Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 May 18
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 17 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 19 > |
| 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 18
[edit]Image use policy
[edit]Hi, yesterday I had this conversation on my talk page about an image insertion I reverted on the frequently vandalised article, Mewing (orthotropics). Essentially, the editor had uploaded an image of a minor onto Commons and then placed that image in an article on English Wikipedia. I reverted that insertion, partly because I thought it was vandalism (given the edit history of that page), and mostly because I was concerned about the image. I asked the editor if they had the consent to post such an image of a minor. They said they knew the minor depicted in the image, but did not gain consent from the minor's guardians yet. I advised them to delete the image until consent via a model release was obtained.
Today, another user probably did something very similar and we had (or are still having) a conversation about it on the article's talk page, which can be viewed here.
I was surprised WP:IUP (and WP:CHILDPROTECT) had no definitive and explicit language about consent and images that deal with minors in this type of scenario. I did try to quickly look through those policies' talk pages and the talk pages of here, WP:Teahouse, and WP:VP to find other similar cases. I was going to post this on WP:VPP requesting an update to the policy language in the image use policy, but before I do, I want to make ensure I am not overlooking some other EN Wikipedia/Commons policy or past discussion where this is addressed?
I do see on WP:YOUNG (which is just an essay), "Never upload or post photos of yourself, your friends, or your family.
"
Do you think my actions were logical in this scenario? Did it follow policy? If so, which policies? What would you have done here? Thank you in advance, --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- P.S. Disclosure: I did post this yesterday at Teahouse, but my questions have gone unanswered and now with the second occurrence of this situation, I would really like to find some clarity. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- If there's PII in the metadata might be worth chucking it at WP:OS or c:COM:OS, Classicwiki. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Not sure if an Oversighter might be able to clarify the exact bounds of what they'd usually supress. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Classicwiki: The images have been deleted from Commons. Can you clarify what more you are asking for? Also, please be patient, it can sometimes take time for a question to get a reply. RudolfRed (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Classicwiki I saw your post at the Teahouse but didn't reply then as I couldn't point you to a relevant policy. I did look at the images in question and thought that you were over-reacting. Commons hosts thousands of pictures categorised as children, many of them much younger than the ones you objected to. Many, no doubt, were uploaded by their parents, who consented to their use on Wikipedia and elsewhere by licensing them. Model release is, I believe, only relevant for commercial use of an image, so irrelevant for use within a Wikipedia article. That said, it would be useful to establish best practice in this area. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Someone added a random A after 1960. Can it be removed?
Coleman was a character actor with roles in well over 60 films and television programs to his credit. He trained with Sanford Meisner at the Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theatre in New York City from 1958 to 1960.a
Thank you. 2601:18C:9083:A9D0:31FA:CB5E:D902:8412 (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Done, thank you for spotting this. TSventon (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
How to disclose a COI and what is allowed.
[edit]I am a former intern for the organization Fairvote. Am I allowed to edit 1. Articles about voting systems in general and 2. Articles about Fairvote itself; and what is the proper disclosure. A Tree In A Box (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @A Tree In A Box. You can definitely edit articles about voting systems in general: it is normal for editors to edit in topic areas that they have experience or interests in.
- You probably should not edit the Fairvote article yourself. Although you are no longer an intern you will still have a CoI. It would be best to disclosure this on your User Page by following the instructions at WP:COI. Then if you wanted to make any edits, do it via the WP:EDITREQUEST system.
- Hope that helps. Qcne (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- So like, for example, the Ranked-choice voting in the United States has a giant 'article may have been paid for' disclaimer. It makes me apprehensive about adding stuff to the article that might be seen as 'on-brand', for example mentioning states that use a ranked choice ballot for overseas military voters to automatically participate in a runoff. I don't know if it's appropriate to just make those edits, or inquire to why the tag is there?
- A Tree In A Box (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hey again @A Tree In A Box. I see you asked the user who added the tag on their Talk Page their rationale for adding the tag, that's the right thing to do.
- I would suggest be bold but be careful. As long as you are sticking to factual text backed up by reliable sources, you should be okay. Qcne (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
"Billionaire" in lede sentence
[edit]Should the world "billionaire" be used in the lead sentence for BLPs, say for example "Harry Triguboff is a Chinese-born Australian billionaire real estate developer" or should it generally be omitted? Articles of notable billionaires (e.g. Bill Gates) generally don't include such but many others do, such as the example above. Zinderboff(talk) 16:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- If there are reliable and independent sources referring the subject as a billionaire, then it's justifiable to include the term in the lede. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- In the lead is normal to reference wealth, especially if there is reliable, independent sources referring to them as such. However I was wondering whether it should be mentioned in the first sentence, since many extremely famous wealthy individuals don't have "billionaire" as part of its title, even though it is certain that many sources refer to them as such. Zinderboff(talk) 05:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Zinderboff The manual of style has some guidance here which I would interpret as saying that you only need to mention the wealth in the first sentence if that is the principal reason the person is notable. In many cases (Gates included) the person is notable for their accomplishments and their wealth is incidental. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Noted, thank you! Zinderboff(talk) 13:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Zinderboff The manual of style has some guidance here which I would interpret as saying that you only need to mention the wealth in the first sentence if that is the principal reason the person is notable. In many cases (Gates included) the person is notable for their accomplishments and their wealth is incidental. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- In the lead is normal to reference wealth, especially if there is reliable, independent sources referring to them as such. However I was wondering whether it should be mentioned in the first sentence, since many extremely famous wealthy individuals don't have "billionaire" as part of its title, even though it is certain that many sources refer to them as such. Zinderboff(talk) 05:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Athlete from my school won a state title
[edit]What is the best way to record in on the local HS page. DMc75771 (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I would unless the student themselves merits a Wikipedia article, and that depends on the coverage they receive in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
change title of page
[edit]Our church has changed it's name and the title needs to be corrected from St Mark's Episcopal Church to St. Martin de Porres Episcopal Church StMartinAlex (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please request a page move at Requested Moves. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @User:StMartinAlex Be sure to say which St. Mark's Episcopal Church. A quick look turned up articles on 37 different St. Mark's Episcopal Churches. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @User:StMartinAlex And are you sure you didn't mean to write St. Martin's Episcopal Church, rather than St. Mark's? That might be the church wanting to make it clear which St. Martin--de Porres, or of Tours. I did third grade in a classroom in a Catholic Church building, in which the classrooms had saints' names rather than room numbers. I was in Blessed Martin de Porres classroom. And during the school year, Blessed Martin was canonized, thus becoming Saint Martin. Sister made a lesson out of that, and taped a sheet of paper saying "Saint" over the "Blessed" on the door, until the door could be repainted. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- thank you for your help - St. Mark's Episcopal Church (Alexandria, Virginia) is the title of the page (I had updated the body a couple of months ago). Our new name is St. Martin de Porres Episcopal Church (Alexandria, Virginia). StMartinAlex (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @StMartinAlex: I have moved St. Mark's Episcopal Church (Alexandria, Virginia) to St. Martin de Porres Episcopal Church. We only add data like "(Alexandria, Virginia)" to titles when it's necessary to distinguish from other Wikipedia articles like all the St. Mark's Episcopal Church. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- thank you! StMartinAlex (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @StMartinAlex: I have moved St. Mark's Episcopal Church (Alexandria, Virginia) to St. Martin de Porres Episcopal Church. We only add data like "(Alexandria, Virginia)" to titles when it's necessary to distinguish from other Wikipedia articles like all the St. Mark's Episcopal Church. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- thank you for your help - St. Mark's Episcopal Church (Alexandria, Virginia) is the title of the page (I had updated the body a couple of months ago). Our new name is St. Martin de Porres Episcopal Church (Alexandria, Virginia). StMartinAlex (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @User:StMartinAlex And are you sure you didn't mean to write St. Martin's Episcopal Church, rather than St. Mark's? That might be the church wanting to make it clear which St. Martin--de Porres, or of Tours. I did third grade in a classroom in a Catholic Church building, in which the classrooms had saints' names rather than room numbers. I was in Blessed Martin de Porres classroom. And during the school year, Blessed Martin was canonized, thus becoming Saint Martin. Sister made a lesson out of that, and taped a sheet of paper saying "Saint" over the "Blessed" on the door, until the door could be repainted. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @User:StMartinAlex Be sure to say which St. Mark's Episcopal Church. A quick look turned up articles on 37 different St. Mark's Episcopal Churches. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
What is the WP:ARBECR policy for talk page discussions?
[edit]If a page is restricted to extended-confirmed editors, you can still make constructive edit requests on the talk page. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Extended confirmed restriction My question is: if a discussion ensues on the talk page after you post your initial edit request, can you constructively participate in this ensuing discussion on that talk page if you are not an extended-confirmed user?
I've made edit requests on talk pages, discussion ensued, then when I tried to participate, my edits were removed, with the citation to WP:ARBECR. But the policy itself is unclear. The policy says "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." Is it saying they may use "the Talk: namespace only," as opposed to the main article? Is it saying they may use the Talk: namespace "only to make edit requests," as opposed to other types of posts (or participating in ensuing discussions)? Or is it saying that the edit requests must be only related to articles within the topic area, and not to other articles or topics? Y2K-96 (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would assume that the use of the word only was deliberate. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but what is the word "only" applying to? That was my question. Does it mean only the talk page? Only edit requests? Or only related to articles in the topic area? The previous sentence is "The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions," so I would lean to interpreting it as saying all pages, except the talk page only, with only referring to only the talk page. Also, are discussions about an edit request considered part of the edit request? Is there any specific precedent we can look at that makes the policy more clear? Y2K-96 (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- If it requires further discussion then it will be discussed by extended-confirmed editors. Further input by non-ec editors is not allowed. The stipulation of the talk namespace only is to make it clear that you cannot take part in project discussions in the Wikipedia namespace or other discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Y2K-96, the "Edit requests only" language was adopted following a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 125 § Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction. Hopefully that clarifies the intent for you. Folly Mox (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, this was exactly what I was looking for! Yet somehow it adds more layers of confusion. It is now clear to me that the "only" is referring to "only edit requests," but it is still unclear to me if a discussion about the very edit request you made is included in the edit request. In the original motion, permissible edit requests were contrasted with "internal project discussions" that "include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions (which non-ec users cannot participate in)." Participating in the discussion of your own non-formalized edit request seems very different than these other "internal" examples. Also, the "Tamzin" proposal which was adopted was characterized as a policy to "limit the exception to nondisruptive edit requests and provide enforcement discretion for other nondisruptive talk page posts." There was a lot of talk about leaving room to allow good faith editors to make innocuous contributions, and to target the policy against sock accounts derailing discussion. My contributions that were removed were clearly nondisruptive and arguably a part of the edit request, so it seems like they shouldn't have been removed. Anyways, I will refrain for now on anything except the initial request until there is more consensus on what the policy actually is. Y2K-96 (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- The whole point of the restriction is to save the hassle of having to make judgement calls about what is and what isn't a disruptive edit and the ensuing debates and disagreements about them. As already explained by SFR, if an edit request requires further discussion, then it will be discussed by EC editors (with no further input by non-EC editors). M.Bitton (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, this was exactly what I was looking for! Yet somehow it adds more layers of confusion. It is now clear to me that the "only" is referring to "only edit requests," but it is still unclear to me if a discussion about the very edit request you made is included in the edit request. In the original motion, permissible edit requests were contrasted with "internal project discussions" that "include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions (which non-ec users cannot participate in)." Participating in the discussion of your own non-formalized edit request seems very different than these other "internal" examples. Also, the "Tamzin" proposal which was adopted was characterized as a policy to "limit the exception to nondisruptive edit requests and provide enforcement discretion for other nondisruptive talk page posts." There was a lot of talk about leaving room to allow good faith editors to make innocuous contributions, and to target the policy against sock accounts derailing discussion. My contributions that were removed were clearly nondisruptive and arguably a part of the edit request, so it seems like they shouldn't have been removed. Anyways, I will refrain for now on anything except the initial request until there is more consensus on what the policy actually is. Y2K-96 (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but what is the word "only" applying to? That was my question. Does it mean only the talk page? Only edit requests? Or only related to articles in the topic area? The previous sentence is "The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions," so I would lean to interpreting it as saying all pages, except the talk page only, with only referring to only the talk page. Also, are discussions about an edit request considered part of the edit request? Is there any specific precedent we can look at that makes the policy more clear? Y2K-96 (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Why is the mobile page not currently the one offered when searching for an article on google?
[edit]Basically, when searching for pages in a browser, or for Wikipedia itself, the desktop page is the one being shown on mobile safari currently, and I must manually edit the link to give myself the mobile site. Is this something more as a result of a Wikipedia issue, or a Google one? Class444SWRail (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Did you scroll to the bottom and click "mobile view"? 331dot (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Class444SWRail: Wikipedia should normally remember your choice of "Mobile view" or "Desktop" at the bottom of pages. That's the official way to switch between mobile and desktop, not by editing the url. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Some mobile browsers (Firefox on Android for sure) will ignore taps on links at the very bottom of the view window, presumably to avoid following links from mistaps where users intended to select the address bar. I haven't been able to switch between mobile and desktop view using the link at the bottom of a page since like 2022, and always have to edit the url. Folly Mox (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Folly Mox: I haven't heard of that before. If it's a common problem then it should be reported somewhere if it isn't already. The switch works for me in mobile Safari like Class444SWRail has. Maybe you can use User:PrimeHunter/Mobile view.js to switch from desktop to mobile. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I should clarify that I am able to switch to mobile view in Firefox 126.0, since elements containing the WMF and Mediawiki logos are forced to the bottom of the page, but I'm unable to switch to desktop view because the Terms of Use, Privacy policy, and Desktop view links are all the way at the bottom. I never considered this might be a bug and not just a browser thing, but it's extremely consistent. Folly Mox (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- As someone who uses mobile view constantly, check that your browser doesn't have a "Desktop Site" option. On Chrome it's on the settings (kebab menu). It is not Google (or whatever site you are using) that is forcing a different version. Your phone is smart enough to go to the mobile version unless it's been told not to. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. I've never had this particular issue (also Firefox Android) but I did sometimes have footnotes hidden by the address bar in mobile view. I'm assuming it may be a bug, but with Firefox, since the option with the browser UI at the bottom of the screen is probably comparatively less tested and has fewer users to report bugs. Just my speculation though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have tried this, it does not move me to the mobile site if I switch between the two Class444SWRail (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- As someone who uses mobile view constantly, check that your browser doesn't have a "Desktop Site" option. On Chrome it's on the settings (kebab menu). It is not Google (or whatever site you are using) that is forcing a different version. Your phone is smart enough to go to the mobile version unless it's been told not to. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I should clarify that I am able to switch to mobile view in Firefox 126.0, since elements containing the WMF and Mediawiki logos are forced to the bottom of the page, but I'm unable to switch to desktop view because the Terms of Use, Privacy policy, and Desktop view links are all the way at the bottom. I never considered this might be a bug and not just a browser thing, but it's extremely consistent. Folly Mox (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Folly Mox: I haven't heard of that before. If it's a common problem then it should be reported somewhere if it isn't already. The switch works for me in mobile Safari like Class444SWRail has. Maybe you can use User:PrimeHunter/Mobile view.js to switch from desktop to mobile. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- It has not been for about a week on my version of Safari, and will refuse to leave the desktop site unless I directly modify the url Class444SWRail (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Some mobile browsers (Firefox on Android for sure) will ignore taps on links at the very bottom of the view window, presumably to avoid following links from mistaps where users intended to select the address bar. I haven't been able to switch between mobile and desktop view using the link at the bottom of a page since like 2022, and always have to edit the url. Folly Mox (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have selected mobile view, but I am remaining on the desktop site regardless Class444SWRail (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Class444SWRail: Are you saying that you see a "Mobile view" link at the bottom of pages but you don't even view the current page in mobile if you tap the link? What if you tap this link: Mobile view. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Class444SWRail: Wikipedia should normally remember your choice of "Mobile view" or "Desktop" at the bottom of pages. That's the official way to switch between mobile and desktop, not by editing the url. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Defunct WikiProjects
[edit]WikiProject Tamil civilization is currently believed to be inactive. The thing is, shouldn’t it be defunct? Most departments have been deleted including all categories. There’s basically nothing about the project that is substantial and there is already WikiProject Tamil Nadu which is active and WikiProject Tamil Eelam is defunct. Do I have permission to make Tamil civilization defunct as well? 48JCL (talk • contribs) 21:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- 48JCL I suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. There may be a process that you should follow. TSventon (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)