Help desk
< July 3	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 5 >

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.

July 4

Translation

What about translating an article to English? Do I need the Content Translation beta feature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.160.12.133 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:TRANSLATE and be aware that English Wikipedia has far stricter content and sourcing policies than some of the other languages and so merely "translating" may be insufficient for it to be accepted at English Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Wikipedia text formatted this way?

In Wikipedia, when a person types a blank space followed by some text, it appears as follows:

Hello.  This text appears oddly formatted to me.  It appears in a boxed-off gray area.

Why on earth is the Wikipedia text formatted in such an odd way? Is there any reason for it, that it not obvious? Or is it just some computer glitch? To me, it seems like I see this odd format when someone makes an error (that is, they type a "blank space" by mistake). Which, by the way, is a very easy and a very common error to make. I can't imagine that someone intentionally wants their text to appear that way and, thus, adds in the extra blank space on purpose. Any insight into this oddity? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's why there is a Show preview button below the editing box and why the Wikipedia notes on editing advise using it. (Yes, I know it's a comment rather than an answer. I don't know why on earth this feature exists in Wikipedia, but I found it useful multiple times, e.g. for presenting code snippets in programming: Quicksort#Algorithm or examples in Wikipedia formatting—although there are other, more flexible methods.) --CiaPan (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes — it's just one of the bits of wikitext you've got to accept. I've used it by accident too, and it doesn't seem to be a particularly intuitive piece of markup; then again, neither is the colon I used at the beginning of this post or the four tildes I use to sign it. Most of the times I've seen it, it's used to show programming markup (or possibly a replacement for <code></code> tags). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an intentional feature; to explain why: In ordinary wikicode multiple spaces are compressed to one space, and lines separated by single newlines are combined. This is ordinary behavior of html, and usually it is desirable. But it makes it difficult to control the exact layout of text where an editor actually wants to have multiple spaces and/or forced line breaks. So as a special feature if a line begins with a space, the html generator keeps the spacing, and it uses a monospaced font. —teb728 t c 09:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@teb728, you've actually explained the "what" rather than the "why" of this "feature". I can see how it might have a legitimate use if only it would line wrap properly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the "why" is to make it easy "to control the exact layout of text where an editor actually wants to have multiple spaces and/or forced line breaks." Like other wikicode it is easier to remember than the html. The problem, of course is that it is too easy to do unintentionally. As for wrapping, it is not supposed to wrap: The editor is supposed to make the lines short enough that wrapping is not needed. Or if the lines need to be longer than the width of the screen, the reader has to scroll the screen; it would be used then to avoid having the format destroyed by wrapping. —teb728 t c 10:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If only it would line wrap properly...? But it does wrap properly. The proper wrapping for this mode is do not wrap at all. If the author needs a full control of the text layout, down to individual characters alignment (something like a teletype printout), then the software must not wrap lines because wrapping may insert the line tail between the line beginning and the next line beginning. Such wrapping is especially annoying in case of 'wrapped' tables... --CiaPan (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't catch it the first time I read it. See if this helps:

Suppose you were discussing an issue involving several spaces in an entry. Compare these two:

Test line with spaces
Test line with spaces

contrast that to:

1 Test line with spaces
2 Test    line    with   spaces

See the difference?

Follow up

The whole thing seems bizarre to me. So, a few more questions, if anyone knows. (1) Why does the text appear in a gray box? (2) Why in a different font? (3) Why did "they" make the code so easy to type in error (i.e., a single space)? Whenever I have seen that odd format in Wikipedia, I'd say that 95% of the time, it is an error (a typo with an unintentional extra space) and 5% legitimate/intentional. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the second question, the font used is a proportional font (aka monospaced or typewriter font), where all the characters (including spaces) have the same width, and so columns line up:

so I easily can make     this
line up exactly with     this.

AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic answers: (1) to make it easy to distinguish from normal text, (2) to make it easy to distinguish from normal text, (3) to make it easy to type, while not using any "bandwidth" that has a sensible purpose. Possibly more helpful answer: this same use of a leading space was (and maybe still is) used on bulletin boards for discussion of computer programming, so that contributors can easily type both normal English and pieces of computer language while making them easy to distinguish. Maproom (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think, but could be mistaken, that it was origianlly intended for the display of computer code, where pecise spacing can be important, and also where wrapping is often not desired. I have seen it used for display of verse, although more recently there are other ways prefered for verse. In both of these cases it is desireable that the code or verse be marked off from more ordinary text, which the bavkground color does quite effectivly. In any case, that is how the software works, and it is not likely to be changed.It actually has the same effect as the HTML <pre> tag, I belive. DES ^(talk) 20:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Creation and Article Redirect

I recently went to the articles creation page to create the character Imperator Furiosa. However, under my contributions, for my article creation page, it doesn't come up as an article I've created. I don't understand the reason for this. The page did not exist previously and after creating it I realized that all that would come up before I created it was a redirect to Mad Max: Fury Road. After I made the article, the redirect disappeared and became its own article. Why is the article not showing up as one of my created articles, and how can I get it to show up as such under my contributions? I worked very hard on the article and created the entire page, so I would like to know any way that I can get it under my articles created page. Thanks. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reply to the above, just another question. I had never known that the "Articles created" option existed (it's under "Contributions"). Now that I look at it, I find the articles I created are all in the namespace "일반 문서". Why the Hangul name, and what does it mean? Maproom (talk) 07:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that's just a bug, and it either means "Article" or "(Main)". xTools has a lot of issues currently, but as the page currently reads: "The new xTools environment is being set up now. We estimate uptime in about 1 week." — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 08:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kinfoll1993 You may have written the article but you did not create the page, the page already existed before you wrote the article. It was originally created as a redirect. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (In response to Kinfoll1993) Unfortunately, there isn't a way you can do that. Technically speaking, you didn't create the page. The page was created when someone made the redirect — you've just changed what type of page it is (and even then, it's still in the same namespace). I understand that you want to show off your creations and made the bulk of the article's content: in the way of attribution, any edits to the page you made will be found at Special:Contributions/Kinfoll1993, and if you want you could mention on your userpage that you created the article. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 08:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well is there any rule against putting the article back as it was (as a redirect) and recreating the article in another page under a different namespace so I can have my work show up as my created page? For example, if I put the Imperator Furiosa page as a redirect to a newly created page under another name (ex: Furiosa or Furiosa (Mad Max) and move my information that I added from Imperator Furiosa to my newly created page, am I allowed to do so under Wikipedia policy? Kinfoll1993 (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a specific rule against moving a page to somewhere with an obscure or strange title: WP:COMMONNAME. Leave Imperator Furiosa at that location. What you're suggesting also seems to violate common sense and perhaps Wikipedia:Gaming the system (don't thwart the intention of the tool you're using). Tools are designed for specific purposes and the tool you're looking at is meant to show how many pages in the main namespace you've created. It is not meant to provide attribution or give you credit or list your achievements. You can do that on your user page. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What might work in this case would be to create the new article as a draft and then move that draft on top of the redirect. If the redirect has not been edited since creation, the move would be possible (a feature to facilitate reverting a move). —teb728 t c 09:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kinfoll1993, TEB728, that would not work. If anyone else has ever edited the article, that would deny those editors the proper attribution for their work, and thus be a copyvio. Therefore, no admin would perform the move deleting the existing page, or else s/he would do a history merge afterwards, putting you right back where you are now. In any case Xi's tools are not the main way for someone to find a list of pages you have created in the less technical sense, So I suggest you not worry about the matter. DES ^(talk) 20:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have done a cut & paste move to Furiosa (Mad Max). I have undone it and restored the history. Doing that denies other editors proper attribution for their contributions (however small) to the article, and makes a mess for an admin to clean up. Fotunately i got this one before other edits could complicate the situation. Also, we don't use disambiguated article titles, with a parenthetical modifier, unless the natural title is in fact ambiguious, and would apply to more than one article. Furiosa (Mad Max) is now a redirect to Imperator Furiosa. Please don't do this again. DES ^(talk) 21:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC) (@Kinfoll1993: previous ping was incorrect and won't have triggered a notification. DES ^(talk) 21:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems

I just created a page for this journal. Is it possible to upload a cover image from the journals home page to the article? ThanksGomach (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be technically possible, Gomach. You would need to download the image from the site to your computer, and then upload it to Wikipedia. See Help:Introduction to uploading images for detailed instructions.

However, as I presume the cover would be protected by copyright, the iamge would need to pass all the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria which is often tricky. In particular, #8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. might not apply here. DES ^(talk) 21:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely supply cover images for serials; see the infoboxes for The Washington Times and American Antiquity for some examples. Cover images are quite useful for identification, providing readers with a sense of "what does this look like". Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lupton family page

I cannot work out what I have done wrong with references number 11 and 86 on this page. Please help me if you can. I removed number 3 reference because it was not relevant at all to Arthur Lupton and replaced it with a reference that is. But I am not sure what I have done wrong. Thanks so much Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.149.113.236 (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The error message was "Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)" with the help in blue indicating it is a link - if you had clicked that it would have taken you to the explanation page.
Fundamentally, the problem was your date format "July 4 2015" Wikipedia accepts several date formats, but not that, so I changed it to the English dmy format 4 July 2015 and the error message goes away. - Arjayay (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hacked page

The Christian Science page has been hacked, and I can't revert the changes. Can someone have a look at it? Cotopaxi5897 (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A template and module was vandalised. It has been fixed. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter:, Looks like a bigger problem here. At article Ecumenical council, which is on my Watchlist, the page came up orange background with words NICE MIME in large black letters. Here is the edit history 12:07, 4 July 2015‎ The Quixotic Potato (talk | contribs)‎ . . (51,039 bytes) and my un-do14:16, 4 July 2015‎ JoeHebda (talk | contribs)‎ . . (51,038 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (Undid revision 669908909 by The Quixotic Potato (talk) Undo, edit error.). After the undo, most of the sidebar links to Jesus or Bible also had the same error. My "solution" I logged out of WP, completely closed my web browser, logged back in & changed my password, logged out & back in, and now previous issue with Ecumenical council sidebar-links is gone. Thinking someone has hacked into user accounts? This is totally beyond me & first experience, should need expert help! Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeHebda: The template vandalism affected some tens of thousands of articles, so it may take a while for the software to rebuild them all. If you see a damaged article, a purge should fix it. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metadata

I uploaded a file which contains metadata which could put my privacy at risk. Is there any way to remove the Metadata? I don't know what to do 69.36.188.24 (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole file must be deleted and a new version uploaded if you still want the file here. See Wikipedia:Requests for oversight if it was uploaded to the English Wikipedia, and commons:Commons:Oversight if it was uploaded to Commons. If you want tips on removing metadata without revealing the file then you can post to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Mention your operating system and the file type. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright query

Hi there, I need some guidance about copyright issues from editors experienced in copyright issues. In this edit at Looney Tunes a user added in good faith a link to a collection of Looney Tunes cartoons on YouTube. I removed it because it seemed promotional to me—we're directing traffic to one person's channel and they are clearly not a sanctioned Warner Bros channel. But I have other issues with the link because there's no indication at the YouTube compilation that all of the cartoons in the 4.5 hour compilation are in the public domain. Improper licensing makes it difficult to determine whether or not we're dealing with a copyright violation, and I know that we do not link to copyright violations. I also notice in the video description the statement, "All episodes have been digitally remastered & restored." Well, that's vague. Who performed the remastering and restoration?

Anyhow, I'm thinking that even if these cartoons are in the public domain, if someone remastered and restored them, that this might constitute a derivative work. Anyone have any learned thoughts about this? It seems counter-intuitive to me that if someone spent money to restore public domain content that the restored version would now be in the public domain, free to upload, and free to link to. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem counter-intuitive, Cyphoidbomb, but under US copyright law some origininality is required for a new copyright on a derivitive work. This is why new photos of PD paintings, for example are not protected by copyright. The "sweat of the brow" theory of copyright in which significant effort is protected by copyright is explicitly rejected by US copyright law, although it applies in the law of some other countries. However, your concern that some of the content may not be public domain mighyt well be valid. That would need to be cwecked for each title in the compilation. If they are public domain, I see no problem with linking to a legit copy, whether it is an "authorized outlet" or not. Public domain means something is free for anyone in the public to use, after all, just like stuff under a free license. Of course if there is a non-profit source we might pefer to link there. DES ^(talk) 21:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel That was a fantastic, eye-opening response. Thank you. I agree that if it is in the public domain, we don't have to link to WB. My concerns were multiple, and one of them was the if they are not in the public domain, we should only link to an authorized source. Shall I assume that if even one of them are not in the PD, we should avoid linking to it? Danke, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb that is a judgement call. It would perhaps be safer not to. Under fair use the compiler can use small amounts of a copyrighted work, in proportion to the overall work, without infringing. We wouldn't decline to link to a work because it quoted another published work without permisison. But including an entire separate work that is under copyright withotu permisison would probably be too much. Of course, they might have permission -- no, from WB this is unlikely.

I am glad my resposne was helpful. I ave long been interested in copyright issues. i did some volunteer work for Distributed Proofreaders some years ago, which involved checking copyright clearences. I think I know US copyright law about as well as most non-lawyers. And I did some editing on sweat of the brow several years ago. DES ^(talk) 22:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the list of cartoons, taken from the uploader's description:

Extended content

A Corny Concerto (Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd & Porky Pig) (1943)
A Tale of Two Kitties (1942)
Bosko, the Talk Ink Kid (pilot) (1929)
Case of the Missing Hare (Bugs Bunny) (1942)
Confusions of a Nutzy Spy (Porky Pig) (1943)
Congo Jazz (Bosko) (1930)
Daffy Duck and the Dinosaur (Daffy Duck) (1939)
Daffy The Commando (Daffy Duck) (1943)
Eatin' on the Cuff or, The Moth Who Came to Dinner (1942)
Falling Hare (Bugs Bunny) (1943)
Farm Frolics (1941)
Foney Fables (1942)
Have You Got Any Castles (1938)
Hollywood Capers (Beans the Cat) (1935)
Hop and Go (1943)
I Love a Parade (1932)
It's Got Me Again! (1932)
Meet John Doughboy (Porky Pig) (1941)
Pigs in a Polka (1943)
Porky Pig's Feat (Porky Pig) (1943)
Porky's Pooch (Porky Pig) (1941)
Porky's Preview (Porky Pig) (1941)
Porky's Railroad (Porky Pig) (1937)
Puss n' Booty (1943)
Scrap Happy Daffy (Daffy Duck) (1943)
Sinkin' in the Bathtub (Bosko) (1930)
Smile, Darn Ya, Smile! (Foxy) (1931)
The Booze Hangs High (Bosko) (1930)
The Dover Boys at Pimento University (1942)
The Fifth Column Mouse (1943)
The Wabbit Who Came to Supper (Bugs Bunny) (1942)
The Wacky Wabbit (Bugs Bunny) (1942)
To Duck or Not To Duck (Daffy Duck) (1943)
Wackiki Wabbit (Bugs Bunny) (1943)
Wacky Blackout (1942)
Yankee Doodle Daffy (Daffy Duck) (1943)
You Don't Know What You're Doin'! (Piggy) (1931)

If all of those are PD, there's nothing wrong here, but yes it's a problem if any are still under copyright. Nyttend (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all old enouh that copyright renewal was needed under US law. The list of copyright renewals is published, and i belive that there is a copy online at project gutenberg. If none of the titles is listed, then they are all public domain. Works published after 1963 were automatically renewed, and are still in copyright unless published with a faulty copyright notice, or lost copyright in some other way, which is rare for commercial films. DES ^(talk) 19:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Table in infobox

Can a table be inserted in infobox? Is this right? --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 21:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...
data1 =
{|
 |-
 | {{{1}}} || {{{2}}}
 |-
 | Label 1 || Label 2
 |}
...

It may be that you could do this, Fauzan, but I doubt that it would be a good idea. we have {{Plainlist}}, {{unbulleted list}}, {{flatlist}}, {{hlist}}, {{ordered list}}, and {{unordered list}} for such purposes. If the data is more complex than any of those can handle, I doubt if it belongs in an infobox anyway. Infoboxes are supposed to be summaries of the article, not replacements for article text. They are already tricky enough for many editors, adding table syntax is likely to be over the top. Of course, all this is without knowing what data you plan to add to what article. DES ^(talk) 22:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lupton family

Please help me place an accent over the word "nee" in the second paragraph (form the top) of this page. also in the section titled Francis Martineau and descendants - there is a need for an accent over the word "Pathe". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.149.113.236 (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both done. Maproom (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I keep getting my page deleted?

I've had my page deleted twice and don't understand why. I need a lawyer to understand the terms and phrases and a degree in Wiki to figure this out. RobbyTheElf (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question above is the only contribution you have ever made to Wikipedia using your RobbyTheElf account, so it is hard for us to guess what you mean by "my page". Maproom (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been about Robby The Elf, which was created User:RobbyTheElf, speedy deleted, and created and speedy deleted again, all in a fairly short timeframe. (not that this doesn't show up unless one looks at "deleted contributions", Maproom.) It seems to have been an article about a fictional character created by the drafter of the article. There is no indication that any work featuring this character has ever been published aside from self-publication, much less that the character is notable. That is the main reason why such an article is not appropriate here: Wikipedia is a tertiary work, and only covers subjects that have already been discussed in published, secondary, reliable sources that are independant of the subject and the subject's creator. Also, attempting to add an article about one's own creation is promotionalism, and violates the very strong advice in our conflict of interest guideline. In short, and in plain words, Don't write about your own work on Wikipedia, and Don't write about any subject on Wikipedia unless others have already published discussion of it. Does that spare you the lawyeer and the degree in Wiki, RobbyTheElf? DES ^(talk) 22:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A slight error, the original creator was User:Nocompromise16, who was notified when the page was tagged for speedy deletion. User:RobbyTheElf then editied to add content to the article. Perhaps these are friends. In any case I think both of them should read our Writing about fiction page. DES ^(talk) 23:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]