Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 March 1

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.

March 1

Inaccurate information in article, can someone fix it?

Spartacus, the historical figure, of course has its own page, because Wikipedia is a hub for all knowledge for as far back as we have records and educated guesses.

So I can't even begin to imagine how many poorly written high-school essays have been plagued with the first line of that article. The first line indicates that it was not just completely factual and real Spartacus who began the slave rebellion, but his fictional super-friends, Crixus, Oenomaus, Castus and Gannicus.

Which does not make sense since Gannicus, a very official and Roman sounding name, does not actually exist. Why? Because the shows producers, knowing that Andy Whitfield was undergoing treatment for his cancer, needed a strong male character to take the mantle of champion until Crixus was a viable character. So they made a Latin sounding name, because anything with the prefix "-cus" sounds relatively Romany. Mark my words, though, it is a fake name.

As for the rest of them, Crixus, Oenomaus, and Castus (and Gannicus, but we already know why he's not real), there is no citation of their existence. The fact is, the writers needed good, strong, and memorable characters to throw in to support Spartacus and the rest of the cast to make the show really come alive for us viewers, but they would also have to be characters who never existed.

So, I will say this again, Crixus, Oenomaus, Castus, and Gannicus never ever existed. Could someone please edit the Wikipedia article to properly show this? And these characters have even been given their own freaking pages. They're not even REAL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.69.2.18 (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As you say, they have their own pages, linked in Spartacus which lists "Crixus, Oenomaus, Castus and Gannicus". I examined the first article Crixus. The page history [1] shows it was created in 2005, while Spartacus (TV series) premiered in 2010. Crixus#References lists several ancient Roman sources which mention Crixus, for example "Appian, Civil Wars 1.116" from 73 B.C. which says: "There many fugitive slaves and even some freemen from the fields joined Spartacus, and he plundered the neighboring country, having for subordinate officers two gladiators named Œnomaus and Crixus". All four articles have references so no, I will not remove the people or claim they never existed. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, (in this case) Appian was writing about the events of ~73 B.C., but he was writing in the mid second century A.D. Still, if Crixus, Oenomaus, etc. are fabrications, they are very old ones. Rwessel (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead images in biographical articles

I've noticed many biographical articles show a recent photo of the subject in the lead, often in preference to a more "iconic" image that would better represent why the person is known or notable. For example, in the article on Art Garfunkel, the lead photo is a 2013 photo of the subject, even though the lead states that he is best known for his performing career as part of the Simon & Garfunkel duo. Is there a specific guideline about this, or is this just something that has emerged in practice? 67.188.230.128 (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:LEADIMAGE. Dismas|^(talk) 05:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The section you linked covers lead images in general but does not address my specific question, which is about how to choose from among several possible images of a person for the lead image of a biographical article. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

An important point is that an image of the subject of an article (and not just the lead image) should be a freely licensed image, rather than a copyrighted image used under fair use, unless no free image can possibly be obtained—for instance, if the subject is dead and no freely licensed images taken during his or her lifetime can be found. (See WP:NFCCP.) That's why so many biographical articles feature photos recently taken (usually by Wikipedians) during public appearances and uploaded with Wikipedia-compatible free licenses; as long as such a photo is available—or can be taken—the use of any older, copyrighted photo is prohibited. Deor (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. And to address the concerns over the link I provided, point 1 at that link is often considered to mean that the image should be able to be used to identify the subject, if living, as they are now. Dismas|^(talk) 11:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text

I am Paul Wheeler the origonal time line is wrong , I have corrected and now I apparently have to jump through some sort of hoop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skwawks (talk • contribs) 06:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Your contribution record shows no edits other than this question. Could you please give us a wikilink to the article about which you are concerned? --David Biddulph (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a Paul Wheeler mentioned in the article for Cartridge World which has a time line. Perhaps the OP is referring to that article (which needs a good deal of help). There have been a number of edits made to it of late. Dismas|^(talk) 06:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Citation date for a 10-years later paperback edition

Regarding this: I have the page numbers, but not for the edition that was published the year the book itself was first published. Normally I'm not a stickler for ref template formatting, but this needs to be perfect before it's added to the article for ... reasons ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, you should cite all the information for the edition of the book that you are holding in your hands. It is not at all uncommon for later paperback editons to be expanded, modified, and have errors corrected. So cite the edition you actually read. You can note "first published 19XX" as long as it is crystal clear which edition you have read. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

question about a crime in 1966 spanish harlerm ny

ok now what — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AE9D:2420:55BB:7CB9:61DD:E037 (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If your question is about editing a Wikipedia article, please give details right here. If it's a question about the crime itself, you could try contacting our Reference Desk and give the details of your question. : Noyster (talk), 10:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia plagiarism site

This site, which calls itself the Marine biology resource network and masquerades as a copyrighted "database of marine species", appears to contain extensive plagiarism of Wikipedia. Where should the matter be referred? --Epipelagic (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere, really. I can copy what you just said and use it however I want. Same with everything on Wikipedia. Part of the contract mentioned above the "Save page" button. The writer at this crab article remembered the attribution part.

When someone doesn't, you can refer them to the same contract. If they choose to break the terms, there's probably not a lot to do, as far as legal remedies go. And what there is is probably too expensive.

Half the Internet (or close) copies Wikipedia. It's sort of what we're here for. No real harm done, since this site doesn't carry advertising or use paywalls. No incentive for hoarding knowledge. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

What a defeatist and destructive attitude, Hulk. This is an extreme example of a mirror site abusing the work of Wikipedia editors. The site is in fact fully monetised through advertising revenues and does not generally acknowledge its input from Wikipedia. I personally do not choose to spend my time building Wikipedia articles so creeps like these can rake off criminal profits. Is there anywhere else can I ask for sensible input? --Epipelagic (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not that site, this site. Wikipedia's a free encyclopedia. Knowledge is power, and if we're helping someone make money and spread knowledge, that seems constructive to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for how these are handled, particularly Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process. Remember that only a copyright holder who's copyright is being violated (i.e. a contributor of some of the content which is alledgedly being misused who hasn't release it under an additional licence they may be using or in to the public domain) can take action. And it would probably be best if copyright is clear, i.e. someone who contributed substanial content rather than simply spelling or grammar corrections or whatever. Also remember that neither the CC BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL licences (they can use either presuming no content was copied from a CC only source) prevent commercial use. They do however require attribution, although AFAIK there would be no need to attribute wikipedia, they could nominally just attribute the copyright holders properly (e.g. with a copy of the edit history and log), albeit since contributors often use pseudonyms they may have to link to the wikipedia user names. Both are also copyleft so copied content (whether a pure copy or modified) would need to be released under at least one of the licences, or some other compatible licence and they would need to make this clear. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I left a similar message here.  DiscantX 14:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I had a look at the site, and presuming it's true they copied content from here without special additional permission from the original authors, it does look non compliant. From one of the examples given at ANI, it's possible User:Cwmhiraeth is the copyright holder for a bunch of the copied works. You could ask them if they are intested in pursuing this, but remember it's their choice. Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Epipelagic refers to not wanting to spend time building articles so that others can rake off criminal profits. What is the crime? In the particular example given, Wikipedia's copyleft was attributed. If the copyleft was not attributed, it still isn't clear that the plagiarism rises to the status of criminal plagiarism. I see three possible cases. First, the copyleft is attributed; there is no violation. Second, the copyleft is not attributed, but the copying web site does not claim copyright. I am not a lawyer and do not know whether there is a tort, let alone a crime. Third, the copyleft is not attributed and the copying web site does claim copyright. There is a violation of Wikipedia's copyleft. Since Wikipedia is not trying to make a profit, is Wikipedia being ripped off? Maybe the enforcement of Wikipedia's copyleft is a question for the WMF. However, what exactly is User:Epipelagic saying is "defeatist and destructive" about permitting a mirror or fork? The loss of Wikipedia's share of the profits? I haven't seen the analysis as to how much profit is involved anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I did read the analysis. There is no loss by Wikipedia, only by its contributors, who were probably not trying to make a profit anyway. Once again, what is "defeatist and destructive" about Wikipedia not taking aggressive action? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it's helpful to single out one example where licence terms may have been followed (although even there, it's still confusing since the bottom of the site claims copyright to the site and that all rights are reserved). Definitely other examples at ANI, e.g. [2] seem worse. Now, I haven't checked myself, but the comment at ANI would seem to suggest their content was probably copied from us. Yet they don't seem to give any attribution to contributors (e.g. via a hyperlink to wikipedia), nor any indication the content is under a copyleft licence. Considering as with all pages on that site, it includes the standard copyright statement, the lack of such an indication is even more troubling since it would likely lead many to believe the content is copyrighted by the site with all rights reserved rather than being copyleft.

BTW, I'm not sure whether it's helpful to get into a "loss"/"profit" argument. At least on the software & GPL side, it's been established in a few court cases, and to some extent via settlements, that there copyright holders of such content still have the right for their copyright to be enforced, such as requiring reusers to comply with the licence terms, regardless of their lack of intention to profit. If you don't personally care, that's obviously up to you, on the other hand, others surely are also entitled to be concerned with non-compliance on a site which chose copyleft licences with attribution requirements.

However as I said earlier, ultimately only copyright holders can demand enforcement. While I guess the WMF could get involved by supporting contributors/copyright holders, I'm not sure it's ever happened.

Nil Einne (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Some pages acknowledge Wikipedia.[3] --  Gadget850 ^talk 23:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, if the page acknowledges Wikipedia, there is no violation and no other issue. I still don't understand what Epipelagic is saying, but maybe that doesn't matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Name of the school has changed - please help!

Hi,

I wonder if someone could please give me an advice as the school I work for has become an academy as from today, 1st March 2015. The name of the school has changed slightly and although I have changed the text successfully, the title is still there on Wikipedia showing the old school name 'Saint Cecilia's, Wandsworth Church of England School'. Could you please let me know how I change the title to the new school name which is Saint Cecilia's Church of England School? Thank you in advance - any help would be greatly appreciated. Saint Cecilia's, Wandsworth Church of England School — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAIN2015 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I moved the page per your request and the school's actual website. A redirect with the "old" name will be kept, so the article can be found searching with either name. (I have changed your "external" link to an easier "internal" Wiki-link to the same target). GermanJoe (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"How to" information about page moving can be found at Wikipedia:Moving a page. GermanJoe (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Mild parkinsons

I have mild parkinsons disorder. What is wikipedia doing to help people like myself navigate this site more effectively? 89.242.90.7 (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As part of the Manual of Style, we have Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility and we have a group of people working on that issue Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility. If you have ideas of how the guidelines can be improved, please provide your comments on their talk pages. However, the biggest impacts to accessibility are likely to be made via the non Wikipedia avenues of the global HTML standards, how the various web browsers implement those standards and how the hardware on your computer is designed to facilitate your use of the Web. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Correction and addition to existing information.

Hello there, I am wanting to add some factual information in the information provided for 2 Pakistani cricketers. Mr.Fazal Mahmood Mr.Duncan Sharpe. There are some useful things which I have as am grandchild to Mr.Sharpe and I feel Wikipedia hasn't got enough about him. Kindly get back as I also have emailed you on the address provided on the contact page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.117.243 (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Information for Wikipedia articles must be verifiable as having been published in a reliable source. If you have such sources, you can leave messages on the articles' talk pages directing other editors to those sources. We cannot however, use your personal knowledge. Because you have a conflict of interest, you generally should not be editing the article directly, because it is hard for people with such connections to edit from an appropriately neutral point of view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Double Redirect? Broken Link? Link returns me to same page.

Re: Aeria Games ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I have a question about a Wikipedia link within an article I see. I click on the link, and the link returns me back to the same article/page that I was just on (the article where I first found the link). Is this a double redirect? Can you please tell me how I can stop this from happening? I think I might also want to create a page for the linked item or update it, but I can't see how to get into the non-existent? 'page' to edit it. I'd really like to at least not have it take me right back to the other page I don't want to keep seeing there when I click on the link.

It's found on this page: 'Aeria Games' The link is: 'Grand Fantasia'. (When I click on Grand Fantasia, I am returned to 'Aeria Games' page - but I want to see the Grand Fantasia page, how other links work, instead.)

Thanks for having this help page available and any help is much appreciated! I'm really enjoying adding things to games pages I see and editing for practice, and this will help with updating Grand Fantasia (if it's still allowed, I suppose). Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by VonFeist (talk • contribs) 21:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no article on English Wikipedia for Grand Fantasia, and it redirects to Aeria Games. Therefore the thing to do is de-link Grand Fantasia in that article, and I have done so. If and when a Grand Fantasia article is created, the redirect can be deleted and the link re-added. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Women's History Month

President Jimmy Carter did not issue a Presidential Proclamation regarding Women's History Week or Month. The Presidential Proclamations were issued by President Ronald Reagan (Presidential Proclamation 4903 and 5619).

Here is the Library of Congress website with the correct information. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/commemorative-observations/women_history.php

I hope that you will make every effort to correct the record. President Jimmy Carter may have gotten the ball rolling, but there is no record of an official Presidential Proclamation by him regarding Women's History Week or Month.

Thank you for working to document history accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.67.138 (talk)

Please note the information from the Law Library of Congress website (http://www.loc.gov/law/help/commemorative-observations/women_history.php)

"Women’s History Month had its origins in 1981 when Congress passed Pub. L. 97-28 which authorized and requested the President to proclaim the week beginning March 7, 1982 as “Women’s History Week". As requested by Congress, President Reagan issued Presidential Proclamation 4903 proclaiming the week beginning on March 7, 1982 as the first "Women’s History Week" and recognizing the vital role of women in American history: •American women of every race, creed and ethnic background helped found and build our Nation in countless recorded and unrecorded ways ... As leaders in public affairs, American women not only worked to secure their own rights of suffrage and equal opportunity but also were principal advocates in the abolitionist, temperance, mental health reform, industrial labor and social reform movements, as well as the modern civil rights movement.

Throughout the next five years, Congress continued to pass joint resolutions designating a week in March as "Women’s History Week" and authorizing the President to issue a proclamation to inform the country of this recognition and urge the people to study the contributions of women to U.S. history. In 1987 after being petitioned by the National Women’s History Project, Congress passed Pub. L. 100-9 which designated the month of March 1987 as “Women’s History Month.” This law requested the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe this month with appropriate activities and ceremonies. President Reagan then issued Presidential Proclamation 5619 proclaiming March 1987 as "Women’s History Month" and calling upon all Americans to mark the month with observances to honor the achievements of American women. Between 1988 and 1994, Congress passed additional resolutions requesting and authorizing the President to proclaim March of each year as Women’s History Month."

Please correct the inaccurate information on your page titled "Women's History Month." Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.67.138 (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Carter's 1980 statement: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=32996. Reagan's 1982 proclamation: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42216. Only the second is called a proclamation. I don't know the significance of that in this case but it seems very hard to ignore Carter just because it wasn't called a proclamation. The Law Library of Congress website starts when congress got involved in 1981 and authorized the President to issue a proclamation in 1982. Presidential proclamation says: "In the United States, the President's proclamation does not have the force of law, unless authorized by Congress." Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and not here to only report what the U.S. congress does. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

To the original poster... This belongs on Talk:Women's History Month and put a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History. I'll copied them...Naraht (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Started a new wiki account and cannot gain access.

Dear Wiki Reference Desk,

I have access to this account, but on my mobile device I have access to my new account. I tried retain the password through the setup protocols, but the server is sending a message that the email is not correct. I created this account along time ago while using a substance. I did not know I had to accounts on the wiki servers. I apologize to everyone for taking up server space, and once I regain access to my other account this account should be erased. I have a set routine of passwords but all have seemed to fail. By the way, the captcha encryption is VERY hard to read as you attempt to retain passwords. I know that's probably a fail safe, and thank you for placing it there, but some eyes are not good as others. I recommend a new form of captcha encryption if possible. In my eyes, even allow verifying through SMS message through other forms of telecommunications. Any assistance would be appreciated. I love every member on here for there hard work on this collective server site. Keep up the hard work, but dont work too hard. ONE LOVE, bless you, Have a wonderful day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sctinker37 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sctinker37, I recommend WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)