| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < December 13 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 15 > |
| 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. |
December 14
editWhat to do with a redirect?
editHello! If I want to write an actual article for a page that currently exists as a redirect, how do I go about eventually swapping them? Deleting the redirect wikitext on the existing page and then pasting draft content, or is there a move process instead? (The redirect is the East Troublesome Fire, and whatever I write will exist as a userspace draft first) Thanks! Penitentes (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Penitentes. Have you looked at Wikipedia:Redirect? There's information on that page related to converting redirects into articles. Unless there are technical restrictions placed on the redirect's page, you should be able to simply create a new article by directly editing the redirect's page. If you're not very experienced in creating articles, you can always create a draft and submit it to WP:AFC for review. If the draft is approved by AfC. the AfC reviewer who accepts it will take care of all the stuff needed to move the draft to the article namespace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, okay, fantastic, that's the page I wanted and didn't know existed, preservig redirects and how to edit them. Thank you! Penitentes (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Renaming URL
editI would like to request for changing the URL for LA CARLOTA CITY, PHILIPPINES. From www.lacarlotacity.net to lacarlotacity.gov.ph. Since the name URL was already running for the government to use. 222.127.93.209 (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi IP 222.127.93.209. It's not clear what your question is. Are you asking that the url address of an external link added to a Wikipedia be changed? Are you asking the url address of an external website be changed? If it's the first question, that probably can be done. You can either be WP:BOLD and do it yourself by directly editing La Carlota, Negros Occidental article; just make sure you leave an edit summary explaining why the change was made. If you're not sure how to edit the article, you can ask for help at Talk:La Carlota, Negros Occidental. If it's the second question, then there's not much that Wikipedia can do. You will need to contact whomever is in charge of the website and discuss things with them. Finally, I'm just going to note that www
.lacarlotacity .net and lacarlotacity .gov .ph both seem to lead to official wesbites for the city. Is the one of the two sites no longer used by the city? The gov.ph site seems to be newer than the .net site. Is that the case? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
My web page is creating issues.
editMeta Trader 5 Mod Apk This is the link of my web page that has been making issues. Kindly look at it and tell me the solution. Thank you. Apkminion (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Apkminion, the solution is simple. Do not try to add spam links to Wikipedia. Promotional editing is strictly forbidden. Cullen328 (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I want to create company page for my organization.
editI have created wiki page for my organization 2 times. But the 2 times deleted from reviewers. Kindly help to create company page my organization. MSathis (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi MSathis. If you've already tried twice and have been unsuccessful twice, then maybe the problem is too big to be WP:OVERCOME or it might be WP:TOOSOON for an article to be written about your company. Please take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If your company is unable to satisfy relevant Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then perhaps it would be better to try another another wesbite. One things about Wikipedia articles is that the subject's of articles have pretty much zero editorial control over article content as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content; so, even if you were able to have a Wikipedia article written about your company, you would have pretty much zero control over it. You wouldn't be able to use the article to promote your company in any way and all article content would need to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia would be more interested in what Wikipedia:Reliable sources are saying about your company than what you might want others to know about your company. In addition, the bad things reliable source might be reporting about your company could possibly be included in the article as long as the content is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Wikipedia isn't really an good way to try and increase your company's online pressence or business, and there are probably many companies who wish a Wikipedia article was never written about their company. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- The article was Chainsys, the company website is here. Like many articles about companies, it is unlikely to make it into mainspace unless it complies with WP:NCORP. Simply creating an article about a company without proper sourcing will get it deleted. See your first article for more information.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Adding a photo - would I lose rights to its usage?
editI have come across a photograph of the All England XI that toured Australia in 1861. Whilst there is a photo of the team on the page (English cricket team in Australia in 1861–62) it is a different photo, and I wonder if the page would benefit from the extra photograph.
Would uploading it, however, mean that I cede rights to its usage? 2A00:23C6:C619:1001:69FF:8412:284B:9A59 (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know what the law is in the UK or Australia, but if the photo is that old it is likely in the public domain and can be used by anyone. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- US copyright law applies most often on Wikipedia, and if the photo was published back in the 19th century, it is certainly in the public domain, and you have no rights to cede. If it is a previously unpublished "found photo" from a family photo book, for example, matters get a bit more complicated. But the chance that any 1861 photo is not in the public domain is tiny. A massive trove of photos first published in 1927, 66 years after your photo was taken, is coming into the public domain in a few weeks, on January 1, 2023. Cullen328 (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you have taken a photograph yourself, and so own the copyright, all that you do by uploading a copy to Wikimedia Commons is to grant the right to use the photo to other people, provided they attribute its source. You never give away the rights to use the image yourself for other purposes, including commercially. The only way to do that would be to deliberately give exclusive rights (i.e. excluding even yourself) via some sort of contract. As others have said, a photo from 1861 is already in the public domain from a copyright point of view, even if no-one other than you happens to possess a copy. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Also to clarify, copyright is a type of intellectual property that attaches (generally, there are exceptions) to the person who creates the work, though like any property, there ways that copyright can be transferred to another person or entity, such as a work for hire, or it can be bought, sold, given away, inherited, etc. However, copyright generally expires on works that are sufficiently old, and become "public domain" works. AFAIK, (and IANAL), there exists no copyrights on anything as old as 1861. --Jayron32 18:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Photos of Australian origin that have a known creator and were not published anonymously are public domain in that country if they were taken prior to January 1, 1955. Photos first published outside the US by non-US citizens are public domain in the US if they were published prior to 1927. Photos that were never published and have a known author are public domain in the US if the author died before 1952. For an image to be uploaded to Commons, it needs to be free in both the US and the photo's country of origin. For an imaeg to be uploaded to English Wikipedia, it needs to be free in the US. DMacks (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- @DMacks "For an imaeg to be uploaded to English Wikipedia, it needs to be free in the US." I don't think that's quite right. Freely-usable images generally go to Commons, while images uploaded to the English WP can be non-free if they meet the non-free content criteria as documented at that link. David10244 (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- True, "non-free" can be uploaded to enwiki but not commons, and only in strictly limited circumstances. But that's not on-topic for the question here, given there already is a free image in the article. Here, we're talking about copyright (I was responding to Jayron32 to clarify the rules) not "despite copyright". DMacks (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think I see what you are saying. As you know, a free-to-use image can be uploaded to either place. I posted because your statement was not technically true... although you are probably right that what you said was relevant to the topic. I just didn't want to leave anyone else who sees your comment with the impression that an image had to be freely usable to be uploaded to en:wp. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- True, "non-free" can be uploaded to enwiki but not commons, and only in strictly limited circumstances. But that's not on-topic for the question here, given there already is a free image in the article. Here, we're talking about copyright (I was responding to Jayron32 to clarify the rules) not "despite copyright". DMacks (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- @DMacks "For an imaeg to be uploaded to English Wikipedia, it needs to be free in the US." I don't think that's quite right. Freely-usable images generally go to Commons, while images uploaded to the English WP can be non-free if they meet the non-free content criteria as documented at that link. David10244 (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Jayron32 I didn't quite realize that copyright attaches to a person -- I'm glad you mentioned that! It helps my understanding. Copyright is both subtle and complex. David10244 (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've started to think that the original question here means something rather different from what I first thought. Barring some subtlety of law that I don't understand, and/or some freak circumstances that I don't know about, it seems virtually impossible that the OP or anybody else owns copyright to an image created in the 19th century. But then I started to wonder if the concern was, if s/he uploads the image here, will s/he not be free to upload it anywhere else. And I remembered a recent case of a woman (don't know if I should name her, so I won't) who takes wonderful travel photos, has donated her vast collection to the Library of Congress, and has voluntarily opened it all to Public Domain. She put some of HER OWN images on the web. Then she got a cease-and-desist order from one of the major stock photo companies; she was using images from THEIR collections without paying their fees. I could be wrong, but I think that the results of the court case were that she didn't have to pay their fees to use her own photographs, but they--sadly--were free to keep making money from her photos. Uporządnicki (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Jayron32 Years ago, I had some reason to take some instruction in Copyright law. The statement "there ways that copyright can be transferred to another person or entity, such as a work for hire, or ..." actually entangles two very different things. A work "made for hire" does not transfer copyright; it sort of defines it, initially. It has to do with the legally recognized "author" of the work. The "author" of the work is the original copyright owner as a point of fact--regardless of any transfer later. And the fact of authorship can never change. In the case of a "work made for hire" (and the law specifies very specific circumstances under which that can be), then legally, the employer is the author; there's no transfer. I understand that the Copyright Office gets applications that say, well, I own Copyright because the person who actually created the work transferred Copyright to me, and besides, it's a Work Made For Hire. Well, the Copyright Office needs (or at least it was the case 20 years ago) to send that application back and clarify which one is the case. If it is a Work Made For Hire (it almost never is), then the employer is legally the author, and there's nothing to transfer. If it is not, then the author can transfer right, but the legal record must be clear which it is. Rights to use the work can be transferred; the fact of authorship cannot. The Copyright Office calls these (in-house) "belt and suspenders" applications. Uporządnicki (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. As a non-lawyer, the subtleties of this sometimes evade me. Appreciate the knowledge! --Jayron32 11:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Jayron32 Years ago, I had some reason to take some instruction in Copyright law. The statement "there ways that copyright can be transferred to another person or entity, such as a work for hire, or ..." actually entangles two very different things. A work "made for hire" does not transfer copyright; it sort of defines it, initially. It has to do with the legally recognized "author" of the work. The "author" of the work is the original copyright owner as a point of fact--regardless of any transfer later. And the fact of authorship can never change. In the case of a "work made for hire" (and the law specifies very specific circumstances under which that can be), then legally, the employer is the author; there's no transfer. I understand that the Copyright Office gets applications that say, well, I own Copyright because the person who actually created the work transferred Copyright to me, and besides, it's a Work Made For Hire. Well, the Copyright Office needs (or at least it was the case 20 years ago) to send that application back and clarify which one is the case. If it is a Work Made For Hire (it almost never is), then the employer is legally the author, and there's nothing to transfer. If it is not, then the author can transfer right, but the legal record must be clear which it is. Rights to use the work can be transferred; the fact of authorship cannot. The Copyright Office calls these (in-house) "belt and suspenders" applications. Uporządnicki (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've started to think that the original question here means something rather different from what I first thought. Barring some subtlety of law that I don't understand, and/or some freak circumstances that I don't know about, it seems virtually impossible that the OP or anybody else owns copyright to an image created in the 19th century. But then I started to wonder if the concern was, if s/he uploads the image here, will s/he not be free to upload it anywhere else. And I remembered a recent case of a woman (don't know if I should name her, so I won't) who takes wonderful travel photos, has donated her vast collection to the Library of Congress, and has voluntarily opened it all to Public Domain. She put some of HER OWN images on the web. Then she got a cease-and-desist order from one of the major stock photo companies; she was using images from THEIR collections without paying their fees. I could be wrong, but I think that the results of the court case were that she didn't have to pay their fees to use her own photographs, but they--sadly--were free to keep making money from her photos. Uporządnicki (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Photos of Australian origin that have a known creator and were not published anonymously are public domain in that country if they were taken prior to January 1, 1955. Photos first published outside the US by non-US citizens are public domain in the US if they were published prior to 1927. Photos that were never published and have a known author are public domain in the US if the author died before 1952. For an image to be uploaded to Commons, it needs to be free in both the US and the photo's country of origin. For an imaeg to be uploaded to English Wikipedia, it needs to be free in the US. DMacks (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
What to do with duplicate images
editFile:Commando on a toggle rope bridge.jpg is a duplicate of File:Commandos cross a river on a 'toggle bridge' under simulated artillery fire at the Commando training depot at Achnacarry in Scotland, January 1943. H26620.jpg what is the recommended course of action Aaron Liu (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Aaron Liu The images are hosted on Commons, so their policy applies. Commons:Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion includes F8. Exact or scaled-down duplicate as a reason for speedy deletion. TSventon (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu Are both images being used in articles? If so, some editing or a redirect may be necessary. David10244 (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, is it ok if I just redirect the shorter name to the longer name? Would that even work? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- If (as seen below) these are on commons, you need to follow their process, part of which requires being an admin on commons. Setting a redirect sort-of works, but leaves a mish-mash of details mixing the old and new. I converted the filenames in your original message into links so we can get to them easily.
Done User: Túrelio took care of the whole process. DMacks (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Turelio! Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- If (as seen below) these are on commons, you need to follow their process, part of which requires being an admin on commons. Setting a redirect sort-of works, but leaves a mish-mash of details mixing the old and new. I converted the filenames in your original message into links so we can get to them easily.
- Yeah, is it ok if I just redirect the shorter name to the longer name? Would that even work? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu Are both images being used in articles? If so, some editing or a redirect may be necessary. David10244 (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- The files are on Wikimedia Commons, so the question presumably belongs there, but it might be worth looking at commons:Template:Duplicate. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Editing articles that users have moved from mainspace to their own user area.
editThe article User:Bruin2/Draft:C. I. Pontius at one time was found at C. I. Pontius, but Bruin2 moved it to his own userspace and added more information there. He isn't the only editor of the article, but hasn't edited Wikipedia since June (I've included the call to him in this posting). Obviously work needs to be done to it (most of the current lede needs to be moved into an early life section and some cleanup) but suggestions? Naraht (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Naraht: This has been moved to Draft:C._I._Pontius. You may edit the draft, if you are interested in improving it. RudolfRed (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)