Help desk
< April 20	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 22 >

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.

April 21

File I uploaded but cannot find

I uploaded a picture and did not use it right away. I had wikipedia open in two separate browsers, one of which had the picture links and the other of which had the articles I was uploading into.

I closed the picture links browser and later found the article I wanted to upload the picture into but I can no longer find the link. I have previously tried to upload the same picture twice and had it rejected as a duplicate.

I would like to find the link to the other picture. I have tried looking in my uploads and contributions and it does not appear since I did not actually copy the link into an article. What can be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feddacheenee (talk • contribs) 01:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The upload log doesn't depend on the file being used. Many files are uploaded to Commons which has separate logs from the English Wikipedia. Is it shown at commons:Special:Contributions/Feddacheenee? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The warning messages on both Wikipedia and Commons provide a link to the file that is being duplicated or overwritten. You should be able to find the file from that. Spinning Spark 12:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found them, thank you for your help. Feddacheenee (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Search within articles belonging to a WikiProject

Is there any way to search within articles belonging to a particular WikiProject? For example, could I find all articles containing the word "stem" whose talk pages belong to Category:WikiProject Fungi articles? (CatScan doesn't seem to search for text strings, and also handles articles separately to their talk pages.) Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could do this for you with AWB, but I hope someone comes up with a better answer. AWB can create or import a list of the 10K articles in the category; and using the AWB database scanner I could create a list of the 25K articles that mentioned the word "stem", as of April 2nd, the date of my downloaded database dump; and AWB has a tool that can intersect two lists. Messy! -- John of Reading (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the pages you are trying to search are not actually in the Wikiproject category (it is the talk page that is in the category) so no search string is going to work. You can search based on a category that is in the article. The search stem incategory:fungi seems to work, but it does not include the subcategories so each one would have to be searched separately. Spinning Spark 12:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the replies. John – no need to go to that much effort, as I've come up with an easy way to generate a list that's close enough to what I was looking for: searching stem gills cap, "gills" and "cap" being descriptive terms that would usually be present in fungus articles containing the word "stem". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 23:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Adrian J. Hunter:. Two pieces of information: firstly, there is already a bug open on this at Bugzilla but with no sign of anything happening on it. Secondly, Commons has a gadget FastCCI which does something similar. It might be worth asking at WP:VPT how easy it would be to adapt this for Wikipedia. Spinning Spark 18:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to expand?

Hi, can somebody point out to me how to expand, the bottom template, Atmospheric, oceanographic and climate models at General Circulation Model, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the template so that the "state" parameter now works. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, John prokaryotes (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

iron maiden album cover art work

I realize that I may be out of my element, but would love to see a page developed for the illustrations of Iron Maiden's albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.49.131 (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a subject that has received significant coverage by reliable third party sources?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've already got one. See Eddie the Head. --Jayron32 14:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

mistake in list of activated military aircrafts of india

hi sir,

IN HELICOPTER SECTION INDIA HAS ALSO GOT 22 AH 64 APACHE HELICOPTERS PLEASE DO WRITE IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsaxena (talk • contribs) 12:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source for this you can add the fact to the article yourself. Be sure to add a cite to your reference. If you do not have a source then no one here is going to add it for you. Spinning Spark 16:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

naming convention for new article.

I am writing (ok, going to write) and article on the Alexander Brothers, not to be confused with the Alexander Brothers. My article is about a pop music duo that recorded for Mercury Records in the early 1950s, and had a charted hit with Goodnight Irene. What would be the best practice for naming this article? Alexander Brothers (Mercury Records artists), Alexander Brothers (1950s), Alexander Brothers (USA)? Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Brothers says they are from Scotland and have been performing since the 1950s, so "1950s" would be a poor disambiguator. Readers are not expected to know the record label but when your subjects are not Scottish, nationality is good. We don't write the name of the country, and if we have to add nationality then the profession is also there. I suggest Alexander Brothers (American musicians). The search intitle:"American musician" finds other examples like that (although only for single musicians). PrimeHunter (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help with getting permission for image through Wiki commons and Wikipedia

Hello,

I am seeking help for obtaining permission to use a photo for a page on wikipedia. I looked at the page to put a image to a wikipedia page and followed all the instructions. I uploaded the image to wiki commons, got permission from the original owner of the photo and also sent a email to the permissions email, I then put a tag on the wikipedia page and then the photo uploaded fine and everything. However, the next day the photo was removed by a admin from wiki commons because he claims that I lack license even though I had sent a email and got confirmation.Of course the image then got deleted from the wikipedia page also. I do not know what to do next since I followed all the steps. The photo is for the article "T.J. Warren" if anybody could help that would be great. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatsDefeat (talk • contribs) 15:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

commons:File:Tj warren in the NCAA tournament.jpeg was uploaded to Commons as you say. That means it must be dealt with there regardless where the image was used. Wikipedia administrators like me cannot undelete files at Commons, or see which license information was on the deleted file page. You can try asking at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright, or wait to see whether a Commons admin happens to see your post here. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:OTRS which explains how to verify you have permission to use an image. The OTRS ticket system can be used on Wikipedia also. Spinning Spark 17:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whipple's disease

How can I introduce the new references Nr. 9 and 10 in the d list of references concerning Whipple's disease?

edite≤ref≥9 Feurle GE et al. Gastroenterology 2010;138:478-486 and ≤ref≥10 Feurle GE et al. Journal of Infection 2013; 66:263-270 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerhard E. Feurle (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerhard E. Feurle:I've fixed it for you. Your mistakes were that the reference needs to be added at the place you want it to be referred, not in the references section, the numbering is done automatically by the system, not by you, and ref names cannot be a number. In any case you only need to name them if you want to use them in several places.

In my opinion the material you have inserted is not written in the style of an encyclopaedia with a general reader in mind. I am inclined to restore the paragraph you removed in the treatment section which at least has the benefit of being easily readable. I also note that you seem to be citing your own work and you should consider whether you have a conflict of interest here. Spinning Spark 17:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

copyright license and evidence of license for a free use photo to be shared on the creative commons

This is a question about the copyright of a photo I would like to use in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito_Canepa It regards a photographic portrait of a painter which I owned and donated to the collection in his name at the Dominican Studies Institute of the City University of New York.

The photo is not published in any work. I have an email from the archivist at the Dominican Studies Institute Archives telling me that the photo can go up on the Wikipedia Commons, that is, can go into the creative commons but that I should caption it: Portrait of Tito Enrique Cánepa,ca. 1942. The Dominican Studies Institute Archives, The Tito Enrique Cánepa Collection.

It has proven impossible for me to understand what choices to make in the file upload wizard.

I have assumed:

1) This is a free work 2) This file was given to me by its owner

I then fill out the information on the 3) owner/author, date of creation, source and permission.

Then, under "The copyright owner has chosen the following license", I can choose 4) "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (If I choose "public domain" there is a law that has to be cited. This probably does not apply)

However, it is impossible for me to understand what choice I should make under 5) "Evidence" (choices include "The license statement can be found online at", "The license agreement has been forwarded to Wikimedia's copyright service at ....", "The license hasn't yet been forwarded, but I will do so shortly or ask the owner to send it himself", or "I haven't got the evidence right now, but I will provide some if requested to do so."

None of these "Evidence" choices apply, unless I am to say that I am asking the owner to send the license to "permissions-en AT wikimedia.org" but this seems complicated and may not be applicable.

Can you please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ercan1 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ercan1: First of all, this is Wikipedia, not Commons, and we have no power over Commons decisions. You seem to be very unclear over who actually owns the copyright of this work. The copyright is usually owned by the person who made the work (that is, the photographer in this case). If that is not you then you do not own the copyright and are not able to grant Wikimedia a licence, even if you are the owner of the actual work. You must get permission from the person who does have copyright. Once you have that you should be in a position to follow one of the options at the Commons upload. Spinning Spark 17:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bobcat Bite, Old Vegas highway

This place had to close due to a contract problem with the property owner.

They relocated in the heart of Santa Fe and changed their name to SANTA FE BITE.

Their menu is the same as it was before. The restaurant shares the property with a Hotel, and serves breakfast only on Sundays but continues with their lunch and dinner menu. Steaks, chops, and burgers, [including their infamous 16oz burger cooked to perfection]. as before. I might add they are doing more business because the place is larger and hold many more customers.

The Bob Cat was on the page that contained New Mexican Cuisine at the very bottom.

Dick Daniels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doork (talk • contribs) 17:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article New Mexican cuisine does indeed mention Bobcat Bite in the See Also section. The latter page mentions that the restaurant's website redirects to the Sante Fe Bite Downtown restaurant. If you have reliable sources supporting this information (and most of the references on the existing page are definitely not reliable), you can add it there yourself. Rojomoke (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to Email the Good Friday Article

How can I email a article (Good Friday) from your website to my friend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert165 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest way is to send your friend the URL (the page's address). That would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday. Rojomoke (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

make a page

Hi Could you make a page for this book in Wikipedia, plaease. Me and My Friend President Obama: Concise memos of my cooperations with The White House and CIA http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JSVU7NW http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JGZX3ZY Publication Date: April 3, 2014 ASIN: B00JGZX3ZY (ISBN-13: 978-1499129533 ASIN: B00JSVU7NW) 88.250.23.94 (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not without evidence that the book meets our notability guidelines (specifically Wikipedia:Notability (books)). Which it doesn't. Incidentally, since you are clearly User:Peyman Ghasemi (the author of this book, I note), please sign in next time you post to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misnomer

Re Category:Religious skeptics, James Randi is skeptical of religion but he is not religious, so religious skeptic is inaccurate. Shouldn't we say Religion skeptics, or maybe Skeptics of religion? Should it be renamed? Moriori (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But guess why I came here? Because, at the Category:Religious skeptics talk page where I first went, it has two banners, both saying "Attention Talk pages in this namespace are generally not watched by many users. Please consider visiting the Help desk for a more prompt response or reviewing the Categorization FAQ for quick tips.". Moriori (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A religious skeptic need no more be religious, than a child psychiatrist need be a child. Maproom (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word child is a noun whereas religious is an adjective. The correct comparison would be a childish psychiatrist which no longer makes your point. However, religion skeptic is not a normal construction in English, I would take some convincing that it is ever used at all. Spinning Spark 23:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. In "religious skeptic" the word "religious" is an adjective, describing the skeptic. That's not what is meant, and I think Randi et al would be tickled pink to see Wikipedia label them as being religious. Moriori (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EC. Spinningspark, you have admirably made my point for me. Yes, exactly, a childish psychiatrist is a psychiatrist who is childish. And, a religious skeptic is a skeptic who is religious. Agreed, "religion skeptic" is odd English. Did you miss the bit where I mentioned "Skeptics of religion"? Moriori (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "religious skeptic" and "religion skeptic" both get hits, but not many of the latter actually contain the noun phrase "religion skeptic" (they mostly have punctuation between the words), and of those that do, most relate to one man, Paul Kurtz. "Religious skeptic" clearly has some currency, and seems to have wider currency than "religion skeptic". Whether the various people described as "religious skeptic" meet your definition of what the phrase should mean I haven't checked; but it seems clear to me that "religious skeptic" is a much more common phrase than "religion skeptic", and so is the appropriate phrase for a Wikipedia title. In my view your analysis of the phrase is irrelevant: words and phrases mean what they are used and understood to mean, not what somebody thinks they should mean. --ColinFine (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to reinstate an article?

How to remove the {{prod blp}} tag from an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinjanous (talk • contribs) 22:28, 21 April 2014‎

Physically, you remove it by removing the content that make up the notice. Appropriately, you remove it AFTER you provide third party reliable sources that discuss the subject in a significant manner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say: First check the Wikipedia Policies to see is it doesn’t conflict with things like Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. Then come back here.--Aspro (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once it has already been deleted, you can follow the process under WP:REFUND. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 April 21

Contents