Help desk
< May 26	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 28 >

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 27

Thomas Markle

Can the photo please be made smaller - thanks175.33.22.145 (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be. The question is, how much smaller do you wish it to be (a ballpark percentage figure would help; or a similar image in another article could be given as example). My view is that the photo looks pretty decently sized. But no harm in trying to service your query here. Warmly, 04:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Lourdes[reply]

A Query regarding thumbnail of a page

Whenever I type for a page in the search box, an image appears on the left side. The page has got many pictures but only a particular image is displayed while searching for the page. How is that determined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strumoccur (talk • contribs) 03:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I type for a page in the search box, I don't get any image, so I am a bit in the dark about what you're referring to. I do get an image pop-up when I hover over an article name; I expect that that image would probably be the first image the software sees linked in the article (for example, in Meghan, Duchess of Sussex). But don't take my word for it; other editors might be able to fill you in on this query much better I suspect. 04:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Lourdes[reply]

Does image attribution have to be shown on Wikipedia as well as source image in Wikimedia?

I have just uploaded an image for my article on Captain Sir William Bolton. I obtained permission first, and uploaded it to Wikimedia under CC licence 4 with attribution, but I'm not sure how to indicate attribution on the actual article, or indeed whether it needs to be there. I've tried adding attribution as a parameter to the image when posting, but it doesn't show there. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We consider the attribution associated with the image file itself to be sufficient. If a reader is interested in the attribution, we assume that the reader will click on the image and look at the details. -Arch dude (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the attribution for this image. It consists mostly of a reference to an OTRS e-mail, which is about the legality of your copyright assertion. I think an interested reader will prefer a brief description of the provenance of the image: who took it, when it was taken, and the circumstances. I cannot tell you that this is policy because I don't know that, but it is in keeping with the general policy of verifiability. This is a separate issue from the copyright issue. Please consider editing the description. -Arch dude (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Arch dude. Okay, I've just found my way to editing that info, and did as you suggested. (Originally, I actually started filling in fields provided for uploading onto Wikipedia, then when it asked if I wanted it added to Wikimedia, it just took everything onto the Wikimedia page, and the comment displays in a "raw" format (not sure if that is usual?). It was all intended to provide an explanation to the admins about how I obtained permission.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The object shown in that image looks like a medal, not a coin; it has no indication of a currency value. Why do you describe it as a coin? Maproom (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Maproom! Mainly because the auction catalogue described it as an "engraved coin". But you're right. I have now changed the description - but not sure if the name of the image is able to be changed now? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:commons:File renaming, Laterthanyouthink. --ColinFine (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks ColinFine. I have just requested the change. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Sally Wilson/formally Grant/formally Kemp

My mother is the Sally Kemp who was in Carry on Camping. I am the daughter of Bob Grant, British actor, who my mum was married to. My mother is British, was a LAMDA trained actress, who re-trained as a teacher, and is very much alive and lives in Plymouth,Devon, UK. She is fed up of being told she is dead on Wikipedia. She is currently a local writer/poet, with some published material. She has her birth certificate, marriage license to my father Bob Grant, as well as photos of herself in Carry on Camping leading the cow and in conversation with a famous British actor. She was born in 1939 and is 78 years old. Her DOB is 12/04/39. The actress who is stated in Wikipedia is not my mother, was not in Carry on Camping, and was not the second wife of Bob Grant as my mother was. My brother Rupert was his only son. I am his daughter from his second marriage. He also had a daughter from his first marriage. We were all estranged from our father when he died which was his choice. Please update your records accordingly. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte Grant (talk • contribs) 10:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article states only the name of Bob's second wife. Is there another article that makes an inaccurate claim, or are you looking at a Google result that has made a false connection? Is it the Internet Movie database where the error occurs? They've even got her punchline wrong! Dbfirs 11:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] Note for other Editors: in our article on Carry on Camping, the only matter relevant to the OP's is the Cast list entry "Sally Kemp as Girl with cow". There is no other information given there, or any link to an article on the OP's mother or another actress of that name. We have no article on anyone called Sally Kemp (which is why that attempted link shows in red).

However, the Infobox of the article on Bob Grant (actor) refers to his second spouse being "Christine Sally Kemp (1962-????, divorced)" and its main text includes "In 1962 he married for the second time, to Christine Sally Kemp; they later divorced." This is apparently unreferenced (none of the article's references mention Kemp), but the article's one External link is to Bob Grant's IMDb entry: this lists "Sally Kemp" (no "Christine") as his second spouse (with his third not mentioned) and links to IMDb's entry for "Sally Kemp", who is credited with Carry on Camping and shown as deceased (also with a different birth year).

Per the OP's information above, it appears that IMDb is in error (and as we all know, IMDb can be reader-edited and is not accepted as a Reliable Source).

While it is extremely likely that the OP is who she says she is and is entirely correct as to all facts, we cannot assume that, and need to find alternative published RSs for the information in question. This is not my area of expertise, and I shortly have to leave to travel to a family event – hopefully others can pick up this ball and run with it :-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.82.140 (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would be good to find a WP:Reliable source, but I didn't find any information in Wikipedia that needs changing. How does one edit IMDb? I suppose we could have an article on Sally Kemp if she has been written about in detail in independent sources, but I think this is unlikely. Dbfirs 15:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong age

I am born December 15, 2949 That means I am 68 not 69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B12E:D284:E537:47DF:D9CC:77AD (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, assuming you mean 1949, that would be correct ;). However, if you are seeing an error on a Wikipedia page, please provide a link so volunteers here can address the issue. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with unsourced defamatory edits

I found some unsourced defamatory edits on Bishop Moore Vidyapith, Kayamkulam by 117.246.211.219 (talk · contribs) ([1]). They have only made those two edits. I have reverted them, but does anything more need to be done? I understand there is a warning system, but I am relatively new here myself so I didn't want to mess anything up. Thanks Tera TIX 12:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teratix A warning message to the IP editor will do no harm and may put them on the right path, although some editors don't bother for one-off IPs. {{uw-unsourced1}} or {{uw-npov1}} may be appropriate – don't forget to SUBST them. All the templated warnings are in sections 1 & 2 of Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, and a good selection can be sent through Twinkle if you have that installed. Or you may prefer to type out your own message to the IP, explaining specifically why that edit was not acceptable: Noyster (talk), 15:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claws TV show page

I just watched the first three episodes of the show and figured I’d look up the cast members to see what else they have been in, only to find several spoilers for season 1 in the descriptions of the characters (Roller being alive, quiet Anne beginning a relationship with a cop, etc). Character descriptions don’t need to be long paragraphs and they certainly shouldn’t ruin the first season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.10.233 (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just left this message without naming the series; correct it yourself is my answer! WhatsUpWorld (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have a content guideline Wikipedia:Spoiler that makes it clear that what some people call "spoilers" are actually appropriate encyclopedic content. If you do not want to read so-called "spoilers", then do not read Wikipedia articles about movies, TV shows and the like. We accurately summarize plots here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

French presidential election, 2017

Hi,

On French presidential election, 2017, there are links directing to En Marche! although the article (and political party) is named La République En Marche! When I tried to correct this I was revoked because another user claims that the redirect is correct; why does he not let me fix this. I don't see how his opinion works. An idea? Is he right or wrong?

Thanks WhatsUpWorld (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This a what we call a "content dispute" we try not to intervene in those here at the help desk. Instead, please discuss the dispute on the talk page of the article. Note that the displayed link does not need to be the name of the article, so if you do not disagree with the displayed test, but do wish to skip the redirect, then edit the link to add a "pipe", like this [[La République En Marche!|En Marche!]], which yields En Marche!. In any event the other user's conduct is in keeping with the way we are supposed to work around here. We call it "Bold, Revert, Discuss". see WP:BRD. Please start by assuming the the other editor wants to improve the article just as much as you do and discuss it in that light. See WP:AGF. And thanks for your efforts. -Arch dude (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatsUpWorld: En Marche! is currently a redirect to La République En Marche!. I believe Arch dude's advice above is incorrect; per WP:NOTBROKEN, one should not "fix" links to redirecting pages. So, you would have to argue that LREM rather than EM is the correct target for those links. However, if I believe the fr-wp page, the party changed its name on May 8th, 2017, immediately after the presidential election; hence, during the election period the topical name was EM. (To take an over-the-top comparison, Lutetia should be mentioned as part of Gaul, not France.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tigraan is of course correct: The guideline is to leave redirects alone in most cases. Not everyone follows this guideline, and not everyone agrees with this guideline. but it is nevertheless the consensus guideline. So: if you are arguing against the guideline, go to the talk page of the guideline. If you are discussing the merits of one displayed text or the other, then use the article's talk page. -Arch dude (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]