Help desk
< May 4	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 6 >

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 5

How does one add stub tags below the categories using the VisualEditor?

When creating new pages. If they're added as templates, they're placed above the categories, which is incorrect. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' Friendly Society

Reference numbers 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 16 are all in RED - they are all from the same book (written by Money) as is reference number 20 (which is correctly done by me just now) so all of these other references should be the same - except without the quote that is evident in reference number 20. Also Reference number 25 is also in RED. Please fix these all - unfortunately I cannot. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The {{harvnb}} tags were looking for a book defined as Money 1911, which was already done in the bibliography - but defining it again in reference "20" meant they didn't know where to point. Every one of those references is now pointing towards the bibliography. 25 was just missing a title. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Gott (bishop)

Ref number 12 should have a publisher and I got it all wrong. please fix. thank you. Srbernadette (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

which citation are you struggling with specifically? I've added a publisher to "Our Schools and Colleges" which was #12 at the time of editing. But I noticed that #11 "Robert Woodward Papers" has an empty publihser field, but more importantly it's a broken link. If you could provide a working link to that source then I or another editor could probably fill out the rest of the citation for you. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

Hello! I was recently trying to fix an article (Turkish calligraphy) with an "unclear citation style" tag, and I found that the article had a tie between APA's citation style and Wikipedia's Citation Style 1. I was wondering which style I should use (the first article version used APA, but APA doesn't have a method for adding archive URLs to prevent link rot). DaZyzzogetonsGotDaLastWord (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Fandom considered a reliable source for citations?

I was just wondering about this. Shoron100 (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shoron100: As Fandom wikis are user-generated, they are not. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:FANDOM. CodeTalker (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile version

Hello,

On the page Hôtel de la Marine, the first paragraph of the introductory part does not appear above the infobox but under it on the mobile version (mobile phone). I was wondering why this was.

Thanks!

2A02:A420:6C:AFE:8932:CAD8:7485:EB73 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can happen when {{coord}} is placed early outside the infobox. I have moved it to the end.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image upload

So this keeps happening to me but no editor that places a template will actually assist me. They only add a "See:[WP]" to WP pages that are so extensive, it is impossible to weed through it all. What is so frustrating is that there are thousands of similar images uploaded that seems to comply with (or get around) WP policy yet I can't seem to find a way. So - could someone please (without simply linking me to a page to read about WP policy) actually tell me how to upload this correctly? I've just never understood why an editor who knows who, wouldn't just upload it correctly then take all the steps to have it deleted. But that's beside the point, and probably will generate a thread conversation that is separate from my original question. I really just need help to learn so I can do it correctly in the future. I've tried to upload sheet music covers from the 1920s and 1930s (which WP has dozens), and yet mine are deleted because it wasn't uploaded correctly. I'm at a loss here. If anyone could take the time to really help me, I'd appreciate it greatly. Here is what I am facing right now: Talk Page Image, Copyvio. Maineartists (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you uploaded the image, you said it was in the public domain. How do you know? Where did the image come from? These things matter a lot for images uploaded to Wikipedia. Mokadoshi (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Does the image comply with WP:NFCCP? I don't think this page is extensive at all. (Also, pages like WP:FAIRUSE are long but it's policy. It's long and linked for a reason.) I've just never understood why an editor who knows who, wouldn't just upload it correctly then take all the steps to have it deleted. See burden of proof, it's your responsibility to upload it correctly if you want it to stay. Having an understanding of policy would help immensely with that.

As for how: for the resolution, see WP:IMAGERES. There's a tool linked that can help you find the decreased dimensions to comply with policy if you don't want to do the math yourself. If you want to, the formula is there. Adjust the image as necessary with the plethora of online tools available for that purpose. (Or, you can also just tag the image with {{non-free reduce}} after uploading.) Go to WP:UPLOAD. Click "Upload a non-free file". Fill the form out. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 18:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Ayakanaa. You are the first editor who has actually shown me "how". Rather than explained WP policy, copyright law, burden of proof, etc. One quick question: the link on Image resolution here: this tool is actually in a foreign language? Am I missing something? My image is only W 7.33 H 4.81 with a Res of 96 pix/in / 244KB. I can't imagine that is too large. I am currently going back in and listing this Postcard image (that's where it came from, Mokadoshi - from my own collection 1958) under Non-Free File. Hopefully I'm clicking all the right boxes to satisfy. Fingers crossed. Maineartists (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayakanaa OK. I tried again by using your directions and links: [2] Would you mind looking at the upload and see if I did everything correctly? It would seem that I am missing a few things on the page even though I filled everything out upon initial process. Thank you. I really appreciate your taking the time to help me. Maineartists (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maineartists Looks pretty good, I've tagged it with {{non-free reduce}} so a bot can make it smaller for you (non-free images have to be quite small: if you read WP:IMAGERES, it mentions that no more than 100k pixels should suffice – your image exceeds that). You should put it on Union Church (Wiscasset, Maine) now. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 21:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Ayakanaa. How can I ever thank you? After all this time. With just a few explanations and exact links to properly upload, I finally was able to upload a non-free image. All because of you. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayakanaa@Maineartists When you upload a non-free image, a bot automatically turns up after awhile and reduce the size as needed. Edit history like this [3] is fairly typical, all automatic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maineartists, unfortunately, copyright is an extremely complex matter and there are many lawyers who spend their entire careers dealing with the complications. Here is a very basic overview from the point of view of someone trying to upload an image. Think of any given image as either "free" or "non-free". It is your obligation to determine which. Free images are either in the public domain so copyright laws do not apply, or they have been freely licensed by the copyright holder, most commonly under an acceptable Creative Commons license. Such free images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, but you must furnish convincing evidence that the image is actually free. The vast majority of contemporary images that you find in books, magazines, newspapers and on websites are protected by copyright and therefore "non-free" . They can be used on English Wikipedia only if they meet the stringent and limited conditions described at Non free images. Interestingly, the example you chose of sheet music covers from the 1920s and 1930s is an edge case. The general rule (there are exceptions) is that copyright of such a cover lasts for 95 years, and that copyright expires on January 1 of the following year. So, any such cover published in 1928 or before is in the public domain, and works published in 1929 enter the public domain on January 1, 2025. And so on as the years pass. The bottom line is that you can upload public domain or correctly freely licensed images to Wikimedia Commons. Non-free images that fully comply with strict standards must be uploaded to the English Wikipedia instead. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maineartists: Just going to mention a couple of things. First some good news, the file you uploaded of this church that's currently being discussed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Union Church (Wiscasset, Maine).jpg has a really good chance of being kept. A Commons' administrator named Yann was able to find a version of the post card online and verify that it image is within the public domain. Yann relicensed the photo as {{PD-US-no notice}} which is an acceptable license for Commons. So, if as seems certain, the Commons file is kept, the local file you upload as non-free content will no longer be needed and can be replaced by the Commons one. You could do that now, but it's probably better to wait until the Commons discussion has been formally closed and the file kept. Non-free files are required to be used in at least one article per non-free content use criterion #7 and those not being used in at least one article are eligible for speedy deletion as "orphaned non-free use" per speedy deletion criterion F5.

The second thing is not so good and might prehaps seem to be a little rude, but I think it's probably time someone said something to you about it. It seems that every time you post asking for help with your image uploads, you begin the discussion pretty much the same way: you seem to blame others for your inability to understand relevant policy oir complain that they aren't asking your questions the way you want them to be answered. All users are volunteers and those answering your questions are doing so in good faith. For sure, Wikipedia and Commons policies related to file licensing can be hard to understand, especially for a new user; however, you are no longer a total newbie and things shouldn't be so impossibly hard for you to understand. What's going to eventually happen if you keep going on and on about how difficult and confusing things are every time one of the files you upload is challenged is that someone is going to wonder whether you're learning from your mistakes and whether you lack the competence to be properly uploading files. I'm not trying to be mean by making this observation, but I've seen quite a few posts by you related to file uploads which pretty much start the same way as this one does. You really should drop all of this "woe is me" stuff and simply ask your questions. Relevant policy pages are what they are and people are pointing you to those pages because they contain information you need to know if you're going to be uploading files to either Wikipedia or Commons. It's OK for you to ask questions, but it's not really OK for you to keep complaining that people aren't answering them the way you expect them to be answered or that things are too hard to figure out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you say this "If this file is kept, it should be used to replace the non-free version currently being used in the main infobox" here: [4]? It is the exact same postcard. I am confused. Regardless of how it is uploaded, it still remains the same image with the same printed back stating "Published by". Maineartists (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures uploaded locally on en-WP can be used on en-WP. Pictures uploaded on Commons can be used on any WMF-project, like all the other WP:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång That obviously means something. Can you please explain? For us simple folk. And how it pertains to your original statement? This is the only way I'm going to learn, obviously. Both images are on WikiCommons currently.[5] Yes? Yann uploaded differently, but correctly. Also Yes? I did not. Neither originally as a PD or here after guidance: [6] (Not as PD) Yes as well? Please explain. Maineartists (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded to English Wikipedia are "local" files in the sense that they can only be used on English Wikipedia pages; for example, they won't display on other language Wikipedia pages or other Wikimedia Foundation pages. Files uploaded to Commons, on the other hand, are "global" files in the sense that they will work equally as well on all Wikimedia Foundation project pages that allow files to be used. Each of these projects, however, is its own entity within it's own local policies and guidelines related to file use; so, even though Commons files will technically work on all these projects, there might be local restrictions in place that limit their use.

The file you uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content was done correctly per the advice you were given; that file, however, is no longer needed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy because the Commons file was kept and is more than capable of serving as a free equivalent to any non-free image used for the purpose of primary identification of the church. The licensing of the local file could be converted to the same licensing used by Yann for the Commons file, but that would basically just be creating two identically licensed files of the same image when there's really only a need for one. Moreover, there's no real rason for English Wikipedia to host a file locally when essentially the same file exists on Commons. That's why the file you uploaded locally as non-free was nominated for deletion. Even though you might feel that you're somehow being targeted here, what's happening isn't unique to you or this particular file; it's something that happens quite a bit as free equivalent images that are capable of serving the same encyclopedic purposes and non-free files uploaded locally to English Wikipedia are found and uploaded to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not "woe is me", Marchjuly, but pure frustration. Just now, I left a comment here: [7] for the second uploaded image that Ayakanaa helped me do correctly; yet it was placed up for deletion discussion. Yet, how is this possible? I placed my first upload as PD because it was a postcard with no copyright notice. But it was immediately placed for deletion due to editors citing "most certainly copyrighted" and that the uploading editor (me) is bound by burden of proof and another stating that the postcard stated: "Published by Owen Arts Color - Newcastle Maine (Lyman Owens, artist)" which would constitute copyright." Yet Yann simply uploads the exact same postcard by the same publishing entity (with the vertical text on the back) under PD and for some reason, it's perfectly fine. So no, it's not woe is me. It's (as you say) "years" of running up against this at WP and getting more and more frustrated. Thanks to Ayakanna, I am actually now learning something here at WP; and certainly from all this back and forth from editors who seem to be "interpreting" WP policy. But at least I'm learning and trying. I hope you can understand this from my point of view. Maineartists (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: There is a current discussion here:[8] that is just full of contradictions and only confirms my initial claim that there are certain WP editors that have a way around certain WP policy. Yann defends uploading the image as PD (which mine was deleted for PD even though it's the same Postcard) for reasons: "In the absence of proof, it is quite sensible to think that the postcard was under a copyright. Fortunately, I found an online copy showing the back and the absence of a copyright notice, therefore proving that the postcard is in the public domain." Really? The back text is the exact same as mine: "Published by Owen Arts Color - Newcastle Maine (Lyman Owens, artist)" with a postmarked date of 1987. I thought PD was 1929, 70 years after artist death, etc. I added the only tag that WP allowed other than "This is my own work." So I was questioned: You added a licensing tag stating "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of their rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.", where was the evidence for that? Where's the evidence for Yann stating there is no copyright? He answered another editor who questioned by saying: "Yes, I have checked other postcards from the same source. They all lack a notice." Isn't that WP:OR? Regardless, it seems, as Yann says: "it is improbable that the copyright was renewed, but that's more work to check." Wow. I guess this is how WP works and is supported: "You being a Commons-admin, I'll take your word for that" Gråbergs Gråa Sång . Maineartists (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was on Commons, not WP, but:

You stated "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of their rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission." and didn't "get away" with that.

@Yann stated "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice." and uploaded the other side of the the postcard to confirm the statement. If you think this is "getting away", complain on Commons.

Commons is strict on these things, and WP possibly even stricter, but for me it's clear you used the wrong license, so the deletion-attempt was not surprising. More surprising was Yann's "rescue", which deserves credit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am really shaking my head at all of this. It is all the same exact image from the same exact source. All you're saying is I didn't upload it correctly because I don't know the "ins-and-outs" yet I thought - with the help of an experienced WP editor - I had. Now another editor comes and uploads it under PD and just says: "It's safe to say ..." and all of a sudden, it's accepted. He gets credit and I get (once again) a slap on the wrist. I honestly think if I had done what Yann did, (which I did as PD but it was immediately placed up for deletion here: [9]) I would have been thrown to the wolves. I was specifically told the word "Published" means "Copyrighted". Which the text on the back states. Am I wrong? So I come here to ask how to do it correctly and I'm told I'm whining. But I did upload it again correctly (or so I thought) - not PD - with the help of an experienced editor,[10] and it gets placed up for deletion because a Wiki-admin uploaded the same exact postcard as PD. Maineartists (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per U.S. Copyright .Gov [11] "Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device ... Copyright exists from the moment the work is created." What am I missing here? Maineartists (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
US copyright law has changed several times over the years. The definition of the word "published" as used in the context of copyright law has also changed over the years. The page you've linked to represents the current incarnation of the law, and it applies to current day works (or works created since the law was last changed); it doesn't, however, automatically and retroactively apply to works created under older versions of the law. There was a time when US copyright law required individual copyright notices for all creative works (excluding some exceptions) as well as formal registration of any claims of copyright ownership. The lack of either of these two things was seen as an invalidation of claim of copyright ownership.
Since copyright notices often appeared in the border of an image or on the back side of an image, Yann searched for front and back images of that particular post card. It's also why Yann searched for examples of other post cards published by the same company from around the same time. Yann was looking to see whether the one example they found online wasn't just an anomaly or otherwise modified in some way but was actually a good indication of how the post card company was "publishing" these cards. All Yann did was tweak the file's licensing so that it more accurately reflected its copyright status. Yann didn't do this to try to claim credit for uploading the image: you're still being credited as the original uploader of the file.
Being frustrated is understandable, but trying to imply there's some kind of double standard in place so thay everything you do is crapped upon while everything everyone someone else does is praised is not understandable and not OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Marchjuly for this detailed explanation. I needed it in writing so that I may reference in the future. This all started because I uploaded the file as PD and was immediately placed up for deletion. As I said from the beginning, in a rather condemning but actually based-in-reality sort of way, I just didn't know how to "get around" the ins-and-outs. ("All Yann did was tweak the file's licensing so that it more accurately reflected its copyright status.") How one editor denies PD another justifies OR. Just saying "I researched" doesn't make it legit in some eyes. I've not only seen it numerous times, but I've been on the receiving end of it many times (as my WikiCommons talk page can attest). I'm perplexed as to how eBay was used as a reliable source for research since: "eBay has only been used as an auction source at WP." Not a reliable source to back a claim for copyright. I do not remember ever seeing or reading this: "It's also why Yann searched for examples of other post cards published by the same company from around the same time." - as the church was built in 1958, the postcard does not claim any date of creation. There was a very fine line that was skirted here; but with the support of Yann (a Wiki-Admin) and yourself, I feel better in uploading PD with an explanation that is sensible to en-WP for single use. Let's see how it works out for me. Maineartists (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your contention that somehow there's OR involved in this and that some very fine line has been skirted. I also think that, for most part, the things you've been on the receiving end on your Commons user talk page are "self-inflicted wounds" due to their being problems with some of the files you've been uploading. At the same time, you have actually uploaded a number of files to Commons that haven't been flagged as problems and in those cases you seem to have no problem understanding how to use certain licenses. Furthermore, it doesn't appear that anyone has been accusing you of OR, using unreliable sources or skirting lines with respect to any of those problem-free files. Despite this, though, you seem unable to move beyond thinking such things about others whenever one of your uploads is questioned and when the ball doesn't seem to be bouncing your way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It’s very clear how you see me in all this. However, you still did not answer my question regarding Yann’s “discoveries.” I am not “beyond” anything. I am simply trying to show a direct distinction between unclear comparisons. I have no idea what you are taking about in regards to the very few image files that I’ve successfully uploaded. Why would anyone accuse me of OR? I never stated such. But I have been accused of it on uploads that were deleted when I offered an explanation similar to Yann. Thus the question I raised here. Which you did not answer. For whatever reason. So I’ll ask it again: where exactly did Yann “search for examples of other post cards published by the same company from around the same time”? When there is no date on the postcard in question? I do not remember seeing links presented to back the claim. I’m not hung up on anything. This is how editors treated me in the past. They “could not just take my word for it.” It is an honest question. Rather than attacking my (perceived) motives and personal agenda, how about we simply stick to policy and facts of procedure. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a template change

I've forgotten how to summon a template editor to request a template change on its talk page. Simply posting a new thread there has proven ineffective. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: You can use the template {{Edit template-protected}} for this. RudolfRed (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thanks much. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 May 5