Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 February 10

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.

February 10

How to indicate that I have copyright permission

My page (Draft: Eric T. Costello) was deleted because of copyright infringement. I now have written permission from the copyright owner. How can I add this permission to my new page?

THIS IS THE PERMISSION I RECEIVED; BELOW THAT IS THE MESSAGE TELLING ME THE PAGE WAS DELETED From: Davis, Lester [1] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 9:18 AM To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Cc: Doreen Rosenthal (Doreen.Rosenthal@gmail.com) Subject: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org I hereby affirm that I, Lester Davis, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://www.baltimorecitycouncil.com/District11/default.htm. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Lester Davis Copyright holder and Director of Communications & Policy January 22, 2015

MESSAGE NOTIFYING ME THAT MY PAGE WAS DELETED: A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

11:15, 1 November 2014 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page User:DoreenRosenthal/sandbox (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoreenRosenthal (talk • contribs)

According to the copright notice on the source page the copyright owner is the Baltimore City Council, not Lester Davis, so Lester Davis will need to prove that he is properly authorized to act on behalf of the council. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm unclear on why the text would need to be released under a free license to begin with since we only rarely use text verbatim from a subject's website. I'm not the OP but could someone explain that aspect to me? Dismas|^(talk) 01:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Finding instances of source

Suppose you consider a particular source unreliable (e.g. National Enquirer). How can you go about finding instances of articles that cite the National Enquirer as a source? I remember there's a tool for doing this somewhere. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Special:Linksearch works for ones with an external link. —Cryptic 01:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was looking for. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Search for recently added text

Currently, message notifications are not working reliably (phabricator:T72329), so I'm looking for a way to find any instances of my user name added in the last week or so. Is there a way to search for this? (I posted a similar question at mediawikiwiki:Help_talk:CirrusSearch#Edit_date.2Ftime_53704, but I want to be open to ways other than CirrusSearch, since it doesn't look like it can do that.) — Sebastian 02:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This may not be what you're looking for, but as a non-tool-user I'd come up with a way to do it manually a few years ago (as a sockpuppetry hunting method). All you have to do is to search for the target string with profile set to "all", note the number of hits and logging the results in a spreadsheet. I was running my check monthly, but I could speed things up by searching within the results for "January 2015" (for the last month). It's pretty simple when you only have less than 10k instances of your name in the results. For you it's a piece of cake. Here is the basic search with profile set to "all". If you search for "February 2015" you'll find that your name has only been introduced into the encyclopedia 21 times since February began. You can tweak this search further by increasing the value of the limit. I set it to 1000, but you can change it to 2000 or more. I hope that helps. -Thibbs (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Note also that I was trying to determine changes to the number of instances so I was interested in additions or deletions of the name. You wouldn't need to note the number of hits and log the results in a spreadsheet if you're only interested in additions of your name. -Thibbs (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurelle_Mehus

I requested February 3, 2015 that this article and the photos under the same title be deleted. The article is no longer factual and needs to be deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlntundra (talk • contribs) 03:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

CORRECTION- the article and the photos under the same name in wiki common need to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlntundra (talk • contribs) 03:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The article will be deleted soon: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurelle Mehus You will have to ask at Commons for the photos to be deleted. Since they are uploaded under a free-to-use license you may encounter some pushback. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is no longer factual and I want it deleted immediately. I requested this February 3, 2015. it needs to be deleted immediately. I am blocked from wiki common and can not request the photos be deleted. I did request the photos be deleted on the talk section of the article February 3, 2015. The photos need to also be deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlntundra (talk • contribs) 04:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bluntly, your "wants" are irrelevant. The discussion I linked to above will run for seven days and then the article will be deleted according to the discussion. Repeating the same thing over and over again will not do anything. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This requested was made February 3, 2015. It is 7 days. If you check the TALK page I believe the discussion began February 2, 2015. I am telling you - you have an article about me - that is not factual. I requested it be removed February 3, 2015. You said it would be taken down in 7 days. It has pasted 7 days and you have been notified it is not factual. I am requesting you take the article and photos down immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlntundra (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is gone. You can plead your case at Commons for the photos. We cannot do anything about them here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Referencing errors on C. K. Nayudu

Reference help requested.

Thanks, Bariissh (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Hi, Pl help me fix an error in this page that I edited. It says duplicate page is created by error.

These reference errors are long gone. At the time (June 2014) there was a pair of <ref></ref> tags with no reference between, and separately there was a {{cite book}} template with both fields

page=

and

pages=

present. You can have either of these fields, but not both. Please see this page for basic help on inserting references: Noyster (talk), 11:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Change name of an article

The Institute for Energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Energy) changed name in 2012. Now it is called Institute for Energy and Transport. Could you assist me with the update of the title of the article and how to set up a redirection from the old name to the new one.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkostov (talk • contribs) 09:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done See Help:Move for future reference. - X201 (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Change title of a topic

How to change the title of a topic ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imewhy26 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

See the answer above. --CiaPan (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Conference transcript citation help

How do I cite this lecture/conference? Cite conference was obviously NOT thought up for cases like this:

Giulio, Alfieri; Carlo Felice, Bianchi Anderloni; Orsi, Adolfo; Colombo, Alessandro. The Maserati 3500 GT (PDF). The Maserati 3500 GT, by its designer, Giulio Alfieri; Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia, Milan, 12 April 2000. Associazione Italiana per la storia dell'automobile, conference. Vol. 46. Translator: Christopher Gawne. AISA.

A mess. What the citation should convey is that Alfieri etc. weren't authors of a paper, but rather lecturers at a conference titled “The Maserati 3500 GT, by its designer, Giulio Alfieri” and hosted by AISA at Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia, Milan, on 12 April 2000; the transcript was then translated and published on AISA's website. — Cloverleaf II (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You can create a citation manually (i.e. without using a template) by enclosing text formatted however you like in <ref></ref> tags. For example here's one pretty ugly way to convey what you want:

"The Maserati 3500 GT" (PDF). The Maserati 3500 GT, by its designer, Giulio Alfieri; Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia, Milan, 12 April 2000. Associazione Italiana per la storia dell'automobile, conference 46. Lecturers: Alfieri, Giulio; Anderloni, Carlo Felice Bianchi; Orsi, Adolfo; Colombo, Alessandro. Translator: Christopher Gawne. (AISA).

Enclose that in <ref></ref> tags and you're good to go. Or modify it however you want, enclose it in ref tags and then post. Note also that the "Name, Other name" credit format should be "Surname, Given name", not "Given name, Surname". -Thibbs (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Also note however that citation styles like MLA and APA do list conference presenters at the start of the citation, so I wouldn't say your initial reference was improper at all. -Thibbs (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Sure, I didn't notice I mixed up the "first" and "last" fields. So in your opinion the corrected template would be acceptable? I also wanted to add wikilinked footnotes, but something like "AISA 2000, p.x", or "Alfieri 2000, p.x" doesn't read right. What would you suggest? The problem is the same, this work being a transcript hasn't an author proper. – Cloverleaf II (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I think the template would be fine with that one correction. As far as footnotes are concerned, I'd probably just go with something like "Alfieri 2000". Alfieri may not be the author, but if it's his words that were transcribed then he's as close to an author as we're going to find. I think that's what would be expected. -Thibbs (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Tagging citation needed

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for being a complete newb. I literally created a wikipedia U/P 10 minutes ago. I did check FAQ but could not find an answer. I am trying to edit an article whose neutrality has been questioned. There is a important sentence in the article that begins "Research shows..." but there is no reference or citation given anywhere in the article that would point a reader to this "research." I would like to place a mark at the end of this sentence pointing out that a reference or citation is needed and not given. How do I do this? Thank you--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by BacSD (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, BacSD, and welcome to Wikipedia. Don't worry about being new: we were all new once! What you're looking for is a cleanup template. You can find out about all of them at WP:Cleanup templates. The one you want is called "Citation needed", and you add it by inserting {{citation needed}} (including the paired curly brackets). immediately after the relevant sentence: this displays in the article as . Good luck. --ColinFine (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, BacSD that change is probably uncontroversial; but be aware that if you're editing an article which has been the subject of dispute, it's often worth discussing any changes on the article's talk page before going ahead and making changes. See WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BacSD (talk • contribs) 16:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

interwikilinks, tool unuseable, could need some help

Sorry, it seems that I am too stupid to use the "new edit feature":

I simply wanted to add an interwiki link to an other version of an article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inimitable_Jeeves (english, here the link should be added) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Jeeves (german addition, this link should be added to "other languages")

after about 15 minutes I gave up. sorry people.

The German version covers the whole series, there is no article in German Wikipedia only covering this one subject, therefor the automated tool wont find anything. Maybe somebody has more time left to waste and wants to add the link.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.176 (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Interlanguage links are typically not more added manually here as, say, [[de:Reginald Jeeves]], but as wikidata items for what you find with an item by title search for either enwiki:The Inimitable Jeeves or dewiki:Reginald Jeeves, and as it happens the latter d:Q521812 does not yet match the former d:Q7742044. At that point I don't know how to fix it, or if it is as it should be (different wikidata items.) –Be..anyone (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification, but still: There wont be an article for the single books in German any time soon (German Wikipedia people wont find it "woth noting in an own article" therefor even there will be one, it will get deleted in no time), as a reader of English Wikipedia who happens to be native German speaker, it was a hassle to hunt down the translated/transcribed article. Therefor I would perfer to add a link. But how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.176 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The dewiki folks went into some revert + speedy delete mode when I tried to add [[:en:HMS Proserpine (1777)]] as Interwiki link or soft redirect for an IMO not notable topic needed on a German page, and I fear the rules in the other direction aren't better. Some kind editor later simply created a German [[HMS Proserpine (1777)]] page for this ship. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Interlanguage links at Wikidata are always 1 to 1 with mutual links. The English Jeeves is correctly linked back and forth to the German de:Reginald Jeeves. The English The Inimitable Jeeves is more specialized and cannot be linked to the same German article. That happens all the time. If readers of The Inimitable Jeeves want to find related but not identical articles in other languages then they can look for a more general English article which will often be linked in the opening sentence, like here: "The Inimitable Jeeves is a semi-novel collecting Jeeves stories by P. G. Wodehouse ...". If you click P. G. Wodehouse then you get even more languages but less relevance to the topic of The Inimitable Jeeves. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Anchor link

There is one word which appears twice in an article and I want to link them. I have followed the instructions in WP:ANCHOR but cannot make the anchor link work. I think it may be because the word needs to be wikilinked and italicised as well [as] (word added later P-123) linked. The article is Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya and the word is mutawatir. Can you help, please? ~ P-123 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, P-123. Sorry, I don't understand your question. What do you mean "I want to link them"? At present there are two instances of 'mutawatir' in Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya, both of which are wikilinks to the redirection page mutawatir which redirects to the section anchor Hadith terminology#Mutawatir. What is it about this that you want to change? --ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

ColinFine: I meant link them to each other. The word mutawatir appears twice in the article. I want to link them so that when clicking on the first one it goes straight to the second one. I also need to wikilink the second one to the section of the article where "mutawatir" appears, as you noted. This was done before in an earlier article I worked on. I looked at the wikitext there but could not duplicate it as the wikilnk there was straightforward without any italics. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see, P-123. I think this is a quite bizarre thing to do, but it should work fine. Italics are irrelevant, as long as you don't try to put them in the link. You mark the destination as {{anchor|mutawatir}} and the link as ''[[#mutawatir|mutawatir]]'' (note I've put the italic markers outside the link). I've just tried this and it seemed to work for me (but I haven't saved my trial edit, as I don't know which way you want to link them: neither way round makes any sense to me). --ColinFine (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

While technically possible, it is quite improper. any blue link should go to the main subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you a citation for that, TheRedPenOfDoom? WP:WIKILINK tells you how to do it, and doesn't mention any restriction on doing so. It seems to me that linking to a section of a page is quite common, when a page uses a concept that does not merit an article of its own, but that gets described within in a more general article; and within a single page, to link a mention of something to a section of the page which expands the matter. What I found odd about P-123's request was that the word 'mutawatir' occurred twice in the page, but neither was a section heading, so to link in this way needed adding an anchor. --ColinFine (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:OLINK "Do not create links in order to highlight or draw attention to certain words or ideas in an article. Links should be used to help clarify the meaning of linked words, not to place emphasis on the words." WP:LINKCLARITY "The article linked to should correspond to the term showing as the link as closely as possible given the context" WP:SPECIFICLINK "Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link" . Links are to be used to go to articles not navigate within an article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Section links. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

ColinFine You have described in your second example exactly why I wanted the two words linked. The wikilink alone was not enough to give the reader the needed information. Your instructions worked, thanks. I cannot see what is odd about the words not being in section headings, though. I have seen this done before, several times, for the same reason, and assumed it was fairly common practice. That type of linking of words in the text but not headings is very useful and can help Wikipedia readers a lot. ~ P-123 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Maproom has removed your link to the anchor. Apparently, they agree with me that such usage is inappropriate. A link should provide more information about the word linked - either a Wikipedia article, a section in a Wikipedia article, or a Wiktionary entry. I removed the unused anchor. The internal section you were linking to with the anchor is not the primary or best description of the word available on Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss You say, "The internal section you were linking to with the anchor is not the primary or best description of the word available on Wikipedia." How would you know that? Have you looked into this, as I have? I am staggered that two outside editors, who have not been involved in the intricate talk page discussions on this page (principally about clarifying the text) as I have, feel able to make sweeping judgments of that sort. ~ P-123 (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this area, but it seems intuitive to me that a section called Hadith terminology#Mutawatir probably is a better description of "mutawatir" than a section called Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya#Authenticity. If I'm wrong, the redirect for mutawatir needs to be changed to point to the latter section, and the former section needs to be renamed. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That link was carefully thought through. Its removal means that readers will now be as confused by that word as they were before. How about you sort this out for the editors on that page? You will find all the information you need on its Talk page. ~ P-123 (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

All of the necessary explanation is in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. If an editor has trouble understanding it or disagrees with it, they are free to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. And they will get the same answer I have given above. If linking to Hadith terminology#Mutawatir would be confusing in the context of that article, then add some prose to clarify things. It might make sense not to link mutawatir there, or you could create a link to the internal section some other way. I can't say what would be best in this specific case, but if you link mutawatir it needs to use the redirect. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

ICBB. I'm not a Wikipediholic. You say, "If linking to Hadith terminology#Mutawatir would be confusing in the context of that article, then add some prose to clarify things." That was already done. You say, "It might make sense not to link mutawatir there, or you could create a link to the internal section some other way. I can't say what would be best in this specific case, but if you link mutawatir it needs to be to Hadith terminology#Mutawatir." Those things are exactly what the anchor link I provided did. Please inform yourself before criticizing or handing out advice. ~ P-123 (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The anchor link did not use the redirect (I modified my comment before you added yours) and to use the anchor link for the word mutawatir would be clearly contrary to MOS. That's about all I have to say on this, perhaps others would care to argue with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said, ICBB. I'm not a Wikipediholic. ~ P-123 (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, Mandruss, to use the anchor link for the word mutawatir would clearly be contrary to MOS. Elementary Watson. IDMB for P-123. Perhaps not. 194.169.217.74 (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a really weird idea to make links wandering across the article contents. Links are supposed to direct you to a new article (or a section of an article) which defines or describes the term shown as a link. They are not for pointing to another place of use of the same term in the same text. Your explanation of 'reader confusion' does not convince me. If you think the reader needs to get enlightened in the matter, write a separate section to explain a specific meaning of 'mutawatir' in the context, which is not covered in Hadith terminology, then make internal links to that section.

IMHO, linking one instance of the word to the other, and the latter to another page simply does not make sense. Nothing guarantees that readers will follow them in the order you presume, so they may miss your point anyway. KISS! --CiaPan (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:CiaPan may be referring to the KISS principle, offering a new form of WikiLove, or something else, but I don't think the link to the disambiguation page was intentional. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That's right, of course should be KISS principle! Sorry for the mistake and thank you for clarification. No kisses... --CiaPan (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm watching with interest to see when the momentum of the ball I started rolling runs out! ~ P-123 (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup, the KISS principle, meaning "Keep It Simple, Stupid!" couldn't be more appropriate here. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha. I can't stop laughing... Thank you for the laugh Mandruss and my Polak friend CiaPan . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.169.217.51 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Martin Luther signature

Note that the picture of Martin Luther's signature is capsuled: "The Signature of Martin Luther King" Obviously that is incorrect--should only be ". . . of Martin Luther." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.197.81 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed at Commons in [2]. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)