I reported the duplicate "History" heading at Template talk:Infobox former subdivision#Edit request 23 December 2023. GoingBatty (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- I fixed one problem, a "Coordinates" field with no visible content.[1] The other clear problems to me are the placement of the "Area" heading and the duplicate "History" heading. That may be general problems in the used infobox. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
"Literally" template
In the past, I have added some "literally" templates that I could add better, I'm referring to when there are several literal meanings close together; I discovered (see tiramisu page) that I could only use it once. Is there any way to keep track of these changes? I can't keep track of all my modifications, that would be crazy. JackkBrown (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Your post is not very clear but after some investigation I guess you mean cases like
{{lit|pick me up}} or {{lit|cheer me up}}
in [2] which was combined to{{lit|pick me up|cheer me up}}
in [3]. If you wrote{{lit...}} or {{lit...}}
then this search should find remaining cases: insource:/\{\{[Ll]it.*\}\} or \{\{[Ll]it/ hastemplate:"Literal translation". PrimeHunter (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)- Please only use the "literal translation" templates if both are true: the translation is actually literal, and it adds something atop the regular translation. I find these misused all over the place and often remove them. Folly Mox (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter: thank you very much, I solved it! JackkBrown (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Publicly posted material – a reliable source?
I am reviewing Taipei 101 for GAN. I worry about source #32: Publicly posted material, Floor 89, Taipei 101. 17 August 2007. This seems to mean that information boards in that building are used as a source. Is this acceptable as a source or does it need to be replaced? Thanks. Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Jens Lallensack: One could use {{cite sign}} for this if it's a sign or plaque. GoingBatty (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, so I guess that means that it's acceptable. Solved. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no, this isn't a reliable source. It isn't even a citation. It is a location, with an assertion that something-or-other was once placed there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. But in what circumstances can the "cite sign" template be used, then? I assume it cannot be used here because "publicly posted material" is not explicitly stated to be a sign? This is not clear to me yet. Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd never cite a sign without including a photo of it. Verification shouldn't be reliant on having to visit a building to look for something that was there in 2007. Beyond that, the usual policies apply to a sign as a source. Who 'published' it? What is it being cited for? The 'material' in Taipei 101 seems to have been cited for a whole lot of details that look like they may have originated with the architects or the owners, but we have absolutely no way of knowing without more details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will let the nominator know. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- While I agree a photo would be helpful, this doesn't seem wholly consistent with policy: sources don't have to be easily accessible to be reliable, and there's equally a risk of someone misplacing or relocating a rare book, say. Remsense留 23:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd never cite a sign without including a photo of it. Verification shouldn't be reliant on having to visit a building to look for something that was there in 2007. Beyond that, the usual policies apply to a sign as a source. Who 'published' it? What is it being cited for? The 'material' in Taipei 101 seems to have been cited for a whole lot of details that look like they may have originated with the architects or the owners, but we have absolutely no way of knowing without more details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. But in what circumstances can the "cite sign" template be used, then? I assume it cannot be used here because "publicly posted material" is not explicitly stated to be a sign? This is not clear to me yet. Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no, this isn't a reliable source. It isn't even a citation. It is a location, with an assertion that something-or-other was once placed there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, so I guess that means that it's acceptable. Solved. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Page
I paid for a page because I was told I have enough of a name and content on the internet to have one..now they refuse to publish it can anyone help ? 2603:8000:E300:3127:681E:FD3F:B231:7ABF (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC
- You have been scammed. See WP:SCAM. There are dozens of such scammers. They are not associated with Wikipedia and we have no way to assist you in this matter. Please provide us with the details so we can try to repair the damage to Wikipedia as best we can. -Arch dude (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- I have removed what may have been your email address from your message above. -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Sanitized CSS and help with User:Jeraxmoira/sandboxcss
When I try to use User:Jeraxmoira/common.css on my userpage by using <templatestyles src="User:Jeraxmoira/common.css"/> it shows a error Page User:Jeraxmoira/common.css must have content model "Sanitized CSS" for TemplateStyles (current model is "CSS")
. I am not sure how I should change it to "Sanitized CSS".
W.r.t User:Jeraxmoira/sandboxcss, I am trying to bring the animation down to the bottom of my userpage, but Position:fixed; makes the animation end way before it reaches the end of the page. Any help would be appricated. TIA <3 Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Jeraxmoira: User:Jeraxmoira/common.css loads for yourself on all pages. It's not meant for others. templatestyles is meant for the template namespace where CSS subpages automatically have content model "Sanitized CSS". Administrators can normally change content model but not for a personal CSS page, and I wouldn't do it if I could. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply, PrimeHunter. Makes sense a little bit now. I actually wanted to create something like this but with different values. Is there a way I can implement the same? Or is adding custom CSS for user pages prohibited? Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Jeraxmoira: I don't know a specific rule against custom templatestyles for a user page but it sounds like a bad idea and I haven't seen it. Interface administrators (not normal administrators like me) can probably change content model for a personal CSS page but I wouldn't ask for it. A custom template could be created in template space but that sounds annoying and a likely target for deletion. I wouldn't do it if you don't want to spend other peoples time and maybe irritate them. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- There is no specific rule against it, and it is in fact something several other users do without apparent objection (i.e Frostly). You can create a CSS page in template space and then move it to userspace, or I would be willing to do a content model change. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, Pppery. I am still figuring out how to bring the gif to the bottom of the page without losing the running speed/animation duration as Position:fixed; does not seem to work. I will give you a ping once I figure it out. Thanks again <3 Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply, PrimeHunter. Makes sense a little bit now. I actually wanted to create something like this but with different values. Is there a way I can implement the same? Or is adding custom CSS for user pages prohibited? Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Is it proper to refer to software in the past tense?
I was reading the article for Windows Server 2003 article and a random thought entered my mind: Do we refer to software in the current tense even if it's no longer in use? Obviously this is not a pressing issue, more of a philosophical one.
Windows Server 2003, codenamed "Whistler Server", is the second version of the Windows Server operating system produced by Microsoft.
I can see two arguments:
- Present Tense: When referring to the inherent features, design, or capabilities of a software, present tense is often used. This is because the software itself, as a designed entity, doesn't change over time. For instance, saying "Windows Server 2003 supports..." or "Windows Server 2003 is designed to..." focuses on the software’s built-in features or architecture, which remain constant regardless of its current usage status.
- Past Tense: When the discussion is about the software's relevance, usage, or place in history, past tense is more appropriate. This is particularly true when the software is no longer in active use or has been superseded by newer versions. For example, "Windows Server 2003 was widely used in enterprises until..." or "Microsoft discontinued support for Windows Server 2003 in..." reflects its historical position and lifecycle.
skarz (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- The default is present tense. See MOS:TENSE. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Apart from other considerations, a lot of seemingly superceded software is still in use somewhere. Often this is in stand-alone (off-internet) government or military equipment where the old software works well, is completely understood, and is officially validated, so 'upgrading' it is undesireable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.111.170 (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
The Sassari and Bari pages have no flags in the "International relations" paragraphs. JackkBrown (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Finally! Some articles that are forgoing those annoying flag icons. Folly Mox (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- What? skarz (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Folly Mox, make that "an article". Namely, Sassari. JackkBrown has added them to Bari, for some (or no) reason. -- Hoary (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @@Folly Mox: It's two articles again. Despite past guidance from several editors, JackkBrown has a habit of making edits with no edit summary, which do not improve content, and which ignore well-established guidelines and policies. Bazza (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Bazza 7: that don't improve the content? Why do you keep attacking me for everything? I have improved many articles, if it wasn't for me many Italian articles in this encyclopaedia would be almost unpresentable. And as for "MOS:FLAGICON", don't blame me, blame all the other pages that have flags (this is the only page of Italian cities, the only one in the entire encyclopaedia, that doesn't contain flags). Obviously, if you want to take responsibility for removing flags only on an Italian city page (it's too easy to remove them on only one and leave them on all the others, and I'm not just referring to Italian cities, but also to U.S. cities, English cities, etc.) and leave them on all the other Italian city pages, I'll make a request to "Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks" to have this problem solved, obviously quoting you, because it's your responsibility. Or can the pages be left as they are. Why should all other Italian city pages have flags and an Italian city (only one) not? In any case, I wish you a Merry Christmas! JackkBrown (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- You don't need flagicons to show something that says "Girona, Italy". The link is plenty. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @JackkBrown: You added the flag icons back in after your edit was reverted. Which bit of the "D" in WP:BRD don't you get? You have been blocked in the past for disruptive editing. Please take more care.
- It is not for you to lecture me on what edits I should be making, nor to assign responsibility to me or any other user. It is your responsibility to make sure the edits you make are accurate, verified, and supported by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; in this case MOS:FLAGICON and WP:BRD. Bazza (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Bazza 7: please, we are in the Christmas period, calm down, thank you. JackkBrown (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @JackkBrown: What has that got to do with anything? You may well be in a "Christmas period", but I am not. And, again, do not lecture me. Bazza (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I also noticed, @JackkBrown, that you changed the title of this discussion without notification, altered your input after others had responded (against WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS) and took almost twenty edits to make your point, each of which are logged in this talk page's discussion. You were warned about the latter behaviour when you were blocked. It must stop. Bazza (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Bazza 7: you're a good user, but please don't always attack me on everything, many times for no reason. Anyway, I have restored the title. I wish you a very very happy Christmas! JackkBrown (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Bazza 7: please, we are in the Christmas period, calm down, thank you. JackkBrown (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Bazza 7: that don't improve the content? Why do you keep attacking me for everything? I have improved many articles, if it wasn't for me many Italian articles in this encyclopaedia would be almost unpresentable. And as for "MOS:FLAGICON", don't blame me, blame all the other pages that have flags (this is the only page of Italian cities, the only one in the entire encyclopaedia, that doesn't contain flags). Obviously, if you want to take responsibility for removing flags only on an Italian city page (it's too easy to remove them on only one and leave them on all the others, and I'm not just referring to Italian cities, but also to U.S. cities, English cities, etc.) and leave them on all the other Italian city pages, I'll make a request to "Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks" to have this problem solved, obviously quoting you, because it's your responsibility. Or can the pages be left as they are. Why should all other Italian city pages have flags and an Italian city (only one) not? In any case, I wish you a Merry Christmas! JackkBrown (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @@Folly Mox: It's two articles again. Despite past guidance from several editors, JackkBrown has a habit of making edits with no edit summary, which do not improve content, and which ignore well-established guidelines and policies. Bazza (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Translation
When one translates a page from its original language to another language: is it allowed to alter or add content in the translation? I'm asking because I notice this phenomenon and would like to know if it is an abuse, or not. Honesty145 (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Articles about the same topic across the various language Wikipedias are not necessarily exact translated copies of each other; it's likely many were written independently and later connected. It isn't a problem that a translated article isn't a verbatim copy of the original, at least insofar as compared to an article original to Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you 331dot. It's not an "article on the same topic". On the side of the original article's title, there's a drop-down menu that mentions a number of languages which the article was translated to. Pretty much every article has that. The page one reaches after clicking on the arrow and picking a language is to my understanding not another article on the topic, but a translation of the original article. Does this change your input on the matter, or are we in fact talking about the same thing? Honesty145 (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Honesty145, your understanding is not entirely correct. In some cases, a connected article in a sister language Wikipedia will in fact be a translation (or partial translation, modified partial translation, etc) of another article in the Wikimedia ecosystem, just as you currently understand it. In other cases, the two articles will have been written entirely independently of one another, like 331dot mentioned, and may not share any overlap in structure or sourcing.Direct translation of Wikipedia content is fraught with peril, due to different standards in sourcing and notability, and the inherent unreliability of Wikipedia as a source. A responsible translator will verify the statements in an article's sources during translation. Unfortunately, not all translators are that responsible. Folly Mox (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you 331dot. It's not an "article on the same topic". On the side of the original article's title, there's a drop-down menu that mentions a number of languages which the article was translated to. Pretty much every article has that. The page one reaches after clicking on the arrow and picking a language is to my understanding not another article on the topic, but a translation of the original article. Does this change your input on the matter, or are we in fact talking about the same thing? Honesty145 (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Honesty145: There is no legal, ethical, or policy problem, as long as the original is attributed. Attribution is needed to satisfy the CC_BY_SA license of the original. If I personally created the translated article, I would do this in two steps. First, create a close translation, and then make the modifications, just to make it clear in the article history, but there is no actual requirement for this. -Arch dude (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you Arch dude. Honesty145 (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- In my experience, a direct translation of an article from a different version of Wikipedia into English is rarely appropriate, because most non-English versions are less strict about sourcing and referencing; so only if the sources cited in the original are all acceptable in en-wiki would this be at all practical. In every other case, it would be necessary to find different sources, and it is likely that they will not cover exactly the same information, so the content will need to be changed to match the new sources. So the result will often be a modified translation. ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you Colin. Honesty145 (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Submission
Back in September, I created an account so I could upload a couple of license plate images that were 'needed' on your site. They are still not posted. I found the process to do so EXTREMELY complicated, so I probably fudged it up. Never got any messages to say so....
Any help? Trekster1966 (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Trekster1966: Is there any additional information? Did you upload them here on the English Wikipedia or on Wikipedia's sister project Commons? If you need help in learning how to upload images you can check out WP:IUI. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Trekster1966, thanks for uploading c:File:NL Licence Plate - 1931.jpg and c:File:NL Motorcycle Licence Plate - 1976.jpg. I added the first to Vehicle registration plates of Newfoundland and Labrador per your notes, but wasn't able to determine where in that article to add the second image. (Tenryuu, global contributions is accessible from a link at the bottom of Special:Contributions). Folly Mox (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Discrepancy in data in different language versios:
How can we report a completely different time and means of death mentioned in the Wikipedia article for this person in the English [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lajos_Magyar ] and the Hungarian [4] versions? Carrotmunch (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- You can examined the cited sources to see which claim is valid. If more attention need to be brought on this, you can start a discussion at Talk:Lajos Magyar, or request help in relevant Wikiprojects. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Carrotmunch:The different language versions are administratively independent, and there is no overarching authority that tries to keep the information consistent across them. This means that any improvement in consistency will be up to individual editors such as yourself. It is up to you, brave editor, to understand the policy differences between the Wikipedia instances, and working within them make changes as appropriate (and thanks for your efforts!) -Arch dude (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Both links are to the English Lajos Magyar. The Hungarian article is hu:Magyar Lajos (újságíró). PrimeHunter (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
"Most viewed since your edit" without using the newcomer homepage?
I really enjoy looking at the "most viewed (since your edit)" section of the newcomer homepage, but I don't want to use the newcomer homepage (I didn't even know it existed until recently). Is there any way to see it (or something similar) without that homepage? Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 23:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'd kind of like to know this, too. (Special:Homepage for those who didn't know it existed, either. You need to enable it in preferences first, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but whatever.) —Cryptic 23:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Special:Impact. No idea if this works for accounts with the newcomer homepage disabled. Folly Mox (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- That works! It's a little glitchy in regards to showing the articles correctly (it takes a few refreshes to get it to show everything), but it's something so I don't mind :D Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 00:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Suntooooth: You can also see it for others with a link like Special:Impact/Cryptic. User:PrimeHunter/Impact.js makes an "Impact" link under "Tools" when you are in their userspace. It also works for yourself if you want easy access to your own impact without the newcomer homepage. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- That works! It's a little glitchy in regards to showing the articles correctly (it takes a few refreshes to get it to show everything), but it's something so I don't mind :D Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 00:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
December 24
When a user has triggered an edit filter what does it mean?
As above. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 🎄 02:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- User:StarryNightSky11, have you perused WP:EF? That goes over what edit filters are. It means some content of an edit matches a pattern someone has decided to track or disable, like spam sites for one example. There are ways to report problems with the system. Was there anything more specific? Folly Mox (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Folly Mox Just that really, about what causes a triggered edit filter. Thanks for your help. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 🎄 03:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @StarryNightSky11: Hello! I've just taken a look at the filter logs: you made an edit on 22 December on the 2023 Prague shooting article which triggered filter 1249 and filter 1204. Basically, these filters monitor edits related to biographies and crimes, because many vandalism edits are in these sections. The 1204 filter tags your edit, so people who patrol recent changes would take a closer look at your edit, and the 1249 filter is a reminder (you should get a message from this filter when it gets triggered). Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Folly Mox Just that really, about what causes a triggered edit filter. Thanks for your help. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 🎄 03:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
We have an extensive article Medical ethics. Science ethics redirects to a small subjection about research ethics. Other than that, I am unable to find an article about ethics in science. It's such a large topic, including university courses, books, journals, laws, etc.. am I missing something? --GreenC 04:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Clicking on Science ethics takes you, GreenC, to a section of an article, a section that points you to the article Research ethics. Is this what you're after? -- Hoary (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I have retargeted the redirect to Research ethics. That article includes links to other articles about science ethics. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- See also Category:Ethics of science and technology. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I have retargeted the redirect to Research ethics. That article includes links to other articles about science ethics. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Request articles for expansion
There is an article which lacks information and is currently a “stub.” I do not have enough information on the topic to expand it accurately however. Is there a way to request an articles expansion? Sorry if I’m missing something obvious. Random IP User (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Not really a centralised place (mainly because there are millions of stubs), but if you go to the WP:Wikiproject that the article belongs to you might find people who have suitable sourcing/expertise to expand it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Random IP User, you could search in reliable sources for information, gather it, read it, digest it, and summarize it and thereby augment the article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information! 70.142.220.149 (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Random IP User: If you haven't done so already, you could add the appropriate stub template to the bottom of the article. GoingBatty (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Merge two different articles
Hi, Is there a feature available to merge two distinct articles covering the same topic? Thank you in advance. Marinafawzy (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Please see WP:merging. Unless it's really uncontroversial that they are the same topic, you should discuss it on one of the talk pages first. ColinFine (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Marinafawzy, when you discuss it in the talk page of one of the two, you should, in the talk page of the other, point to that discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Yasin malik JAMU Kashmir libration fron chairman
He is very good person and he is not a criminal plz correct on wikipedia he is freedom fighter he want freedom peacefully 2001:8F8:172B:454F:50D0:6F6E:5284:A60E (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi there! Reliable sources reported that Yasin Malik pleaded guilty to charges. If you have any suggestions on how to improve the article, you may post an edit request on Talk:Yasin Malik along with published reliable sources. GoingBatty (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Can the absence of evidence be used as a source?
For example if something is novel and isn't studied is it fair to put into the article (possibly with an as of [date]) that there is no studies on the subject/issue? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Traumnovelle: Hi there! Just because you cannot find any sources doesn't mean there aren't any studies, and would be original research. You would need to cite a reliable published source that states that there are no studies on the subject/issue. GoingBatty (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- If a subject is so novel that there are no studies found on the subject/issue, is it even notable yet? Or is it too soon to create an article? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- My question is specifically in regards to novel animal breeds. They may be recognised by a major registry but lack any proper studies on their health. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- If you have no sources about a specific aspect of a topic, then the article should not address the specific aspect. There are lots of things that haven't been studied yet but probably will be. It's not Wikipedia's business to record that. Kindly, Folly Mox (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Traumnovelle: If it is "recognized by a major registry", then that recognition is itself a (potentially) reliable source that can be cited. Wikipedia is not in the business of vetting the "major registry", so lack of corroboration is beyond our purview. You may choose to discuss the reliability of the source at WP:RSN if you are unsure. -Arch dude (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Breed registries don't do studies on breed health typically and the only information they provide is life expectancy which may often be just purely fabricated and far off. (UK Kennel Club provides 10+ for A French Bulldog whilst studies of the UK population put it at less than 5 years).
- The issue I'm talking about is when breeds are quite novel and while have recognition lack any proper studies or sources on their health and wellbeing besides poorly written blog-esque sites like Pets101.com for a made up example. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- My question is specifically in regards to novel animal breeds. They may be recognised by a major registry but lack any proper studies on their health. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- If a subject is so novel that there are no studies found on the subject/issue, is it even notable yet? Or is it too soon to create an article? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I think I may have made an error
I believe that I downloaded content that didn't belong to me by mistake. Honestly I'm still learning and I've got opensource technology. 2601:249:8400:8630:CEE:2B99:D454:8510 (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Almost all of Wikipedia content may be used by anyone. What content are you concerned with? RudolfRed (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that you mean you uploaded maerial (to Wikipedia) that didn't belong to you?
- What is that content? Just because it doesn't belong to you doesn't necessarily mean that you can't submit it to Wikipedia: if it in legally in the public domain, or if it has been released under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA, then you can do so (though you need to attribute the source in the latter case).
- But if it is copyright material (as it will be, by default) that doesn't belong to you, that's more of a problem. If it's text that you added, you can simply revert your edit (ideally, an admin would come along and remove it from the history as a copyright violation as well: see WP:COPYVIO).
- But I'm guessing that it's an image. In that case, you can request its deletion. If you uploaded it to Wikipedia itself, go to Files for discussion. If you uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, then go to its information page on commons, and pick "Nominate for deletion" from the sidebar.
- Does this answer your query, or have I made a wrong assumption? ColinFine (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
December 25
Uploading images without an account.
How can I upload images without an account? The following page says this is possible but does not seem to say what to do, other than get an account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_upload/Wizard Welcome to Files for Upload! This wizard will guide you through the process of adding an image to Wikipedia if you don't have an account.
On the above page I pushed the button, "The image is free and I'm not autoconfirmed." That led to the following page that seems to incorrectly assume I have an account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_upload/Wizard/Non-Autoconfirmed I made my images with my own camera (relevant to an article I added text to) and have no interest in copyright. Thank you. Also I mailed a check this month to help contribute to Wikipedia. 99.113.71.3 (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sadly, your lack of interest in copyright, while laudable, does not help. Your image is copyrighted by default action of copyright law, and neither you nor we can prevent that. Therefore you must take a positive action to license the image. I hate this, but I did not write the law and I do not make Wikipedia policy. "Non-autoconfirmed" would still be an actual (but new) account. Ginven this nightmare, The easiest for us if is you create an account, even if you never use it again. There is no way that I know of for anyone within Wikipedia or outside Wikipedia to trace that account back to you. We can probably figure out an alternative, but it will require extra work for you, or for us, or both. Completely separately, you can and probably should edit the "metadata" of your image to add you copyright license release to the image itself. There are lots of image editor programs that can do this. You can specify something simple, like CC0. -Arch dude (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think if the image is posted to flickr it could be imported to Commons by editors with the appropriate permissions, but yeah :c:Commons:First steps/Uploading files § Help before you begin says You need an account on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons to upload files. Sorry, 99.113. Thanks for donating to the Wikimedia Foundation. Folly Mox (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Uploading artwork
Hi, I want to upload "fair use" artwork of a single (music). I tried once, and it was flagged for speedy deletion because "fair use isn't allowed on Wikimedia Commons." However, for example this artwork remains up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuthering_Heights_(song)#/media/File:Kate_Bush_-_Wuthering_Heights.png
How can I upload similar artwork to the above? Thanks. BrightOrion (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @BrightOrion: You need to upload it here at en Wikipedia, not to commons. RudolfRed (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@BrightOrion: it's non-free, just like your example. This means it cannot be added to Commons. Instead, you may add it as a "free-use" file at en.Wikipedia, just like your example. In the upload wizard, click on the "non-free" button and go from there. -Arch dude (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Images can be uploaded both at Commons and here at the English Wikipedia. Commons images can be seen at all Wikimedia wikis. File:Kate Bush - Wuthering Heights.png was uploaded here and can only be seen here. The English Wikipedia does allow upload of fair use images in certain cases. Start at Wikipedia:File upload wizard (it's linked on "Upload file" in a menu at the English Wikipedia). PrimeHunter (talk) 01:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- BrightOrion, the relevant policy can be found at Non-free content/Images Cullen328 (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you everyone. I have uploaded it here. It seems to work now.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kate_Bush_-_Wuthering_Heights_(single_cover).png BrightOrion (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- BrightOrion, the relevant policy can be found at Non-free content/Images Cullen328 (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
References 4 and 34 in this section - "Family law and woollen manufacturing firms" - do not need the attached quotes. Theses citations are used more than once for different reasons. The quotes are fine when they first appear but not when they are reused in the section titled "Family law and woollen manufacturing firms" Can the quotes be removed when they appear in this section - but be left in elsewhere?? Thanks 175.38.42.62 (talk) 12:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. This is why using
|quote=
in citation templates is a bad idea. Don't do it. If the quotation is important to the article, put the quotation in the body of the article and cite it. Quotations require citations; citation do not require quotations. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I can't alter it so I'll leave it all alone...unfortunately. Srbernadette (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Do any of these sources provide significant coverage for Scale of the Universe?
Earlier this month, I started a section on the talk page of WP:BFDI containing a source assessment table pertinent to the topic of Scale of the Universe. The other day, I went to the WP:RSN to ask about the reliability of some sources, and that helped me color nearly all of the Reliable? column in greens and reds. (I didn't mention the Harvard source, as an editor previously stated it made "just a brief mention" of Scale of the Universe, so it wouldn't have counted towards GNG either way)
Now most of what's left to determine is whether or not the following sources cover Scale of the Universe significantly:
- 'The Scale of the Universe,' by Two Teenage Brothers. ABC News.
- “The Scale Of The Universe 2″ Animation Made By 14-Year-Olds Is Mind Blowing. Singularity Hub.
- https://www.michiganradio.org/offbeat/2012-07-20/friday-diversion-two-14-year-olds-show-us-the-scale-of-the-universe
- Rao, Mallika (2012-07-20). "'The Scale Of The Universe 2': Cary And Michael Huang Let You Scroll Through The Universe (PHOTOS)". Huffington Post.
- Murphy, Dan (1 March 2012). "Something beautiful: Cary Huang's Scale of the Universe".
- Wired Staff [3/1/12] - The Scale of the Universe: an Interactive Infographic
On the other hand, a user at the reliable sources noticeboard has commented on the coverage given by a few of the sources I listed there, so it might seem redundant for me to ask about significant coverage here as well. However, none of the sources I mention here are ones I've mentioned there, or vice versa. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @MrPersonHumanGuy: Hello! Per WP:SIGCOV, significant coverage
addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content
, so I think the sources you provided here satisfy the definition. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)- Excellent. Would the coverage within Astronomy Picture of the Day and It's Nice That also be considered significant, or just partially so? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @MrPersonHumanGuy, I think the latter could pass as the significant coverage, but the former can't be considered significant coverage, it's just a brief mention. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in the article, just make sure the article doesn't mainly rely on sources like this. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Excellent. Would the coverage within Astronomy Picture of the Day and It's Nice That also be considered significant, or just partially so? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
How to challenge a new article
I have spotted a new article which I think should not be in WP. In my opinion it fails on notability and encyclopaedic quality, as well as on lack of citations, grammar and spelling. Rather than me trying to fix it, I think it should be reverted to draft and returned to the creator. I have already expressed my opinion on the talk page. Is there another means to flag it for admin attention? Masato.harada (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Masato.harada: Hello! You can nominate the article for AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) and write there that you want it draftified and explain your reasons for it. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Page is not Visible in Browser search
These pages are not Visible, when searching on Browser Dreri Kali Pora and Jamia Masjid, Shopian Challawaheed-Shopian (talk) 14:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Challawaheed-Shopian: Hello! Do you mean like Google search? If so, see Wikipedia:Controlling_search_engine_indexing. Pages are newer than 90 days and they are not patrolled - they won't be visible on Google search. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes Like Google search,
- What to do with these articles such that they will be visible Challawaheed-Shopian (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Challawaheed-Shopian did you bother to read Wikipedia:Controlling_search_engine_indexing? Wait 90 days and it will be indexed. If it is reviewed by the New Page Patrol it will be indexed sooner. Qcne (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- They are visible in the search box at top of Wikipedia pages. I guess your browser has a search feature which uses en external search engine like Google. They will be visible eventually (assuming the pages are not deleted). The author doesn't have to do anything. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Challawaheed-Shopian: Wait 90 days (or after review by the New Page Patrol) and it will be eligible for indexing. We can't control how fast Google will actually index it. GoingBatty (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Challawaheed-Shopian did you bother to read Wikipedia:Controlling_search_engine_indexing? Wait 90 days and it will be indexed. If it is reviewed by the New Page Patrol it will be indexed sooner. Qcne (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Referencing errors on Chino Rodriguez
Reference help requested. Please assist me by adding the title where needed. Nathanielbapela012 (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Thanks, Nathanielbapela012 (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Nathanielbapela012 When I access the URL you claim to be using as a source, I get a message "The page you are looking for is no longer here". Hence you are going to have to seek a backup from The Wayback Machine or a different URL on fania.com for that reference and its title. I doubt that fania.com is a reliable source but that's a separate consideration. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas everyone! I would like to ask one small thing: on this page, in the "Short description" it says "People of Ancient Carthage", but shouldn't "Ancient" of "ancient Carthage" (like "ancient Rome") be in lowercase initial? JackkBrown (talk) 16:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @JackkBrown: Hello! Which page are you referring to? Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Deltaspace42: I wrote it in the title. JackkBrown (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @JackkBrown: Just be bold and change the description. If someone disagrees with you and reverts your edit, then discuss it with them on the talk page. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Deltaspace42: the main question would be: is it correct to write "ancient Rome" (see page Ancient Rome), but is it correct to write "ancient Carthage"? The Punic people page uses the uppercase initial. JackkBrown (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @JackkBrown: I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on the relevant talk pages. Also, there was a discussion on Manual of Style regarding the capitalization of the word "ancient". Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Deltaspace42: thank you! Done. JackkBrown (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @JackkBrown: I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on the relevant talk pages. Also, there was a discussion on Manual of Style regarding the capitalization of the word "ancient". Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Deltaspace42: the main question would be: is it correct to write "ancient Rome" (see page Ancient Rome), but is it correct to write "ancient Carthage"? The Punic people page uses the uppercase initial. JackkBrown (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @JackkBrown: Just be bold and change the description. If someone disagrees with you and reverts your edit, then discuss it with them on the talk page. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Deltaspace42: I wrote it in the title. JackkBrown (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
How to use Template:IPA correctly
Hello, and first of all, Happy Christmas to everyone!
I'm asking for help because I'm currently struggling to implement the IPA template correctly on some of the articles I've worked on. I previously used IPA-ar on this page, and it looked to work pretty nicely, but then I noticed that all of those specific templates had been deprecated and, likely, re-united under the same "umbrella".
So, I've tried to use the standard IPA template on Kenan Yıldız and this draft of mine, in order to insert the correct pronunciation for both names (in Turkish and Greek language, respectively); however, the graphical output was way worse than I expected, being without any kind of link... What went wrong?
[On a side note, is anyone able to double-check my transcriptions, and see if I've got them right?] Oltrepier (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- You'll want to use the language code as the first parameter to {{IPA}}, like
{{IPA|el|(IPA phoneme glyphs)}}
. Folly Mox (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Mistake in Indian actor Prabhas name h
Prabhas fullname was "Uppalapati Venkata Satyanarayana Prabhas Raju" instead of satyanarayana Wikipedia mentioned suryanarayana please make it correct 27.6.120.189 (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hello! If the page is protected, make an edit request on the relevant talk page. If it is not protected, be bold and correct it yourself. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Error
" Lua error: not enough memory.Lua error: not enough memory. " at Google Chrome. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- A purge fixed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Ref number 58 is in red - partly. I get so confused. I will have a break. Please fix. Thank you 175.38.42.62 (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Fixed. The year on the source read "20023". 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 01:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)