Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 April 6

Help desk
< April 5	<< Mar | April | May >>	April 7 >

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 6

Display error on SVG, don't know how to correct...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See Flag of Solomon Islands, File:Flag of the Solomon Islands.svg, and https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Flag_of_the_Solomon_Islands.svg . Only in the third one do all 5 stars display for me. In every rendering and in every article it is used EXCEPT the raw image file, it only shows the top 3 stars. The last one shows that the five stars are intended to render. How can this be fixed? If it is happening to me, it is happening to someone else, so this is likely something that needs to be fixed in the image itself... --Jayron32 14:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the Commons file history, a version of the flag with three stars was uploaded in 2014 (and replaced an earlier version with 5 stars). If the 5 star version is correct, a version of it should be re-uploaded on Commons. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The three-star version is the five-star version. The way SVG graphics are rendered, it looks like in many renderings, the bottom two stars get "chopped off". This is a technical issue with the SVG graphics; if it can be fixed to stop happening, that would be best, since normally SVG graphics scale better for all displays; unlike things like jpgs and other bitmap graphics, which don't necessarily scale nicely. Maybe an old .svg version needs to be restored, but I'm not a very experienced Commons user, and someone more experienced than me probably needs to help with that. --Jayron32 15:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32: That flag .svg is used all over the place and looks OK in all the cases I've looked at. Is it possible the issue is in your browser and you need to clear your cache? See WP:BYC Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: It appears that the correct version was reuploaded to commons yesterday. Based on the user having been here for a while I would assume it was simply a mistake (although I don't know much about how SVGs work so maybe they intentionally removed those stars). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Blaze Wolf Ah, yes! I looked at the file history but didn't spot that the current version had only just been uploaded. The five-star version seems correct according to external sources, so I don't know why that file on Commons has been 3-star since 2014.... Most of those in the commons:Category:SVG flags of the Solomon Islands have five stars. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I just want to be clear, it wasn't that a "Three star version was uploaded". It was that "A five star version was uploaded that in many contexts, but not all, displayed as three stars". As noted, it looks like this has been fixed now. --Jayron32 13:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Table coloring

I'm trying to get rid of the No. column in List of ATP number 1 ranked singles tennis players#ATP No. 1 ranked singles players. (Who cares if McEnroe was the fifth first-time no. 1?) However, when I delete e.g. "!1 || scope="row" style="text-align: left;"|", the blue background color disappears too. What gives? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Just going to point out that someone might care about that column since it was added at one point; so, you may have to resolve any disagreements over it via talk page discussion. Maybe asking about it at WT:TENNIS might be a good idea just to see whether it's a WikiProject convention or just unique to that particular article or one particular person. For example, that also seems to be the table format used for List of ATP number 1 ranked doubles tennis players. As for your question about the coloring for the players in the table, I think it might have to do (and this is just a guess) with your deleting of the syntax ! which is I believe is needed to tell the software to add a new row to the table. Try only deleting 1 || scope="row" style="text-align: left;"| and see whether that gets things where you want them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Not worth the bother of starting a discussion, though. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

For the record, it was added in 2009 [1], the article has around 6000 edits since then with nobody trying to remove it as far as I know, it's in all similar tennis articles (men and women, singles and doubles), and also in other sports, e.g. List of world number one male golfers#Number one ranked men and List of world number one snooker players#List of players. I would have opposed removal and would be very surprised if it got consensus. Don't assume nobody cares about something just because you don't care. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Deleting my profile

How do I delete my profile permanently as I cannot find the section to explain how - as I want nothing to do with Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delliott5 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Delliott5 It is not possible to delete an account(I assume that is what you mean), as all edits must be attributable to someone. You may simply abandon your account. A.courtesy vanishing may be possible. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Have a look at this. But you cannot get rid of your edit history, as 331dot said.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Most of what is described there is part of the vanishing process. It suggests that an account can be blocked, while some will do that it isn't necessary really. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Completing Wiki's Template: Non-free use rationale logo/doc and uploading image Wiki file: RAAF25SQNCrestFromRAAFBrandManager15Feb22.png

Dear Wiki Help Desk

I have endeavoured to read and properly understand the Wiki pages related to the above and as a result:

1. What follows at 3. below is my attempt to correctly complete in draft form the relevant headings on Wiki's "Template: Non-free use rationale logo/doc", the template which Mr Martin Fisher of Wiki's Volunteer Response Team suggested (by his email on 5 Mar 22) suggested I complete in order to insert the RAAF's official unit badge (aka squadron Crest) for No. 25 Squadron onto Wiki's No.25 Squadron RAAF webpage.

I request your advice as to whether my draft info for each heading is acceptable to successfully complete and submit the "Template: Non-free use rationale logo/doc" (See headings and and answers at 3. below.)

2. As a separate exercise I have also uploaded onto Wiki the official image provided to me by the RAAF of 25 Squadron's unit badge (ie its official Crest) by using Wiki's main upload file and selecting "The copyright holder gave me permission to use this work only in Wikipedia's articles" option (as per the Other Information heading below) but after doing so there was a warning which said "This media file, which you just uploaded, has been listed for speedy deletion........."

File:RAAF25SQNCrestFromRAAFBrandManager15Feb22.png

No. 25 Squadron RAAF Unit Badge

Any advice or help re the success of my uploading would be appreciated.

3.My proposed answers to the required headings on "Template: Non-free use rationale logo/doc" are:

Proposed heading for NFCC template

Article = No. 25 Squadron RAAF Use = RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force)Wiki's "Template: Non-free use rationale logo/doc"' Purpose = Official RAAF Unit Badge (aka squadron Crest) of No. 25 Squadron RAAF Used for = Official RAAF Unit Badge (aka squadron Crest) in-Service and public identification of No. 25 Squadron RAAF Owner = All Royal Australian Air Force badges, current and historic, are protected as defence emblems under section 83 of the Defence Act (Australia) 1903. As such use of a defence emblem by any person requires written authorisation of the (Australian) Minister for Defence or his/her authorised delegate. Description = Official RAAF Unit Badge (aka squadron Crest) of No. 25 Squadron RAAF. History = It is currently and has been the official RAAF Unit Badge (aka squadron Crest) of No. 25 Squadron RAAF since at least 1960 Source = The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Portion = The entire Unit Badge (aka squadron Crest) of No. 25 Squadron RAAF) as provided by the RAAF is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image. Low resolution = ? Replaceability = Because it is a non-free, copyright protected logo, there is almost certainly no free representation. Any substitute that is a non- derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary. Other information = On Tuesday, 15 February 2022, the RAAF Brand Manager, Department of Defence, Canberra, ACT, Australia) considered and formally approved as an appointed delegate of the Minister for Defence (Australia) pursuant to the Defence Act (Australia) 1903, Wiki User Shellac41's request to insert the official RAAF Unit Badge (aka squadron Crest) of No. 25 Squadron RAAF onto Wiki Encyclopedia's No. 25 Squadron RAAF. The delegate's written authorisation was ″to display he 25 Squadron badge in its entirety and original form on the Wikipedia entry for the squadron only″ with the added comment that: ″A screen resolution file of this badge, suitable for the requested use is attached for this single purpose.

Thank you, Wiki User Shellac41 (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hello, Shellac41. I took the liberty of grouping your headers in a box, and fixing your link to File:RAAF25SQNCrestFromRAAFBrandManager15Feb22.png. Clicking that link shows you a deletion log entry explaining the problem.

First of all, there can be multiple restrictions on the use of images. On Wikipedia, the most relevant one is copyright, which (very roughly speaking) means the right of an author or copyright holder to restrict the diffusion of a creative work they made. There can be other non-copyright restrictions, but those are usually less important for us; for instance, article 83 of that Australian piece of legislation forbids wearing military emblems (and supplying them, and...) unless authorized to do so, but Wikipedia publishing a photograph probably does not violate that ("emblem" means a physical badge/uniform/etc, not a web page).

There are two ways to include images in Wikipedia articles in a copyright-compliant way. The first one is to have an appropriate license (more on that later). The second one is to use a copyright law exception (fair use in the US, though most jurisdictions have something similar, where you can reuse some material in a context of critical commentary/education), and furthermore the image with very tight self-imposed constraints.

It seems you tried first to go through option 1 (obtain a license) but failed, because the text you copied here is not an appropriate license. We do not accept licensing with strings attached, such as "for page X only" or "for Wikipedia use only". Per WP:COPYOTHERS: If you want to import media (...) you can only do so if it is public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC BY-SA license. CC BY-SA means, in simple terms, anyone can reuse it for any purpose as long as they cite the source, do not imply endorsement, and obey non-copyright restrictions (so for instance, having the file on Wikipedia as CC BY-SA would not allow cosplayers to wear the emblem on a costume, because that would violate a non-copyright restriction). Going forward, I would suggest you still try to have your contact release an appropriate license, but make sure they have understood what this means. (The first three paragraphs of Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission are a good explanation.)

If that fails, then we fall back on option 2 (which means, publishing the image regardless of the copyright holder’s consent). For that purpose, the details you listed above are mostly appropriate, except that

1. "Source": you can fill in more details (instead of "RAAF", "RAAF brand manager, email from (date)")
2. "Low resolution": should be "yes", and the image should be downgraded to low resolution. The RAAF presumably agrees to whatever resolution they provided, but we have a self-imposed rule (WP:NFCC 3.b) that requires non-free images to be bad, so that reusers cannot conveniently use them. There is no hard-and-fast rule, but basically it means the lowest resolution possible that still allows to discern the features of the represented object.
3. "Other information": We do not care about the RAAF’s licensing text (since we are not relying on that to put up the image)

Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

How do i write biography of someone

How do i write a biography of someone outstanding among others — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theofficialsdm (talk • contribs) 11:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Who is it? It should be someone who has significant mentions in reliable sources. And it shouldn't be yourself or someone that you are connected to.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• It may be Draft:DjMondo, in which case it is likely to have the problems mentioned above.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

A few hours ago, Lowercase sigmabot III added five discussions to my talk page archive [2] but did not remove them from my talk page. See this sequence of edits where it seems to have just skipped that step. Does anyone know what could have caused this? DanCherek (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek: I haven't found a cause. Maybe it was just some temporary glitch. Try reverting the archive and see what happens in the next bot run, probably tomorrow. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll try that, thanks! DanCherek (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek: I see the bot has run again and didn't even edit the archive this time. The bot operator has low activity. If you don't want to trouble them then just archive the sections manually, and maybe eventually all the sections currently on the page, and see whether the bot can continue from there. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter. I noticed that the bot paused all activity at 06:43 (it occasionally does that and then resumes later), and it usually archives my talk page closer to 07:00, so I think it just missed me for a different reason this time. DanCherek (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It archived correctly today.[3][4] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking for advice from an experienced editor

 Courtesy link: AccessiBe

I have been watching a corporate page for some time now to make sure no one tries to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion. I feel that this particular company is dishonest and does damage to a cause I get a lot about. I did my best to try and clean it up and they sort of went to war with me. Still, I don't really know the finer points of Wikipedia policy so it wasn't easy. We went back and forth for a while until I got some help from more experienced editors who went in and cleaned their page up considerably. Anyway, this company has recently added a "products" section that has no citations that reads a lot like promotional material. It feels wrong but I don't know how to properly address it, or if it needs addressing. The page is Accessibe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:F17E:500:D9CB:E494:6788:4B4 (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I cleaned the article up somewhat. It was starting to look an advert. scope_creep^Talk 15:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. 2604:3D08:F17E:500:D9CB:E494:6788:4B4 (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep and IP user, do we care about funding rounds? "In May 2020, the company raised $12 million in Series A funding from K1 Investment Management." This is referenced, but is it helpful to the reader? Do encyclopedias generally include this info? It doesn't tell me anything useful about the company. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Generally yes, although in the scheme of things no. Most editors who create these articles are creating them to advertise the company and include this funding news. Most wikipedia users never look at these types of articles and have no interest in them unless they're looking to invest, and even then any serious investor wouldn't give wikipedia a second glance. scope_creep^Talk 08:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Consensus

Hi Folks!! An RFC has just closed at Talk:Asquith Xavier. Can somebody please have a squint at it and decide what the consensus is. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk

@Scope creep: The RFC closer should have noted the consensus. Did that not happen? RudolfRed (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: It was closed by bot. That is why i'm looking for somebody who is not involved to take a look and take a view. scope_creep^Talk 19:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I'd recommend listing this at WP:ANRFC, where you're likely to (eventually) attract an experienced closer. When legobot removed the RfC tag, that wasn't really a "close". Others can continue contributing or even re-add the rfc tag. WP:RFCEND has more info. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 19:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Thanks. Never knew that was there. scope_creep^Talk 19:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Were any changes recently made to the Wikipedia font?

Were any changes recently made to the Wikipedia font? When I read an article, the font appears normal. When I go to edit an article ... and I am in the "edit page" mode ... there is some strange, new font. Is this something new? Or perhaps I inadvertently changed some setting in my personal account, somehow? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to lurk for an answer on this, as I have noticed the same change. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any font change. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Definitely a change (on my computer). The new font (in the "Edit Page Mode") is very small ... much harder to see. Plus, it's a different style font, altogether. Is there a way to adjust my settings, to get the "old" font back? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I have code to change the edit styling in User:PrimeHunter/vector.css so I don't know whether the default has changed but maybe you can use some of the code to get a look you like. You can preview your CSS with code to see how it looks without saving. Toggle the "<>" code editor icon at the top left to view the CSS page like a wiki page and not a CSS page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

PrimeHunter: Thanks. I will try that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro and Roxy the dog: If you have Firefox then it recently changed the default monospaced font from Courier to Corsola, and may also have reduced the size. This affects all sites which specify monospaced text without a specific font. You can change it under Advanced in Firefox font settings: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/change-fonts-and-colors-websites-use. My CSS should also work but only for the English Wikipedia, or all Wikimedia wikis if you add it in meta:Special:MyPage/global.css. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Yep, this happened to me on Firefox. bibliomaniac15 06:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Yup, I love Firefox. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 06:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment not constructive?

Correct, Pearson was destructive. He never got it.

https://www.spcpress.com/pdf/DJW287.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.149.134 (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussions on article content belong on article talk pages. And content in articles needs to be properly cited and accurately representing the source. We aren't interested in contributors' own assessments of who 'got it'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)