Help desk
< November 16	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 18 >

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.

November 17

Copyright question

Dear Editors: This Afc submission: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ollie A. Randall is copied from HERE, but there is a note under the copyright declaration that appears to allow reproduction, provided that credit is given. Is a citation enough credit? The text would have to be edited to remove POV; would that be acceptable? It seems to me that it would have to be kept the same or not used. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement on that site: "Please credit the University of Minnesota Libraries if you copy or reproduce material from this page." is not exactly an explicit grant of a free license. (For one thing it doesn't clearly grant permission to modify the quoted content.) I wouldn't accept it unless an email were sent to the contact address and an explicit permission response was received and filed with OTRS. I think it would be far easier to rewrite the content using the page as a source. But you could ask at Wikipedia:Copyright problems if you wish. DES ^(talk) 03:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

secondary or tertiary sources

If i interview an author and then publish the interview, when i summarize the interview would the summarization of the interview be secondary or a tertiary source? i am having trouble with my references. everything is cited and i have permission from the author to write about them on wikipedia and share their biography. "This article relies on references to primary sources. Please add references to secondary or tertiary sources. (November 2013)" Tyffani_Clark_Kemp thank you for any help! -- -- MrJoseOtero (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Firstly no need to use {{helpme}} on the help desk, DES ^(talk) 03:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)@MrJoseOtero. Well your premise is based on an non-starter. You and your website are not a reliably published source and so whether you call it primary or secondary or tertiary, its not an acceptable source for Wikipedia content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, You should only cite your own work if it is published under independant editorial control, such as in a peer-reviewed journal, or in a magazine with strict editorial policies and a reputation for fact checkinmg, or if it is a book published by a major publisher, or the like. See WP:SELFCITE DES ^(talk) 03:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thirdly, an interview with the subject of an article is mostly considered to be a primary source, as much of the content is provided by the person being interviewed. Only the interviewer's questions or comments might be a secondary source, and then only if it is so published as to be a reliable source. DES ^(talk) 03:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthly and finally, you should seek out independent secondary reliable sources which discuss the subject in some detail. If the subject is notable, you should be able to find them. DES ^(talk) 03:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In an interview there are two types of information. Usually, what the interviewer has published is a secondary source, and what the interviewee has said is a primary source. However, if the interviewer is also the person making the Wikipedia article, then this would be original research (not allowed), particularly if the interview is not published in a reliable publication which is overseen by an editor/fact checker as explained above. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the interveiw were to be published by a reliable source, it is not original research even if the interviewer is also the wikipedia editor. But if it was published on a website run by the interviewer, it shouldn't normally be used at all, not even as a primary source, under WP:SELFPUB. DES ^(talk) 03:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statements made by the person interviewed is not independent of the person, so it has limited usage in a Wikipedia biography of that person. The statements by the interviewer are independent, but if you are the interviewer and are also trying to post a summary of them in Wikipedia, then that runs against WP:COI. if you are trying to write a Wikipedia Biography about the author Tyffani Clark Kemp, then the work she has produced is not independent of Tyffani Clark Kemp and cannot be used as a source for a Wikipedia biography on her. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jreferee is quite correct that statemetns made by the subject of an article are not independent, but it is not correct that such sources "cannot be used" here. Indeed sometimes it is vital to cite non-independent sources to clearly document the views and statements of the subject. (see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFPUB for the uses and limitations non the uses of such sources.) However, such sources cannot be the sole sources for an article, particularly a biography. They do nothing to help establish notability. There must be sufficient sources that ARE independent (and reliable to establish notability, and the view(s) that others have taken of the subject. Moreover, an interview in which the interviewer is also the drafter of the article is already quite dubious -- if it is not published by a reliable publication, independent of both source and interviewer, with a reputation for editorial oversight, then i would say it has no place here at all. DES ^(talk) 14:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The interview in toto is primary. But here it does not appear to be from a WP:Verifiable, WP:Reliable Source. A straight summary that merely relates the content of the interview is also primary. Analysis, opinion, commentary upon, and conclusions made by the summarizer would be secondary but here appear to not be from a WP:Verifiable, WP:Reliable Source and maybe WP:OR. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using mobile version of Wikipedia query

Hello,

Straight up, I hope that this is the correct area to post this query, if not, I apologise and appreciate redirection.

Okay, I mainly use the mobile version of Wikipedia and find that if I click on a link that provides more details about a topic that when I go forward between the more detailed page and back to the main page, that the main page contracts the sub-category that I was looking at. This is frustrating as I have to re-expand the sub-category.

Having read the above paragraph, I can appreciate that this explanation is quite confusing, so I will provide example as below of the issue:

Main page - Grenada

Sub-category : History

Link within s-c : History of Grenada

Now, if I use the back button to return to the sub-category page, the section 'History' has contracted, rather than staying expanded (which I believe happens with the desktop version).

Thank you

Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sera2775 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nick. If I understand correctly, what you are talking about is that when you have opened a section on a page, then click a wikilink to go to another page, and then use the back button on your phone to return to the original page, the section is no longer open. Is that right? (I was confused by your mention of categories: these are something else on Wikipedia, but don't normally show on the mobile version).

If that's it, I see your problem, but I doubt there's much can be done about it. (It doesn't arise on the desktop version, because sections are not opened and closed in that way.) The app doesn't know whether or not you are going to return to a page, so it would have to keep a record of what section you opened in every page you visited, which would be quite a burden on its memory. I may be wrong though, as I am not familiar with how the app is coded. The best place to ask is on the Village pump, technical page. --ColinFine (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can Wikipedia be edited by mobile users? Last I tried it was impossible to log in through a mobile device. Even reading on a mobile is a problem for me because categories do not show up. XOttawahitech (talk)

List not under header

I have created a list of skyscrapers using referenced information. I created a new header to place the list under, however the list I have created has skipped my header and gone beneath a header underneath the one I created. Any help thanks?

List of cities with the most skyscrapers

My header is "List of cities by number of completed skyscrapers" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicgold (talk • contribs) 05:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I revised how the table was closed, from using "|-}" to using "|}". The List of cities with the most skyscrapers page advertises the site skyscrapercenter.com by using it as its main source. Just like people contributing to Wikipedia, skyscrapercenter.com site seems to get information from its users.[1] A difference is that Skyscraper Source Media figured out a way to sell publishing rights for the use of its materials,[2] -- Jreferee (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

print size

Any way to enlarge print on site?```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:9FC0:37:1DCF:7ED6:DFB9:F641 (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a function of your browser, not of Wikipedia. Most browser let you increase the font size by pressing Ctrl and + together, or by rolling the mouse wheel while you hold down Ctrl. --ColinFine (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new article on James Le Jeune Irish Artist

I have written an article about James Le Jeune and I am not sure it is in the right place for someone to review and give me feedback, please can someone help me with this Enuejel (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's at User:Enuejel/James George Le Jeune. All I can do for now.... Dismas|^(talk) 14:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have (in this edit) made the format more standard, and added a number of wiki links. But any reviewer would say the primary problem is that no references are cited. See referencing for beginners and you might want to read Your first article. DES ^(talk) 14:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your first article effort is very good. You appear to have complied of individual sentence summaries of reliable sources that are independent of the topic and put them in context via chronologically ordering the information. Advise, when you write a sentence, it is much easier to add a source at the end of it at that time to show others where it came from rather than trying to figure out where it came from later on. I updated the page.[3] A few more references and I think it will be ready to be moved to article space today. You also will want to nominate the article at Template talk:Did you know so that it is linked from Wikipedia's Main Page. Keep up the good work. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does look good, particularly for a first effort. However there is only one source currently cited, and that is linked to only a snippet view in Google books which shows only a single paragraph, so it is hard to tell whether the rest is in fact "individual sentence summaries of reliable sources that are independent of the topic" or not. I hope it is. Add several additional references, supporting the main points of the article, and I would agree that it is ready to go. DES ^(talk) 17:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I got a message that I haven't nominated this article properly, I can't seem to work it out, can someone do it for me, sorry but I am a bit flummoxed by the site. Am finding it difficult to leave a message on the DYK page! I do have a close connection but I have tried to be totally neutral, I feel he is well over due a page here. Thank you for all your help with it, much better then I could have ever done.

economy

who can we protect the inflation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.189.229.172 (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. DES ^(talk) 14:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a WP:HOMEWORK question to me.--ukexpat (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Username (not) taken

Hello Wikipedia Community, I just registered and wanted to use "Lommes" as my username, as it is my surname and twitter handle. However, the registration form says "Account creation error Cannot create account: the requested username is already taken in the unified login system". So I thought someone else has already taken the account. Point is, that does not seem to be the case. I checked all the 16 wikis on Wikimedia.org and all of them give me the same message "User account "Lommes" is not registered." What am i missing, and how can I get the "Lommes" username. Best, Daniel Lommes — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLommes (talk • contribs) 16:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The unified login system includes all the hundreds of different language versions of Wikipedia, as well as the many language-specific versions of Wiktionary, as well as wikiquote, wikidata, wikimedia commons and many others. (see [4]). Let me see what I can find out. DES ^(talk) 18:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DLommes, according to this report that name was active on the German-language Wikipedia, making only 2 edits, the last one in 2007. this might qualify for Usurpation although usually that is only for unused accounts with NO edits at all, and usually is only done for somewhat established editors, as you can read on the page I linked. I suggest that you settle for "DLommes". DES ^(talk) 18:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

de:Spezial:Beiträge/Lommes shows the two edits were to a talk page and not an article. I don't know how strict they are but you can try making a usurpation request at de:Wikipedia:Benutzernamen ändern/Benutzernamens-Übernahme. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the size limit on wiki-pages?

I am just curious to find out what the maximum page length (in bytes) is on wikipedia, and is there a place that gathers statistics and displays the longest ones? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is an exact limit defined - usually people get fed up with the length of time taken to load a page , or are timed out when trying to edit it. As for the longest pages, please see Special:Longpages Arjayay (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Special:LongPages lists the longest articles in Wikipedia. (Note: That is only *articles* i.e., pages in ns0, not other namespaces.) So right now, the longest article in English Wikipedia is List of United States counties and county equivalents (0.59 MB). As for the maximum page size, it is controlled by $wgMaxArticleSize. It is set to 2000 in English Wikipedia. [5]. So 1.95312 MB is the maximum technically possible size of an article. Regards, --Glaisher [talk] 17:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of the article which splits it into two -- how to?

Presently wiki has an article Transient electromagnetics, (also time-domain electromagnetics / TDEM), which must be corrected. The wiki search "time-domain electromagnetics" refers exclusively to this article, giving the user a wrong belief that it covers all the meaning of the term. In fact, the search must be directed to an ambiguity-resolving page with two entries:

Time-domain electromagnetics (one of two general ansätze for the description of electromagnetic wave motion)
Time-domain electromagnetics (geophysical exploration technique)

The first article is absent in wiki, and I am going to write it as soon as the structure will be established (there are a lot of trustable academic sources see, e.g., http://www.amazon.co.uk/Domain-Electromagnetics-Academic-Press-Engineering/dp/0125801904 ). The second article is what we have now as a source for both Transient electromagnetics and time-domain electromagnetics. I do believe that such clarification will not prejudice the significance of this existing article.

I did not understand how such changes can be made. Can someone enlighten me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajsmirnov (talk • contribs) 18:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply create the new page, with proper references, at a proper title. Wikipedia does not normally create disambiguation pages when there are only articles for two meanings of a term. Instead a Hatnote often using {{about}} or {{for}} is placed at the top of each page. But you need not worry over-much about that, other editors can and will add such notes if you get the article live. You can add a note on the talk page of each article about the connection between them. DES ^(talk) 18:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

list of water plants

Hello crew,

I guess it will be a great idea to add up a list of water plants, this should help sudents n teachers.. i was unable to find one for teaching purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.21.236.90 (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a category would be better than a list. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As in Category:Aquatic plants? - Arjayay (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert submission

Can you revert the submission of a sandbox article?Julius Eugen (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just click the "View history" tab and then the "undo" link at the edit where you submitted the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks.Julius Eugen (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Printing Pages Of Data Found Online

I have found information on the Islands of the Republic of the Philippines I would like to make copies of, but haven't found how to print the information which is extensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainorr (talk • contribs) 23:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about printing from Wikipedia, which is primarily a web browser question, or about printing from another source? If you have having difficulty in printing from Wikipedia and are following the standard procedures with your web browser, then we would want to know what web browser you are using, and whether you have refreshed your cache. If you are asking how to print from some other source, then this is not a Wikipedia question, but you might be able to get an answer at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]