Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 April 15

Help desk
< April 14	<< Mar | April | May >>	April 16 >

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 15

Article moved against consensus.

Resolved

 – valid discussion to establish consensus here

See discussion here: [1]. The result of the proposed move was inconclusive, but someone moved the page anyway. Can someone move it back? It's under sanctions, so I can't.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was "Not moved. Move request withdrawn by nominator" - A move performed by someone wouldn't be against consensus; the discussion never had a chance to get to a point where consensus could be determined or not. If you want to request a move, visit Wikipedia's requested moves page and file a request there. This is the proper place to request page moves be performed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

See the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamization of the Gaza Strip, where consensus was established for the move. General Ization ^Talk 01:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Images

while am searching images in google it will not obtain in opened state why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.222.236.251 (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I do not clearly understand what you mean, but I am pretty sure this is about how Google behaves, which Wikipedia has absolutely no control over. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

how to watch all pages in a category?

Is there a way to watch all pages in a category easily? for example all pages in the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology.Panintelize (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. Closest I can find (using Help:Watchlist#Controlling which pages are watched) is the related changes view, but this a) can't be watched and b) doesn't recurse over subcats, so it doesn't really fit your needs. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 07:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Panintelize: Some WikiProjects solve the sub-cat problem by maintaining a separate list of the relevant articles, and that allows the software to show a "recent changes" page for them all. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology#Project watchlist and explore the links in the box at the right. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

thx! Panintelize (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Michael Mount Waldorf School

Section heading added —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 10:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I posted the original content to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mount_Waldorf_School A Wikipedia editor commented: This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (March 2016) I have subsequently removed any content that is subjective and that sounds like advertising; I have removed all promotional content and unrelated external links; I have provided citations where requested; I have linked Wikipedia pages that are available elsewhere; I have re-written portions to ensure that the article is presented from a neutral point of view; I have double-checked all factual information with the School administration. Would it be possible for an editor to look at the article and see if it now meets Wikipedia standards and if the comment about it reading like an advertisement could be removed. Please? Many thanks. (talk) Theresa S Muller (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted two anniversaries. Otherwise, it seems neutral, and I've removed the advert notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Missing edit summary on desktop view from iPad

I don't know if this is the place to do it but there is a bug with the Desktop view from an iPad. When viewing the history of a page the edit summaries are all missing. On PC: http://imgur.com/egg9tyC On iPad: http://imgur.com/MmSyVkh --IngenieroLoco (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

How to define a date for an ancient source?

Area of a circle#Bibliography cites "Measurement of a circle" by Archimedes with "date = c. 260 BCE" — and {{citation}} complains about incorrect date. How can this be solved?
Help:CS1 errors section Check date values in: |param1=, |param2=, ... didn't help. --CiaPan (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Since the editor didn't read a work handwritten or carved around 260 BCE, the citation should look like this:

* {{citation | author = Archimedes | author-link = Archimedes | editor = [[T. L. Heath]] (trans.) | title = The Works of Archimedes | date = 2002 | orig-year =c. 260 BCE<!-- very rough guess based on Wilbur Knorr's claim that 'Measurement' is early work --> | publisher = [[Dover Publications|Dover]] | isbn = 978-0-486-42084-4 | pages = 91–93 | chapter = Measurement of a circle | url = http://www.archive.org/details/worksofarchimede029517mbp }}(Originally published by [[Cambridge University Press]], 1897, based on J. L. Heiberg's Greek version.)

Which renders as:

• Archimedes (2002) [c. 260 BCE], "Measurement of a circle", in T. L. Heath (trans.) (ed.), The Works of Archimedes, Dover, pp. 91–93, ISBN 978-0-486-42084-4(Originally published by Cambridge University Press, 1897, based on J. L. Heiberg's Greek version.

Jc3s5h (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Which 'edition' is actually being cited? The original citation claims:

1. a possible date for the original writing: c. 260 BCE
2. |publisher= and |isbn= refer to a 2002 reprint of
3. |url= which links |title= to a facsimile of the 1897 version

What a mess. Pick one source and cite that. For me, I would choose the 1897 version because it is possible to link to a complete copy of the book:

{{citation |author=Archimedes |author-link=Archimedes |editor-last=Heath |editor-first=T. L. |editor-link=T. L. Heath |title=The Works of Archimedes |date=1897 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |chapter=Measurement of a circle |chapter-url=https://archive.org/stream/worksofarchimede029517mbp#page/n279/mode/2up |url=https://www.archive.org/details/worksofarchimede029517mbp}}

Archimedes (1897), "Measurement of a circle", in Heath, T. L. (ed.), The Works of Archimedes, Cambridge University Press

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I replace the ref with Trappist's version. --CiaPan (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

an article that appears to have been written as a resume/brochure

The article Peter Johnston (negotiator) appears to have been written as an advertisement. I came across it today. It appears to have been written just to promote this person. I don't know if this should be passed to an admin or what wikipedia does. One user edited this article, and this article only. I have started removing what I felt was inappropriate, but this is the first article I have come across that seems blatant. I have heard that you can hire people to write articles on Wikipedia and I wonder if this is one example. Any place to report this or tag it? Alaney2k (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the subject might just pass the Wikipedia notability test, but the article needs lots of work to make it acceptable. Continue removing anything you think is inappropriate, and perhaps someone will add some references to keep what remains from being deleted. Dbfirs 14:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you've made a good start on a fairly common problem. You might want to add Template:Advert to attract more attention from editors who do this work regularly. Template:Peacock could also be applied, but I dislike piling a large load of warnings on a single article. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Alaney2k (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Help moving a page

Resolved

I'm new here and so I can't move pages. I was wondering if someone could move the page New View (Friedberger album) go New View (Eleanor Friedberger album) because somebody moved it to an incorrect title style. Thanks New view from the very few (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I've put a CSD G6 tag on the page to move to, so an admin should be along to do that soon —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 14:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The redirect that was in the way has been deleted. RJFJR (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

... and I've moved the page. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Can CC-BY-SA/GFDL be revoked?

Purely hypothetical, not looking for legal advice. Say an artist (misguidedly) wrote an autobiography and to illustrate this biography uploaded some of his own work with a CC-BY-SA or GFDL template (as of course those are required). Would those works permanently be under those licenses, or could he claim that he did not understand the licenses (or thought they only applied to Wikipedia) and have that release revoked? astro (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

From the legal text of the license:

Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.

— WP:CC BY-SA

The termination mentioned is only if you (the user, not the author) breaches the terms of the license. So as far as I can tell, no, the author can't unlicense previously licensed work. If they claim they didn't understand, they'd have to go through a court of law to try to retract the license: I don't know how that would work, I'd expect the court to rule against the author. This is not legal advise, etc. etc, get a lawyer if you want some of that. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 18:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Legally no, and to get to that point the artist would have needed to have read Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed by anyone at the top of the edit box, and to have checked a you irrevocably agree to release your contribution box on at least two separate occasions so would have great difficulty pleading ignorance. In practice it would depend on the circumstances; most en-wiki admins will look favourably on a request like this if nothing of encyclopedic value is being lost, particularly if the image isn't actually in use anywhere. (If the upload was to Commons, things will be different, as they tend to be much stricter when it comes to "you should have read the small print".) If the image isn't deleted, the artist could escalate via WP:OTRS with some potential of success (particularly if the artist is under the age of maturity) or to the WMF themselves, but the latter will only intervene if there's a highly compelling reason to do so. ‑ Iridescent 18:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! In that case, what could admins/OTRS/the WMF do? They don't have control over the licenses, and even if it did deleted theoretically anybody could use the works from the mirrors anywhere after that? astro (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

They couldn't retract the license, but they could potentially get their work removed from Wikipedia, which in many cases would have the effect of unpublishing it, especially if they're fast after adding it. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 20:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That's true, but on the other hand I guess it would also mean that the artist could never sell it since if the artist ever did decide to "officially" publish it after that, anyone could take it and use it however they wanted. Thanks, that answers my question! astro (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@astro: The license would apply only to copies of the uploaded file and to works which could be derived from it, which would necessarily be of equal or lower resolution. The artist could sell the work in full resolution. —teb728 t c 04:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@astro: And FWIW, some photographers do exactly that, releasing a relatively low-res version here while retaining their rights to a full res image. 05:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Hello, I am having a particular problem with a particular editor over this issue. Recently, Baking Soda made a WP:BOLD edit to the List of state leaders in 2012 and List of state leaders in 2013 articles and I reverted him and told him to discuss this issue on the talkpages. But he then reverted me again, flying in the face of WP:BRD. I am unsure what to do now. Please help, thanks.--Neve–selbert 18:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Generally, you can request a third opinion, dispute resolution notice board, or start an RfC. For this particular case, an RfC on issue has already been closed, you seem to have a hard time grasping RfC consensus results (not the first time). Baking Soda (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Look, firstly, stop stalking my edits. Secondly, the Rfc did not specifically apply to the other List of state leaders articles. Stop these bullying tactics and obligate yourself to Wikipedia policy for once.--Neve–selbert 19:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No to both editors. On the one hand, it does not appear User:Baking Soda is stalking the edits of User:Neve-selbert. On the other hand, the advice of User:Baking Soda to request a third opinion, use the dispute resolution noticeboard, or file an RFC is also wrong. The proper procedure is to discuss at the article talk page, and I see no recent talk page discussion (and so a third opinion or dispute resolution request will be declined). Please go to the article talk page and discuss. If there has been an applicable RFC on another talk page that is within scope, cite it. Please take this content dispute to the talk pages and discuss, before going to any further dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: But surely, as WP:BRD clearly states, he should not have reverted my revert and should have discussed his proposed changes on the talkpage beforehand?--Neve–selbert 19:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, "No to both editors". Both of you are wrong. You are both engaged in slow-motion edit-warring. Just because you are not at WP:3RR doesn't mean you aren't edit-warring. You are. User:Neve-selbert is wrong in making an allegation of edit-stalking. User:Baking Soda has completely missed the first part of the dispute resolution policy, which is to discuss on the talk page. Any editor who tries to use that RFC as the basis for refusing to discuss is wrong, since that RFC was a badly worded RFC and was closed with no consensus except that the concept of Palestine as a sub-state of Israel is wrong. Both of you: Stop Wikilawyering and discuss at a talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Neve-selbert and Baking Soda: Assuming you are referring to the RFC here, the RFC appears to have been closed ambiguously with regards to previous year's pages, and there's a fair bit of discussion of editors rather than discussion of content to sort through. The situation appears to me to be basically awaiting a wider RfC as mentioned on the talk page of the original RfC, but this too is controversial. It really does look like that the RfC had a very narrow range and didn't come to a particularly clear conclusion: the only clear consensus is that Palestine is not a sub-state of Israel in 2016. Since I think this dispute is slightly different to the original RfC, I would recommend talk page discussion on the specific articles under question, to decide if the RfC applies to past articles and if not what does. There is no rush to make the articles perfect, but I'd advise you both to stop editing the affected articles until this dispute is resolved, as you're in danger of warring. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 19:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring and forum shopping is Neve-selberts mode of working. He is not in danger of it, it is what he does. In this care he reverted an implementation of an RfC. That RfC is not ambiguous. Palestine must be listed either as a separate state, or not at all. This is exactly correct, and valid for all years. The discussion on the RfC makes this completely clear, just FYI. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

BRD is an essay and strictly in conflict with CIVIL. –Be..anyone 💩 07:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It is true that BRD has never been raised to the status of a guideline, but is irrelevant. How is BRD in conflict with CIVIL? Being bold is not in conflict with CIVIL. Reverting is only in conflict with CIVIL if it is done with hostile edit summaries. Discussing is only in conflict with CIVIL if it is done uncivilly, and then it hardly qualifies as discussion. Please explain, if you can. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Because one click reverts of (intended to be) constructive contributions are not civil. Anything goes with IAR if there's a good reason to ignore all rules. –Be..anyone 💩 19:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Not every revert is uncivil. It depends on the edit summary. I don't see "revert unsourced addition - please supply source or discuss on talk page" as uncivil. In any case, this comment is really about BRD in general and not the specific issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good revert. But BRD is too often abused to force constructive editors to start the discussion with one click, instead of just starting the discussion with more than one click. –Be..anyone 💩 11:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Considering that the topic of Israel/Palestine is volatile in the real world? it shouldn't be a total surprise that it would be volatile on Wikipedia. IMHO, no editor should be making any bold edits on those articles. Instead, they should bring up their proposals at the article-in-question's talk page, first. Also, I'm in agreement with those, who say that the Rfc-in-question was worded badly & that it has a foggy result. Another Rfc, with a clearer question & clarification on which articles & how many articles are being covered, would be best. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

How does a Saved article get in the process?

Dear Wikipedia, I wrote an article entitled "Character Towns", and hit the save button. Did it go anywhere? Is it in the review process? How do I proceed? Kcharacter (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kcharacter: You article is currently located in the draft namespace at Draft:Character Towns, but has not been submitted for review. To submit it for review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 19:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

But don't submit it yet. Read WP:Your first article and WP:Referencing for beginners. I'll add a few more useful links to your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Just click "save page". Thank you.--Gu-hyun Jung (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Joker venom

Resolved

I see that the article Joker venom has been speedily deleted. Now, I'm not the one who created it, but I would still like to see it preserved, given that it describes the fictional toxin in great detail. There are quite many incoming links to the article. Should I undelete it, or simply redirect it to Joker (comics)? I kind of think the latter is what I should do, even though I would wish on the former. JIP | Talk 20:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that it has already been redirected to Joker (comics). Sorry for the trouble. JIP | Talk 20:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)