Help desk
< April 10	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 12 >

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 11

Image licence

Hi Folks, this is regarding the image: File:Grove House School.jpg Does anybody happen to know what licence its asking for? Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 01:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope_creep, You have uploaded File:Grove House School.jpg. You have said that its "Immediate source" is "Bruce Castle Museum & Archive", that its "Original publication" is "Unknown", but that its "Date of publication" was 1842. If there's good evidence that it was published in 1842, then what makes you think that it's not in the public domain? -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was donated by Bruce Castle Museum specifically for the Joseph Lister article. It is 1842. I dont know if its in the public domain. Would you expect it to be a PD image? scope_creep^Talk 01:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: There was a website with this image on it, the schools of tottenham, that had a caption explain who attented the school, and it stated it was 1842. I contact the website owner, who sent to Bruce Castle Museum. scope_creep^Talk 01:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I check this. It seems to be the right rationales. This can be closed. scope_creep^Talk 01:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope_creep, "1842" is written on it. This doesn't mean that it was published in 1842. And you've had the page announce: This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person. But pretty obviously the creator is long dead. My hunch is that no agency employed the person to create the image; but if any did, it would probably be defunct by now. Elsewhere, you seem to imply that the museum holds the copyright. All this adds up to a legalistic confusion. Or is it just me that's confused? -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Generally, it's not a good idea to ask the same question simultaneiously on multiple noticeboards. I already posted a response at WP:MCQ#Image licence for reference. Moreover, the rationale you provided for the file isn't "right"; in fact, I would argue that the way the file is being used in Joseph Lister#School doesn't satisfy WP:NFCCP at all. Simply providing a non-free rationale for a file's use doesn't automatically make it policy compliant per WP:JUSTONE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope_creep, commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom says any work originating in the United Kingdom must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both the United Kingdom and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Is it in the PD in the UK? In order to determine this, you'll have to know something about its publication history, without which you won't be able to navigate this simple algorithm. As for the US, commons:Commons:Hirtle chart says that yes it's in the PD, and therefore (if it goes to Commons) should be labeled "{{PD-US-unpublished}}". -- Hoary (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marchjuly: @Hoary: So according to the Hirtle chart it is public domain. Why would the curator state it was copyright, when it is clear created before 1923 and more important, what do I need to do now to resolve this. Deborah Hedgecock in her email wished it to be used only within Wikipedia. I spent a lot of time looking for this image. There is more of these that I feel is worth getting. This is a culturally significant level-3 important article that I intend to take to FA. The mans whole life existed in the 19th century, and I know there is many other images of this kind waiting to be discovered. scope_creep^Talk 09:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c:COM:Hirtle provides some general guidance regarding the application of US copyright law. It seems to be considered fairly reliable, but Commons (like Wikipedia) might not be as up-to-date as some other websites. Copyright laws can vary, sometimes quite a bit, from country to country. Commons generally requires that something be "free" (i.e. either released under an acceptable free license or within the public domain) in both the US and the country of first publication. If this image was first published outside of the US, then it's possible that it could be "free" in the US, but not the country of first publication. It's also possible for something to be "free" in the country of first publication, but not in the US. In either of those cases, Commons most likely wouldn't be able to keep the file. You might want to ask more about such things at c:COM:VPC.

I've got no idea why the museum told you the image was protected by copyright. It could be they just are mistaken or perhaps they know more about the image's provenance than you, I or anyone else. I think some organizations think that when they digitalize something like an old photograph or post it on their website that such a thing grants them copyright ownership; however, I don't think that's the case (except in perhaps some unusual circumstances). The other possibility is that the image isn't as old as it seems; maybe someone actually created quite recently based on an old photograph or some old drawings. Essentially, that might make it a new drawing of a very old building and thus too new to be ineligible for copyright protection. Regardless, Commons doesn't accept "For Wikipedia use only", "For educational use only", "For non-commercial use only" types of licenses; so, if the museum does have a valid copyright claim to the image, you will need its c:COM:CONSENT for the Commons to keep the file.

I don't share your opinion regarding the current non-free use of the file. It may be an "important" image in your opinion, but the way the file is being currently used doesn't (in my opinion) satisfy WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 as well as item 6 of WP:NFCI, and it seems very unlikely (again in my opinion) that a consensus could be established for its use in Joseph Lister#School. There would be a much better chance of justifying the file's use in Grove House School if it needs to be licensed as non-free content than in any other Wikipedia article. While it's great you're trying to get the Lister article promoted to FA, this type of questionable non-free would most likely not pass muster in a proper FA review and you would likely be asked to remove it. In addition to NFCC#1 and NFCC#8, there may also be issues with WP:NFCC#4. Non-free content is required to be previously published somewhere and in some way so that its copyright status can be assessed. NFCC#4 is probably not going to be an issue if the museum is using the image on its website or in any of its print publications, or if the image has published on other third-party websites or print publications. If, however, the image has remained unknown to the world until now and Wikipedia is where it's going to make its debut (so to speak), then meeting NFCC#4 may be a problem. There are ten non-free content use criteria that each use of a non-free file needs to meet for the use to be considered acceptable. Even if one criterion is not met, the use is not considered OK. Two of the ten criteria seem to be clearly an issue and another one might be an issue with respect to the current non-free use of the file. Of course, this is just my assessment on the way the file is currently being used, and you can ask for more input at WT:NFCC if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, you write: So according to the Hirtle chart it is public domain. No. According to my reading of the Hirtle chart, it is in the public domain in the US. (I'm not confident of my interpretation, because you say Why would the curator state it was copyright, when it is clear created before 1923, and I've no idea what significance "before 1923" has here. You're not interpreting this as a sound recording or similar, I hope?) The boundaries of the PD in Britain aren't determined by US laws. Also, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. was a US court case, not a British one. [W]hat do I need to do now to resolve this. [...] I spent a lot of time looking for this image. There is more of these that I feel is worth getting. [...] I know there is many other images of this kind waiting to be discovered. Please carefully read the materials to which Marchjuly and I have pointed you. If there's anything in it that you don't understand, ask. Until you're very certain that you understand both (i) the relevant boundaries of the public domain in both the US and Britain, and (ii) the relevant facts of authorship and publication of what you contemplate uploading, please do not upload any more images, whether here or to Commons. -- Hoary (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an asking. Why do you think I posted these help requests. Listing a field of information like this, doesn't help in this context, because most people don't understand all this, including me. All I need is a path to clarify the points needed to made the image stay for use on Wikipedia. Clarify the points that need to be satisfied to make this happen. I will contact the curator and see why she thinks the image is copyright. I can post the email message if you need it. That is all I have to interpret is what is there. I would have assumed it was in the public domain and I'd seen it in any other context. Its not a new image. It was created in 1842 and it has been published previously. scope_creep^Talk 12:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image was previously published on "Tottenham: A History" by Christine Protz in 2009, but it has been used prior to that. scope_creep^Talk 12:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sound recording. scope_creep^Talk 12:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've forwarded an email to the curator and asked her to clarify some of the information that is detailed on her. scope_creep^Talk 14:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, you say that the original picture had "been used prior to" 2009, which is encouraging; but unfortunately use of this flowchart (about the PD in Britain) requires a lot more precision. If the picture is not in the PD, then matters become a lot more complex, as Marchjuly explains above. (One matter is simpler than I'd feared: Although Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is merely a US decision and Britain isn't [yet] part of the US, the WMF holds that a faithful reproduction of a 2D PD image is itself in the PD.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi again scope creep. First, my apologies if some of my comments made it same as if your asking for help was wrong. Of course, asking for help is always OK and there's nothing wrong with asking for help about something like this. However, it might be better to ask for help first before uploading any files when you're not sure because that might make things less complicated.

Next, even if a file is deleted for some reason, it's not gone forever; deleted files are just hidden from public view and they can be restored at a later date by an administrator (like Hoary) if the issues that led to their deletion are subsequently resolved. It may be impossible to resolve some issues, but sometimes things can be sorted out so that a file can be restored.

Please don't repost any emails you exchange with the museum here on Wikipedia because (1) that's probably not really going to help resolve things, and (2) it might be considered a violation of WP:OUTING. If you really want someone to see the contents of an email you received from the museum, then perhaps discussing it by email with an administrator or Wikimedia VRT or maybe even via WP:IRC might be better.

You might want to ask about the file at c:COM:VPC. I know that means you'll have to explain everything once again, but if the Commons community feels the file is PD in both the UK and the US, then that's the place for the file to be uploaded. There might be some cases where the file could be uploaded to Wikipedia as some sort of "PD-USonly" type of license, but those can be tricky to sort out. Moreover, such a thing wouldn't apply if it turns out the first publication was after Janaury 1, 1927. Even if the 2009 publication wasn't the first time the image was used, the date of first publication would need to be found (or reasonably found) to determine whether the file is truly PD. That is why I'm suggesting you ask about this on Commons because someone there might be better off helping you.

As for the time being, here's what I suggest you do. Remove the file from Joseph Lister and add it to Grove House School instead since that is really (once again in my opinion) the only potentionally valid non-free use of the file. Before doing this, however, make sure you update the file's non-free use rationale to reflect the file's new use. Then, add the information you found about the file being published in the 2009 Prtoz book as the "immediate source" of the file. Try to add as much information as you can about the book (isbn, page number, etc.) as the source as well as whatever you know about the "original source" of the image. There's no way, in my opinion, to justify the file's non-free use in the Lister article, but the file can be re-added to that article if it turns out that file is actually PD.

Finally, Hoary is correct about Commons policy on photos of PD works of art in that Commons policy doesn't consider a new copyright to have been generated by subsequent slavish reproduction of such works even though some copyright laws of certain countries might recognize such a thing. Now, here's the rub to that. Commons might accept the photo and you might be able to use it on Wikipedia, but any relationship you've established with the museum or those working for the museum might end up being strained as a result or you may have to worry about other things that aren't really of a concern to Commons and need to assess whether these other things might affect you in some way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, you say "All I need is a path to clarify the points needed to made the image stay for use on Wikipedia". I'm sure you are aware that there might not be any such path. I wish you luck in any case. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a chat at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. scope_creep^Talk 21:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IPad issue

Wikipedia is now broken in my ipad. Everything used to work fine, but now I get these "tap to show" or whatever and when I tap on the text, the tap to instruction disappears, but nothing else happens. I am left with just a blank spot. I generally look at math and physics articles and this is really annoying. The (mathml I think) worked fine before. Why is all this changed where I have to tap to get things which are essential to the article. As it is, images do not work at all in my ipad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.183.254.175 (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got an answer for you - I suggest you ask at WP:VPT, because that's where people who know about the user interface hang out - but I do know that it's much more likely that somebody can answer you if you say what system you're using. Is this on the app or a browser? If a browser, then Safari or something else? (I suggest you don't answer those questions here, but post at VPT, including that information). ColinFine (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi

I rep Mike Tyson and it lists his old company Its now TYSON 2.0 not Tyson Ranch. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:588:100:F370:0:0:0:427B (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The thing to do is to post an edit request (see that link for details) at Talk:List of celebrities who own cannabis businesses. Please disclose your conflict of interest there (as you have here), and provide a reliable published source for the change. Wikipedia goes by what can be verified rather than what is true. ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upsetting a new editor

Hello, I accidentally upset a new editor and now I'm wondering if I made any mistakes. The editor in question is User:Emoquinn76 and the incident arose because I was reviewing Draft:Forever and a Day (soap opera) and discovered that Forever and a Day (soap opera) had been recreated after another editor moved it to draftspace for incubation. I wasn't 100% sure whether I should have nominated the page in mainspace for speedy deletion, but it seemed like the logical course of action. I also declined the draft because I felt that it had issues with WP:NPOV, WP:PROMO, and WP:NOTPLOT. This led to a disagreement on the user's talk page because I accidentally misgendered one of the actors in the production, and the user is threatening to put the incident on social media. I would like to avoid causing any further grievances and was hoping for assistance. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that I was in error. I'm going to familiarize myself with WP:COI, WP:AGF, WP:CSD, and WP:DRAFT before reviewing any more drafts. Are there any other guidelines I should familiarize myself with? Is there a way to check what pronouns a user prefers? TipsyElephant (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TipsyElephant. Since part of this episode was interaction with a newcomer, you might also like to read/re-read WP:BITE. I don't think the Help desk is a good place for evaluating conduct, either yours or Emoquinn76's. If you'd like my thoughts on the matter, we could discuss at your user talk page (ping me) or mine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On pronouns: many editors indicate their gender via Preferences→Internationalisation→Gender used in messages. If they've made that choice, you can see it if you enable Preferences→Gadgets→Navigation popups, which is a really useful tool for all kinds of reasons. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TipsyElephant said that the issue was when they misgendered one of the actors, not another editor. ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The very end of their last message was "Is there a way to check what pronouns a user prefers?" (stress mine) -- Fyrael (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

help

hi how do I make a new post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kota3141 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kota3141. You have just made a new post. If you mean, how do I make a new encyclopaedia article, then I must tell you that that is a very difficult task and I always advise new editors to spend a few months improving existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before they try it. But the starter's guide to creating articles is Your first article. ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a bot that removes page protection icons once the protection expires?

Hello,

I have noticed that the page protection icons stay up once page protection expires.

Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Chan_Lee&type=revision&diff=1038312944&oldid=1036840097 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_A._McKean&type=revision&diff=963855443&oldid=950190695

It seems that people have to manually remove the icons for now. Is there a bot that automatically does this? If not, someone should create one. Yleventa2 (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yleventa2: MusikBot II usually handles removing protection icons after the protect expires. It's not always immediate so I would give it a few days. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

High-quality sources

I want an article be a FA. As it does require high quality sources, how can I decide if the quality of the source is high? Dr Salvus 16:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the source. Review the reliable source criteria, espeially the section on reliablility in specific contexts. Check the perennial sources area of the reliable sources notice board. Many wikiprojects have lists of known good sources or known problematic sources, so look at related projects. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, FAs need high quality sources. The type of source does vary somewhat depending on the nature of the subject, but I'd generally advise you to rely on scholarly work as far as possible - peer reviewed journal articles and monographs. Newspapers might be 'generally reliable' for general assertions about people doing stuff, but I wouldn't rely on them for information of a scientific nature, or for analysis of art history or architecture or whatever - go to scientists and scholars for that type of content. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counter for last 7 days and last 30 days

Hiya,

is there an edit counter where I can see how many edits I have during the past 7 and past 30 days?

I know I can use [1], but is there a way to see that directly, without having to interpret a list?

--Keimzelle (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can see it using the XTools Edit counter, like this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not exactly what you were looking for, but if you look at your contribs, and click on 'Search for contributions', you can put in a date range. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, these two replies are really helpful!--Keimzelle (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble Editing My Signature

I've been trying to edit my signature for the last hour and when I go to save it, the Validator keeps saying "Your signature contains invalid or deprecated HTML syntax: Missing end tag: ". This is the signature code, "[[User:Physeters|'''Physeters''']] [[User talk:Physeters|✉]]". I've put "" everywhere I can think of and I can't seem to resolve the problem. The strange thing is that if I just place the html code normally, "Physeters ^✉", it works. I don't know what I am doing wrong, but would like to learn for future. Help would be appreciated! --Physeters (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-related - that signature looks like it's too big, vertically, and bumps up the line before it, which is no good. casualdejekyll 18:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you on mobile? I'm on a laptop computer, and I don't actually see that. Physeters (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something I notice: There are more span openings than span closings. Would

<span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic; background-color: OrangeRed;border-radius:7px;padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">[[User:Physeters|<span style="color:Gold">'''Physeters'''</span>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Physeters|<span style=>✉</span>]]</sup>

work? (Specifically I added a /span after your username inside the link to close that span so that then the one outside can apply to the one your signature starts with.) Also, I don't notice the described height issue at default zoom on Firefox for PC. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplewowies It's no longer giving me the first error! But now, it says "Invalid raw signature. Check HTML tags".

I'm no good with HTML, I copied most of my script from the Signature Tutorial, so if you know how to fix this issue as well, I would be very greatful! Physeters (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if ✉ is valid HTML or not, but it certainly does nothing that ✉ wouldn't do, and I suspect that it does nothing that ✉ wouldn't do. ColinFine (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, losing the span entirely does produce an identical visual, at the very least (and it was what I was going to suggest too, before hitting the edit conflict and seeing you'd suggested the same thing. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine As you can see, your solution worked! Thanks to you and @Purplewowies as well! Physeters ^✉ 20:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can I cite Wiktionary?

There are Wiktionary templates, eg. Template:Wiktionary but I can't find a way to use Wiktionary as a reference/citation. Is this even a thing, ie. is it a reliable source? Cartographile (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources: "A dictionary that hardly has standards or hardly enforces them is probably not a reliable source for Wikipedia. A wiki-based dictionary that anyone can edit without editorial oversight is not reliable, and that includes Wiktionary." -- Fyrael (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just now realizing that's an essay rather than a guideline, but I think it still represents the sentiment of most editors. Wikipedia itself is specifically not considered a reliable source since it's editable by anyone, so I can't see how Wiktionary would be RS. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. A little ironic sadly, but understandable. Cartographile (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard for 10 edits?

I could swear that I remember seeing on one admin noticeboard or another a place to record new editors that rapidly made 10 inconsequential edits just for the purposes of reaching autoconfirmed. Is that a thing, or did I just imagine this noticeboard? -- Fyrael (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AKA WP:GAMING. I hope you made it up. They can sometimes be reported to AN, ANI, SPI, or AIV, but it's not recommended, and they can even sometimes get blocked, though when that happens it's usually for other reasons. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking it was just mentioned on one of the standard noticeboards, not a board entirely on its own. I can't imagine admins doing much of anything based just on the 10 edits, since a user could then go on to do literally anything, including become a great contributor. I probably just combined some text in my head. Thanks for the response! -- Fyrael (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fyrael, there is nothing inherently wrong with a new editor quickly making 10 inconsequential edits. However, when the editor immediately shifts to making problematic edits as soon as they become autoconfirmed, that is evidence of gaming the system, and that behavior usually leads to a swift block. Cullen328 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-piped link to a non-existent WP article is defaulting to section of irrelevant article

Courts of Vermont contains a link to "Family Division". However, the closest name of a section/article to "Family Division" is the section at High Court of Justice. Since the individual divisions of this superior court's system all represent sections of a building, and not different buildings under one institution (the superior court), I think I'm probably supposed to change the link to "Vermont Superior Court#Family Division|Family Division" since those divisions aren't notable enough for their own articles, at least not now. I had some trouble knowing where to look for the technical guide to this problem, is that the right move? Thank you for letting me know so I can update this link with confidence. SmileyTrek (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SmileyTrek: I fixed it - good catch. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thank you for fixing it as I was unsure what to do there. SmileyTrek (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 April 11

Contents