Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 February 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.

February 16

Agatha Christie video games template

I added some casual games to the template about {{Agatha Christie video games}}. Not all users were satisfied with it, because the casual games had no separate articles, but dedicated sections in the articles about the novels. Are they OK or they should be deleted?--Carnby (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Carnby: This is a content dispute and should really be discussed at the template talk page to reach agreement with other interested editors. You have already initiated a discussion of sorts via edit summaries and I notice you stated your intention to take it to the village pump. Please continue to discuss, preferably at the talk page; you should start a discussion in general terms, E.g. "I propose that... etc." and add pings to other editors. But, please keep the discussion in one location. Thank you. Good luck. Eagleash (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

3dmdfgwefwer (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I have a wikipedia license? How to buy? I'm a auther and holding the copyright, can I ask wikipedia to pay me the price to licensing my content to wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dmdfgwefwer (talk • contribs) 16 February 2018 13:47 (UTC)

3dmdfgwefwer Wikipedia doesn't issue licences to individuals. Our content is publicly licensed and in general anyone is free to use it as they wish (see Copyrights). Likewise, if you contribute anything yourself to Wikipedia, it has to be original work – not copied from anywhere else; you receive no payment and you agree that it may be re-used by anyone. This page will tell you more about contributing.

On another point: I can't understand why you have copied a Wikipedia article on to your user page. If you see a copyright problem with that article, please report it as explained here, or if you find that difficult just come back to this Help desk and state as clearly as you can what problem you see. You don't have to have a user page at all, but if you do set one up it is normally used to give a few brief details about yourself – we have an array of userboxes available. Finally, when you sign your posts please do so at the end of your post, not in the heading: Noyster (talk), 14:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the user page as a copyright violation, for which it had already been tagged. It also looks sammy on a user page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Every time you add anything to Wikipedia, you do so by hitting the button called "Publish changes" at the bottom of the edit screen. When you do that you are agreeing to our terms of use. The text on the edit page right above that button reads "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." So you already licensed it to us. The terms of use include your agreement that the material you submit does not violate anybody else's copyright. -Arch dude (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Logo update and change

Looking to change the logo on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napa_Valley_Wine_Train to its new one.

While I've had my account for months, I haven't made the required 10 edits to be autoconfirmed and upload the newer logo. It's non-free use and I'd like to keep the existing file's non-free use description at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Napa_Valley_Wine_Train.jpg#Summary and simply upload the new file.

Is this possible without uploading to commons or requesting a file upload? I'll be making a series of edits to the article copy and links in the coming days, but would like to change the logo first.

Matthew.Davidson (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If you make the text changes you intend to make, you'll hit the 10 edit mark, and then your account will be autoconfirmed more-or-less instantly. Just take care of the logo issue at that point. This is your eighth edit. Two more and you'll be fine. --Jayron32 15:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you—didn't realize I was at eight. Much appreciated. Matthew.Davidson (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Matthew.Davidson: Logos should be uploaded to Wikipedia rather than to commons. Eagleash (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Matthew.Davidson: Non-free logos are only permitted if they are actually used on a page. So when you replace the old logo with the new one, the old one will be deleted automatically after a week or so. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I've added the image of the new logo, but it now displays a compressed/distorted version of the old image and file, even though the proper image appears in the file history. Unsure how to resolve. Matthew.Davidson (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz:

Resolved—browser cache issue. Widened px. Thank you all. Matthew.Davidson (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Pomfret School page

Apparently, there is no editor assigned to this page. I rewrote the original version a couple years ago and monitor it. If it would be helpful to list an editor, I'd be happy to serve. I'm a graduate of the school, served on the Alumni Executive Committee, and serve as my class Secretary. Jacques Bailhé 15:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbailhe (talk • contribs) 15:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There are no assigned editors. If you are interested in the article, you are welcome to work to improve it. Read WP:COI RudolfRed (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A Wikipedia page does not have an individual assigned editor, see WP:Page ownership. Pages are edited by consensus among any unconnected editors. Editors with a potential conflict of interest can make suggestions on the article talk page, supported by references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Confusing article

Hi. This article is not about our project at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heads_and_Tails_(Russian_telecast)#Season_1

It confuse our partners from another countries. Can it be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.73.199.233 (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be deleted, but the title can be changed by moving the article. What title would you suggest? What project is it being confused with? Dbfirs 16:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Archiving Talk Page

Hello,

For some reason, I think I am archiving my page wrong. I am trying to use ClueBot and I set the parameters for 90 days, which should mean some November posts would be archived, but it is not working. I was wondering if I am doing the coding wrong. Would someone mind checking out my talk page? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the parameter was set as age=2360, so it was only archiving things that were 5 years old. I switched it to 90 days, so that should now work. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: For ClueBot archiving, the "age" is a number of hours - see User:ClueBot_III/ArchiveThis#Required_parameters. I think the problem is that the archiving was set up less than an hour ago, and the bot may not have got round to it yet. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Joseph2302: and @John of Reading: I guess I just expected it to happen instantly. If nothing happens by tonight I'll post back here. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for my mistake. Yes it runs overnight (usually between 00:00 and 05:00 UTC). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Drug Lords and Serial Killers are NOT Celebrities

Why does Wikipedia allow names of serial killers, terrorists, school shooters, and drug lords to be listed along with the deaths of celebrities? Those types are anything but celebrities and their lives nor their deaths should be listed along with those who tried to do something worthwhile with their lives. In face, they deserve no mention at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.190.29 (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

We don't call them celebrities, and I'm not aware of us having a "celebrity deaths" feature. Neither do we have a policy of damnatio memoriae. DuncanHill (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedians don't make value judgments on who "deserves" to be mentioned based on what they've done with their life. If their life (and death) is notable, we cover it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see where Wikipedia calls those people celebrities. I also see nowhere that "celebrity deaths" is shown at Wikipedia. If you can direct us to the problem, we can maybe find a solution, But I am not aware of either of these coming up at all. --Jayron32 17:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia reports on the lives (and deaths) of people who are notable in the Wikipedia sense. I.e. they have received sufficient coverage in reliable independent sources for them to be deemed worthy of an article. This applies to persons in all walks or aspects of life; good, bad, saints, evil monsters. If they've had the coverage, they will be someone people will search online for and therefore they are included. Lists of deaths are no different and will include all persons with articles who died in the period written about. Eagleash (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Naming someone doesn't make them a celebrity. If what they did is abhorrent, it could be argued that naming them is shaming them. But I don't think this type of project aims to make value judgements, as another editor has already pointed out. I think we primarily aim to provide good quality information which means information substantially supported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

An RfC for List of totalitarian regimes? Help with wording

The article List of totalitarian regimes has some significant problems. It has no references, and at a recent AfD the closing admin said "the criteria for inclusion needs [sic] to be beefed up and better defined" - in fact, there are no obvious criteria. The article history is strewn with reversions, unexplained additions or removals, and there has certainly been some sockpuppetry. I have thought about opening an RfC on the article, but am having trouble thinking of a suitable question to pose in it. Any suggestions please? DuncanHill (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's probably a worthwhile list, if we could clean it up. The biggest issue to me seems to be ensuring that every entry has reliable sources to back it up; and that reliable source should be scrupulously scholarly (i.e. journal articles and/or books by respected historians and/or political scientists) and NOT things like editorials and newspapers and blogs, etc. The criteria for inclusion should solely be "a reliable source has classified this as a totalitarian regime" with the caveat I just noted. I also think one step to fix it up would be to remove the categorization headers and just leave it as an alphabetical (or chronological, that works too) list of such states; we could probably also tighten up the tables by removing the "ideologies" and "end goals" sections; that feels a little too OR-ish. --Jayron32 19:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

ARCA Space Corporation

ARCA Space Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not quite sure what to do in this case.

Came to this Wikipedia article after seeing the company's videos on YouTube. They are ... rather odd. Not sure that they have ever actually succeeded at doing anything other than building mockups, and putting out promotional material. The Wikipedia article reads like the company website ... long explanations that do not go anywhere.

Seems like they had one or two rockets, that flew - long ago - and not well. Lots of failures, and lots of funny business. They are a very small outfit, prone to radical changes in direction between projects, without succeeding at any. (Or at least there is no proof of success.)

There is a lack of sources to back up any of their claims.

They show a UAV, on the ground, of dubious design. (Translation: I rather doubt it can fly.)

Their latest video series is of the construction of their new AeroSpike rocket. OK, I think the AeroSpike (from Rocketdyne) is quite interesting. Thing is ... rockets are tricky. You want to build and test smaller engines before building larger engines - especially with a new design. They do not seem to be testing any of their engines. With their AeroSpike they went straight to a full-size engine on a full size rocket.

Assuming what they show is not just a mock-up. One portion of their video showed fabricating what looked like an aluminum plate, and bolting to the edge of the rocket nozzle. (Aluminum has a low melting temperature, and seems rather likely to melt in the nozzle.)

I am not sure whether this outfit is a fraud, or just some very wooly folk.

How is this sort best dealt with on Wikipedia?

pbannister (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

pbannister, sorry you haven't had a reply. Refs 18 & 25 in the article indicate that you are not the only one to have had doubts about this company's management. However, bear in mind that it's not the job of us Wikipedia editors to form our own assessment of this company's products, techniques or business methods. We follow what "reliable sources" have to say. Much of this article is cited only to the company itself (linked via web archives) and if no independent sourcing can be found for such content, it could be flagged with {{third-party inline}} or similar, or preceded with "According to the company's website..." As to the external sources cited, those of us who don't read Romanian are at a disadvantage in assessing these. A search for more independent coverage in English would be the way forward: Noyster (talk), 14:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

noyster Thanks. I have two uncertainties here.

One is at the level of slightly less basic article editing. Have not in past had need to use the fancier features of Wikipedia, so unclear what is appropriate.

Second, they entered Google Lunar X Prize, so *some* mention seems appropriate. On the other hand, there is no verification of their claims, or at least none that I can find. As a guess, there was a local rocketry club in Romania about a decade ago, and ... no proof of what they did.

If writing the article on ARCA, could mention Google Lunar X Prize entry, link to the company website, and note the absence of reliable sources or proof to the company claims. And that is all we could reliably say. Would make a much shorter article. :)

I am somewhat hesitant to do such violence to the article, but at present, the article is quite misleading. pbannister (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi again pbannister. Our article on Google Lunar X Prize says that ARCA entered, but later withdrew, so that's not much of a claim to fame.

Articles are often better for being shorter. I expect we would keep any significant information that does have a reliable, independent source, either in the article already or that can be found reasonably easily. We do say in our sourcing guidance that "The organization's own website is an acceptable ... source for ... most basic facts", but in this case there seems reason for taking that source with more than a grain of salt. We could say in the article "The company stated on its website that ...", but we wouldn't go on to say "there is nothing to corroborate this" unless a "reliable source" had published a comment to that effect. Our own comments as Wikipedia editors belong on the article's talk page.

It's remarkable that no-one ever put a "welcome" or anything else on your talk page in all the years you've been editing. I've placed a table of links to our "Help" pages there, which I hope will guide you to anything you need in editing Wikipedia: Noyster (talk), 20:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)