Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 August 21

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.

August 21

Image Policies - HELP

Help! I am editing Wikipedia pages in English, French, German, and Spanish for German soprano Lotte Lehmann (1888-1976). The pictures in the Infobox are not representative or flattering, and I would like to replace them. I have looked at the Wikimedia Commons page for her, and there are no images that are suitable. I have access to many images of her, taken from articles, books, and scanned from the large collection of personal photos she donated to UC Santa Barbara in the 1970's. In most cases the photographer and date is not listed. Even so, if the photographer was 20 years old and took a photo of her in 1925, the photographer would be 98 now. What can I do to add new images of her to Wikimedia Commons that can be used by the English, French, German, and Spanish Wikipedia pages? Thank you for any help. I have tried really hard to understand the licensing policies but they are confusing and difficult. SP-lava (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SP-lava. Any photo first published over 95 years ago is almost certainly in the public domain because copyright has expired. It is therefore eligible to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, where it can be used on any Wikimedia project (or anywhere else) without any permission being required. It is an annual process, so anything published in 1927 or before is in the public domain throughout 2023. On January 1, 2024, the 1928 items become public domain, including Mickey Mouse. Cullen328 (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Cullen328for your response. Does this mean if I can prove a date (such as a performance from 1920), but don't have a photographer name, I can upload the image? I started to do this for Wikimedia Commons, but there was so much information I needed to provide when adding, much of which I didn't have, that in the end the image failed to be approved. SP-lava (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

SP-lava, if you can establish that a photo was first published in or before 1927, then there is no need to identify the photographer. If you know who the photographer was, then that is useful information to add, but not necessary. Cullen328 (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks @Cullen328 SP-lava (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

SP-lava, Italian copyright law is considerably less annoying than are the copyright laws of most countries. See the template affixed to this photo from 1973, as an example. In your position, I'd be looking for Italian photos of Lehmann. However, if you have any further questions related to this, you should ask them at Commons, not here. -- Hoary (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary Thanks for the tip and the Redirect. I didn't realize I was in the wrong place. SP-lava (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary Is this the right place to go? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk SP-lava (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

SP-lava, perhaps commons:Commons:Help desk, although if you're asking about a copyright matter then commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Hoary (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary Thank you again. SP-lava (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing & notability for draft

I'm working on a draft article & have a few questions - I submitted it for review through AfC (I'm autoconfirmed and know how to move to mainspace, but since it's my first article I wanted to be sure I was getting everything right) & was declined for sourcing and notability.

I see the issues w sourcing - I used several self-published sources as sources on themselves, but some of them were admittedly stretching the guidelines a bit. I took out the ones that I think were problematic; I've kept two self-published sources in the draft (references 11 & 15), and I'd really appreciate it if someone could take a look and let me know if those two are acceptable as sources on herself.

As far as notability goes, I'm a little confused - I asked the reviewer for clarification, but haven't gotten a response, so I'd also appreciate some other experienced editors' input. I based the article on the notability guideline "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." The published works in question are this article in Rolling Stone, this article in the Atlantic, this article (along with others) in Ones To Watch (which is an established & reliable newsblog), and this article (along with others I didn't include, since I thought I had established notability) by The Fader. Since the rule of thumb I've seen is three published works, I thought this was more than enough - thoughts?

I have other questions about how to improve this article, but I want to make sure it's notable enough in the first place before I waste anyone's time with all that. Thanks so much to anyone who can help! Remainsuncertain (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Remainsuncertain On "On April 21, 2023, via social media, a new underscores era was launched, featuring lore about a fictional Michigan town called Wallsocket,[11]" No, if the subject is the only source for this, it's not interesting to include (from the WP-POV). Also the language "a new underscores era was launched" is not how "we" do it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Got it! I included that information because a lot of notable sources talked about said era (and associated lore), but none of them mentioned the starting point. The weird passive voice (or whatever the grammatical term is) is because I wasn't sure about how to differentiate the artist herself from the project ("Underscores launched a new era" vs "Grey launched a new underscores era" etc.). I'll take another look at what the sources say and see if I can switch things around! Remainsuncertain (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the article quickly; there are a couple things I'm noticing.

1. You may want to clarify this person's name and pronouns. I'm noticing that Underscores is the stage name, but the article uses April Harper Grey as the given name and female pronouns, whereas a lot of the sources use a different given name (is one of them a dead name? If so it looks like the person has gone by both publically and so per MOS:DEADNAME both should probably be noted) and they/them pronouns. I also note that in the infobox there is an unsourced also known as of MILKFISH, which I assume is another stage name they have performed under. There should be something in a "Personal life" section to clarify the discrepancies.
2. Proper names should be capitalized. That includes stage names like Underscores, and song and album titles. I note that you have consistently used lowercase, and that does seem to be how the artist prefers things, but take a look at this section of the manual of style.
3. There are 2 purposes of citations on Wikipedia
   1. clarifying where information comes from
   2. demonstrating notability

I think you understand the difference, but when you are submitting an article to AFC you need to make it very clear that there are sources that support notability, and a great way to do that is to write the article using only those sources and then flesh out the details with additional sources (like the about self ones you mention above) later.

I defiantly think the Atlantic article and the Rolling Stone article are pointers of notability. Perhaps Timtrent wouldn't mind coming here and clarifying their concerns with the article? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much!!

Yep, the points you made in #1 are some of my main "other questions about how to improve this article:"

- My initial draft included clarifying info about her name, which she posted a statement about via social media, but another editor removed it with the comment "What say wrote about herself on social media does not contribute to notability and does not warrant a quote."

- Regarding pronouns, no sources formally note her pronouns (although the most recent ones do use she/her) and she has never made an official statement - I got the current information from her social media bio, but I have no idea how to cite that or if it's appropriate to do so at all.

- Thanks for linking the info about deadnames and capitalization - I dug around for those for a while, to no avail, lol.

- Regarding deadnaming: would you say she was notable under the other name? Only two sources mention it, one being a passing mention in the middle of the article (nothing in the lede). Most just refer to her as "underscores." But I'm not sure if that's what the MoS means by "notable under that name."

- The MILKFISH mention is an error on my part - I decided to remove the source for it (in "other work"), since it wasn't the strongest. Forgot it was in the infobox as well.

Thanks for the tip in #3. That makes a lot of sense as to why it was declined for notability in the first place! Remainsuncertain (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

ONUnicorn It would have been a pleasure, but another editor has accepted the draft. Sometimes, you know, reviewers can make errors. This has proven to be one of those times. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

position of hide/show in table

The hide/show feature is placed differently in this table, where it's in the competition column, compared to this 1, where it's in scorers column. I've looked at how that was done in editing but I just don't see it. Can someone help me out? Dutchy45 (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

See Help:Collapsing#Sortable tables. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @PrimeHunter, I just now got around to this but your reply helped me fix it. Dutchy45 (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Hedgehog pathway inhibitor: link addition

I was searching for the article titled: Hedgehog pathway inhibitor A keyword search on Hedgehog inhibitor came up with nothing, despite the fact that this exact term is mentioned in the first paragraph of the article. I think that typing Hedgehog inhibitor should show a link the the complete title Hedgehog pathway inhibitor SydneyCarten (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Works for me - Special:Search/hedgehog inhibitor shows me Hedgehog pathway inhibitor as the first result. (There should be a redirect from the Hedgehog inhibitor title, but I'm not going to create it just yet; doing so would make it impossible to figure out what went wrong with your search.) —Cryptic 04:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Eton College

Ref. number 125 is in red and all wrong. I don't understand. please fix. Thank you in advance 58.179.137.31 (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done, acessdate was listed as 23 August 2033. Cmr08 (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

page of a pdf

sometimes a reliable source is in a pdf doc which is a numerical doc of an original paper doc with missing pages. For example, in the pdf, the info is at the page 30 but on that page, it is written that it is the page 42 of the original paper doc. In the ref using the template cite web or cite book, for the property page, should I indicate the page 30 or 42 ? Yunan973 (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Yunan973 You should use the correctly numbered text page in the original document 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Note also the tip at WP:PAGELINKS. In providing readers the URL for a .pdf, you can append #page=30 so that for most people the .pdf will open at the correct place: page 42 of the original document in your example, with the parameter |page=42 also included, as already suggested above. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Another question = when the pdf is not readable in the web browser but is on a web page where we can download it (example here: https://ins-congo.cg/download/annuaire-statistique-du-congo-2010/), is it ok to use the property "format=pdf" of the template cite web ? Yunan973 (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The documentation at {{cite web}} suggests that the parameter |format=pdf should only be used where the target URL is actually a .pdf but, for some reason has a different file extension set by the owner of the file. That would not be the case in your example: the only way to download the .pdf is to navigate to the webpage and then click on the "Télécharger" button: there is no direct URL that works. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Updating logo for the company I work for.

I am an employee at Livingston International, and recently, we underwent a brand overhaul, which involved redesigning our logo. I require assistance with the process of uploading the updated logo, as I am currently encountering an issue where the system prevents me from overwriting the existing file. Your support in this matter would be greatly valued.

Thank you, Manjeet Manjeetcares (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Manjeetcares Please read WP:PAID. I suggest you request its upload. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Manjeetcares Done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Was I supposed to

Was I supposed to do this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYakima%2C_Washington&diff=1171501470&oldid=1163925636 Cwater1 (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cwater1 Strictly speaking, WP:REDACT suggests you should have struck out your text rather than removed it entirely, as it had been on the Talk Page for a year, not a short while. If someone else had commented in the thread (which wasn't the case here) you certainly should not have removed it. No harm was done in taking the approach you did, however. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll use the strike out next time. I did self-correction there. I know it would been against policy removing someone else messages unless it was too offensive or didn't follow guidelines. Cwater1 (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

List of islands of Cambodia: ISLAND STUDY & Wikipedia Revision history

I have been studying the Islands of Cambodia using about five different MAP sources, and many Internet Web Pages to study the islands. My goal is initially to study the history of the islands, and then to combine them into my World-Earth database of islands (Which has become a unbelievable task once I began studying Cambodia.) I realize that the WET seasons dramatically affects the inland islands of Cambodia, submerging lands that may reappear in the DRY season (and possibly in shifted locations depending on the Soil Erosion and water level). My current focus is on Ocean-Sea-Gulf Coastal Islands specifically the Gulf of Thailand. In studying all the sources the entry for "Koh Traolach, Melon Island, ត្រឡាច" which appears in ALL revisions of the Wikipedia "List of islands of Cambodia" located on Web Internet page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_of_Cambodia does not appear as a Coastal Island but possibly a "Inland Island" and has been impossible to find (anywhere). There is a Inland district with a similar name "Kampong Tralach ឃុំ កំពង់ត្រឡាច" where a Khmer prison (converted high school) was but I can't be certain the original Wikipedia name ENTRY wasn't an alternate name for a coastal island. I also understand there are numerous names, alternate names, and spellings for each island and searched for that possibility but have not found anything even remotely reasonable to explain the entry in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_of_Cambodia. Could you clarify and maybe provide coordinates? 2600:4040:B0EB:A800:ADE3:6BDB:7401:615F (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor.

Koh Traolach was added to the Wikipedia page at 06:16 on 1 December 2010 by an Editor who has not contributed since 2011. Unfortunately it is not sourced. I suggest that if you can't find any reference to this island anywhere else then it fails the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, and you can simply remove it from the article.

On that note, if you have reliable sources for all the other unsourced islands on that list (there are a lot!), feel free to add them yourself. Qcne (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

What are the rules for creating business articles

We want to create a post for our company in the same way that Facebook did. Facebook however we do not want it confused as an advertisement. we want to create it within the rules and to be a biography in the same way Facebook does. How do we do that and what are the rules. Megaloglobal (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

First, you designate a single person to operate your account and have that person change the username via Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Then read WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:BOSS.

You are confused. Facebook did not create, and does not own, the article about it. It was written by independent editors wholly unconnected with Facebook. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself, only in what others choose to say abkut companies that Wikipedia considers notable. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

When you know a document will change. archive-url?

I've got an article where information is referenced to the "pledge manual" (not called that) (a PDF file) for the group that is re-issued every year *and* is placed at the same URL. So within a week or so, the 2022-2023 pledge manual will be replaced by the 2023-2024 pledge manual. I'm not too concerned that the information that I'm referencing will disappear, mostly that the pages and sections may be renumbered. This pledge manual *is* on archive.org (and has been grabbed at *least* yearly since 2016). So I'd love to make the reference to a specific year, and I could use archive-url in cite web, but it doesn't feel right to mark it dead. Advice?Naraht (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Naraht if there's a specific version that you'd like to be the source in perpetuity and not change on a yearly basis, you can point the |url= parameter directly at the archived version and lose the |archive-url=, |archive-date=, and |url-status= parameters. I'm not sure if this is exactly best practice, but it will accomplish what you're trying to do. Folly Mox (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Folly Mox Thank you. That was one of the possibilities I was considering.Naraht (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello wikipedia

I was just exploring the website and discovered that we could edit the webpages by ourselves , so i wanted to try that out , so i made some changes on " the boring company " article but i later deleted that . I just wanted to know i could get in some serious problem because of that. ParthPrem (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

In short, yes. The test edits you did while not logged in have already been flagged as "possible vandalism" automatically. Use a sandbox for test edits, either your own or the general one at WP:SB. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

confusion as to new account and a talk page.... need to verify my submission for review

there is confusion as to my submission under my new account and somehow it becoming a talk page. It was not intended as an account page.............I submitted a biography of a living person to your reviewers and yet now with confusion I cannot verify that the submission is still valid waiting for review. All I get is canned replies, not specific replies. MJM Skyemom43 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Skyemom43, while the decline review is canned, it still applies. Each of your references is a non-independent source; a source needs to be independent, reliable, and in-depth to contribute to notability. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add that you are not contacting the 'Wikipedia' support line. You are posting a comment on a public forum, on a page used by Wikipedia editors for asking and answering questions. Wikipedia is not some collective entity, it is a collection of volunteers who collaborate to write an encyclopedia. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Skyemom. I'm afraid that, like many new editors, you have assumed that because you know how to write academic papers, you know how to write a Wikipedia article. But it is quite a different process.

I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months making small improvements to existing articles, and thereby learning how Wikipedia works, before even trying to write a new article; and in your present situation, that would still be my advice: put Crawford aside for a while, while you learn how things work here.

Then find places where Crawford or his work have been written about by people completely unconnected with him, (and published in reliable sources). If you can't find any, you'll know that he does not at present meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and there is no point in spending any more time trying to create an article about him.

If you can find such sources, then you can write an article. Forget everything you know about him, and write a summary of what the sources you have found say about him.

This is all summed up in your first article, which I urge you to read.

I also need to ask: are you associated with Crawford? If you are, then you have a conflict of interest. This does not prevent you making an article about him, but it makes it harder for you, because it is likely to be harder for you to write in a sufficiently neutral manner. ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

My page on wikipedia

Hello, I would like to see myself listed in wikipedia, I have heard that it is usually a team from Wiki, doing this by taking the info from online. Please advise. Informations about me can be found on the link below:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/yogendra-kumar-mishra-982b5134/

Kind regards, Yogendra Mishrayk (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you have a misunderstanding. If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then somebody may choose to write an article about you. Such an article will not belong to you, will not necessarily say you would like it to say, and should be based almost entirely on what people wholly unconnected with you have published about you, not on what you or your associates say or want to say. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, an article about you is not in any way for your benefit (or your detriment) - any benefit you obtain will be incidental (see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing).

All Wikipedia editors are volunteers, who work on what they choose to work on. If you want somebody to write an article about you, you will need to get somebody interested enough to do so. You can post a request at requested articles - but in honesty the take-up there is very small. You can improve the attractiveness of your request by doing some of the legwork first: finding some independent reliable sources about yourself.

Basically, people who try to get articles about themselves on Wikipedia usually have a difficult and frustrating time, however they do it - that is not what Wikipedia is for.

If you decide to try and write an article about yourself, (which is strongly discouraged, but not forbidden), then please start by reading AUTOBIOGRAPHY and then your first article.

Above all, do not think of paying somebody to do this: many of the people offering this services are scammers. Some may be honest: if they are, they will tell you up front that they cannot guarantee that an article about you will be accepted, or that if it is accepted, you will be happy with it, or that if you are happy with it to start with, it will stay that way. If any article exists about you, almost anybody in the world may edit it (in accordance with Wikipedia's policies) - except you and your associates, who are limited to requesting changes.

All this is probably not what you wanted to hear: this is because, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, and think it is a place to tell the world about yourself. It is not, and promotion of all kinds is strictly forbidden. ColinFine (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place for you to promote yourself, sorry. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

is there an area where bios of academics needs to be entered?

I notice that you have specific guidelines for writing academic bios of living individuals. is there a specific form or entry place that these bios much be sent? Skyemom43 (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Skyemom43, you have already created Draft:Michael Herman Crawford, submitted it, and had it declined. That is the proper process, there is no special place for academics. I highly recommend you spend some time reading Help:Your first article and the replies to your post above. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Skyemom43, Draft:Michael Herman Crawford doesn't even look like an article. An experienced editor might have to spend half an hour making it look like one. No self-respecting reviewer would accept something looking like that, without also reformatting it. So effectively you're expecting some reviewer to judge that this meets Wikipedia criteria and also to devote half an hour or more of their day to the chore of reformatting it. A tall order indeed. -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Skyemom43: I reccommend that you look at several of our articles about professors to see how they are usually formatted. When you find one whose format appeals to you, look at its wikisource to see how it is put together, and use that as a worked example. -Arch dude (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You can take a look at an article that I created, J. Frederick Grassle, for an example if you like; go to the "edit" mode (but do not edit, unless of course you have something to add) to see the "behind the scenes" formatting that makes it display like a "proper" Wikipedia article. Note, this article was "accepted" without a problem because it provided at least 3 independent sources that established the subject's notability to Wikipedia standards, as well as being written in acceptable Wikipedia "encyclopedic" style (for which there is something of a learning curve, admittedly, but you can start by "copying" the formatting and presentation style of other articles as suggested above). Note that a few key cited publications written by the subject will normally suffice, to indicate the field/s they are known for - not a full list - an external link to e.g. Google Scholar or similar will supply this. Statements regarding key events in the subject's life and career will need references to external sources that confirm this information. Above all, again as stated by others above, if you do not make a valid attempt to present your draft in a format Wikipedia expects, it will not be acceptable to any reviewer. Hope this helps. Tony 1212 (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear - evidence of notability is not in his own works, but in statements by others as to his notability and/or that his works have been recognised for their usefulness/influence in his field. You should use Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria as your guide to what would be required to satisfy relevant notability criteria in this regard. Tony 1212 (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Skyemom43:I did a bit of work so that it vaguely approaches following the layout guidelines, but it could use a lot of work. It's completely unreferenced, for one thing. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)