Help desk
< August 25	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 27 >

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 26

Creating a new page for family member

I would like to create a wikipedia page for a family member, Samuel Krimm, professor emeritus at University of Michigan in physics (researcher in biophysics).

I understand there are conflict-of-interest issues, and it may not be best for me to create the page. I'm wondering how best to proceed.

It is possible to create a robust page using published sources such as the following:

If I were to limit myself to these sources, would that be sufficient to ameliorate perceptions of bias?

If not, who would be a better source to create the page? (Could some administrator at the University of Michigan do so?) Philscijazz (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who writes it: they should not, and it will be deleted.

There's just not enough to hang an article on, by our standards. And I googled for anything else on him, got nothing. What you'd need is a biographical article in at least two reasonably notable independent publications. Couple-few meaty paragraphs about him in an article or section of an article in say the Detroit Free Press or a book or something. Where he came from, how come he got interested in the field, that sort of thing; not just a list of works, not just citations of his work, not just passing mentions.. University biographies don't count, they are not independent.

Doesn't have to be as big as the Free Press, but it can't be some very obscure venue. Ann Arbor paper -- maybe, if that's considered independent of having a special interest. I can't guarantee it. And, oddly, interviews probably won't be counted as a valid. So unless there are a couple of biographical articles hiding from google, it's not enough. Sorry. Herostratus (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, here is an article with a couple paragraphs involving Krimm. Benton Harbor, Michigan paper. Population 9,000. If it was about Krimm it'd help some. But its just him talking about someone else. It doesn't help. Herostratus (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this helps clarify a great deal. The specifically biographical component required is probably a tough find, though maybe not impossible.

If I can find something in Ann Arbor News (or something comparable) I'll come back and ask for a judgment. If there is any bio from a professional society like American Physical Society (he won an award in High Polymer Physics in 1986), is that still too close? Philscijazz (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It might be for me, but I'm pretty liberal. You should probably go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follow that process. And those people are pretty strict on bios. Anybody else know if the American Physical Society would be an independent source? Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: the APS/HPP prize was 1977. 1986 was a different milestone. Philscijazz (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Philscijazz, the requirements for an article for a professor such as Krimm are a bit different. They are covered in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). He is definitely notable enough for an article since he was elected a fellow of the American Physical Society in 1959. His name is already in Wikipedia on the list of fellows here. A reference for that award is the database at the APS website. That same database reports that he received the Polymer Physics Prize in 1977 for "his outstanding experimental studies and theoretical developments in infrared and Ra-man spectroscopy and X-ray scattering from natural and synthetic polymers". Material published on the University website, including his curriculum vitae is fine for facts about him. Biographical coverage in newspapers is not expected but can be very helpful. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Now, who can create the article? If a family member does, is that acceptable as long as there is an explicit disclaimer of the family relationship and all content is cited properly?

If I would be eligible to do it, I will set about doing it. If not, I'd need to look for a properly eligible creator. Philscijazz (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Philscijazz: If you think you're capable of writing a WP:NPOV article about this person that reflects the WP:SIGCOV they've received in WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources or otherwise that meets the criteria listed in WP:NACADEMIC, then you can try. However, given your personal connection to the subject, you should first create a WP:DRAFT and then submit it to WP:AFC for review when you think it's ready. You should also follow the guidance given in WP:COI, particularly with respect to WP:DECLARECOI. Before you do start working on a draft though, you might want to take a look at WP:LUC, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:PROUD and WP:OWN because once an article about this person is created, you won't have any type of final editorial control over it and won't be able to prevent others from editing it. In fact, you will for the most part be expected not to directly edit it yourself, but rather follow the guidance given in WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. So, it's quite possible that the article may subsequently move in a different direction from the one you originally intended or perhaps even include content that you rather it doesn't. So, if your primary intent is to highlight all the great things this person has done while perhaps overlooking some of their not so great moments, you might find WP:ALTERNATIVES to Wikipedia to be more to suited to such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks very much.

I have direct knowledge of the subject, and there aren't any skeletons in the closet to worry about, no controversies. Not concerned about things "moving in a different direction" once independent editors take over, just aiming to establish some posterity for his work, which is considered important by the academy. But I appreciate the warning just in case.

He meets criteria 2 and 3 in the academic notability page (APS fellow 1959 and APS prize 1977).

If indeed university materials and CV are significant enough and secondary/reliable enough to qualify the article, then I think I can put this together and hand it off for evaluation. I'll do the best I can, and hopefully there will be enough to warrant an article. Philscijazz (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of what you will need to do as a family member is to essentially forget absolutely everything you know about him, and write only what you can find in published sources - this can be difficult to do. ColinFine (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, I totally get that! Journo hat on, here. If it isn't in a legitimate/independent web source, it ain't in the article.

One thing I'm going to try to get right is when something very technical would benefit from translation/paraphrasing from jargon into a more vernacular expression for broader accessibility.

Also, in order to convey some particular aspect of his work, is it acceptable to cite a couple of his peer-reviewed journal articles? (This is where the paraphrasing might really come in handy.) Philscijazz (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Philscijazz WP:Technical gives good assessment on technical accessibility but please avoid WP:OR. Do check out something like {{Scholia}} which is useful to display all of his past writings in a visually compelling well including word bubbles using Wikidata. I’ve done similarly for Paul Brombacher which is my own WP:COI. My utter lack of knowledge of chemistry has prevented me from synthesising. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] is a passing mention but it hints there might be better sources out there. Assuming it's the droid we're looking for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly the droid, thanks.

This is a related link (see original post above):

https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/75/9/30/2845466/The-trailblazing-career-of-Willie-Hobbs-MooreThe

But there aren't really personal bios along the lines that seem to be required of non-academics.

The original post here has a number of sources at the university that seem to be sufficient according to StarryGrandma. CV is found secondarily at the first link:

https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/physics-assets/physics-documents/Krimm_CV.pdf

So the only remaining question seems to be whether an immediate family member can create this article. Philscijazz (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Philscijazz All a family member need do is read WP:COIEDIT and comply with 1) the disclosure requirements and 2) use the articles for creation process. A more relevant issue in your case is your inexperience: writing articles is quite difficult for newcomers, even without a COI. So I suggest you contribute to existing articles for a while, to get used to our policies and guidelines before tackling the larger task. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten some tremendous start-up assistance from the Help Desk folks here, really appreciate it. Especially the process map from @Marchjuly, and I've seen the policies and guidelines. It makes me bold enough to try it in one shot, with a draft.

I do have a good deal of writing experience in various contexts, and I've been a frequent user of Wikipedia for many years. I'll compare with comparable existing articles for story format. I'm taking all the various cautions very much to heart, but I'm a pretty quick study on things like this, and I'm going to take considerable care with it - I totally understand it's not just a casual thing like a social media post or even business email. It's essentially a journalistic enterprise. I've been involved in enough formal writing to know the difference, and to adhere to policies. Thanks much. Philscijazz (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't really the journalistic enterprise many seem to think it is, and often users who approach it as such (including some say they're professional journalists with lots of formal writing experience) find themselves having a hard type getting articles created. My suggestion to you is to focus your draft's content on clearly establishing the subject's Wikipedia notability and keep that content as minimal as possible. Trying to do too much might allow whatever COI bias you have to start to creep in, and this, in turn, could start to make things a bit cloudy and harder to assess. You don't need really need to create anything more than a WP:STUB which has a clear claim of Wikipedia notability. Once the draft has been approved by AfC, you can then use the article talk page to make edit requests using Template:Edit COI regarding future expansion of the article, or (ideally) you can just leave it to others to build on what you've started. Everything you've posted above so far sounds great, but pretty much everyone wanting to create an article about a family member says the same thing. Many people in a similar situation as you think everything is great until their draft is declined the first time or things don't otherwise go as they want. At that point, some people get really frustrated and give up, lash out or do some combination of the two. I'm not trying to discourage you; I'm only suggesting you temper your expectations and think small. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and understood. My approach will indeed be minimalistic, in the sense of ensuring everything is directly citable and relevant. And if I make a mistake, I'll be looking to the editorial authorities for continuing guidance (I know I'm a newbie, but I do have some amount of transferrable skills).

I'm approaching this with the mission of doing what's possible, and learning the Wiki Way along the way. I'm going to make my best effort to get it as close to right the first time, but I'm also prepared to be alerted to mistakes. My mission then will be to explore how to correct the mistake, if possible.

A good model for my approach is to observe my initial response to the suggestion that without a couple of conventional bio sources the article would be deleted (or really, the draft would be rejected - the draft process makes a whole lot more sense to me). I basically accepted that, and set my mission to see if any such thing existed in citable form on the web. When it was noted that the academic notability criteria were different, that gave me a new round of hope, and redirected my efforts. Philscijazz (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One specific question about legitimate sources. The following link is a mixed source:

https://apps.lib.umich.edu/faculty-memoir/apps.lib.umich.edu/faculty-memoir/faculty/samuel-krimm.html

There is an official bio, and links to CV and a list of publications. May I presume that would be treated as authoritative? Is it acceptable to draw from this bio for the draft article I'm going to write? (Details are pretty much covered in the CV, but I can cross-check to be certain. He may have written the bio himself, but I presume it would have been verified by the university for publication.)

Following that is a Memoir section, written by him as author, and mentioning many other relevant figures in the history of biophysics at UMich (he is included in passing). I presume that this is not considered a source for his own article, but perhaps it might be a legitimate source for articles about others mentioned in the history. He had a particularly close and comprehensive view of the introduction development of biophysics research at the university. Philscijazz (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Philscijazz The main problem with that source and several others you are using is that they are not independent. We need about three sources which fully meet these criteria. I would advise you to focus on the awards, with proper citations: not external links in the body text but properly formatted as we do them, explained at this Help article. You can wikilink the Humboldt Prize, which helps show it is of significance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've been working on the draft.

I have a link to APS (the election as fellow, and the Polymer Prize), and I have a link to the Humboldt Prize website where he is listed by name. But thanks for the Humboldt wikilink, I'll reformat that so the body text goes to the wikilink, and I'll add the Humboldt website link as a reference. The link to APS is currently in the body text (I also have a wikilink to APS), but I can make that a reference instead as well.

I have a direct link in references to the CV on the university website (as @StarryGrandma suggested would be acceptable for an academic, and I'm using that as a source for birthdate, area of research, education, and career academic/administrative positions. Pretty cut and dry factual information. FWIW, he was a muck-a-muck in the biophysics programs in multiple schools at the university (LSA/undergrad, IST, Engineering, graduate program), which has one of the more prestigious physics departments around. But my approach was to let his actual appointments speak for him in that regard, without further editorial comment.

I also added a direct reference link to the list of his peer-reviewed publications published at the university website. If this is inappropriate I can remove it, I wasn't sure.

I am not using the memoir article as a source here, per se.

Would it be appropriate to link to his faculty pages at the university? I haven't included those at this point, but two of the three do include more detailed (technical, jargony) descriptions of his research program.

Finally, I'm adding references to his final two peer-reviewed journal articles where he and his colleague have proposed a new paradigm in the area of protein folding ("milieu folding"), and a generic description of that in the body text. That seems particularly notable from a scientific perspective.

I'm currently working to get the HTML formatting of the references correct (I was working in visual editor, and it seems like refs ultimately need to go deep into the source editing?), and I need to figure out the best method to declare COI (I'm a direct descendant, i.e., he is my father).

When I have a draft that seems ready to submit, is it appropriate to link that here in the Help Desk section for a "pre-review" as to technicalities? Or does that only happen once it's submitted, by the reviewing editors? Philscijazz (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, declare your COI both on your userpage (click on what is currently the redlink to your name to create that) and on the Talk Page of the draft. Best not to expand any more here in this thread: either comment on the Talk Page of the article or at the top of the draft using the {{AfC comment}} template. And yes, best to submit to get a review from those who are most experienced at doing these and who can accept/decline the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've done the declaration of COI in both places now (userpage and draft talk page).

Last question here: if I can't get the references HTML jump-formatting to work (I think that's my last pending tweak), can I just submit the draft and let the editors whip it into shape, or is that just too newbie to fly? Philscijazz (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duh. I found the citation icon in the visual editor menu, and converted all my citations/references to correct form. Will be submitting the draft soon. Philscijazz (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there seems to be disagreement on the CV point. The article was declined, due to the CV being considered not independent enough for factual information. (I thank them for the prompt response! Didn't have to wait months)

I don't think I have a way forward at this point. Philscijazz (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Churchill (1880–1947)

Reference 6 is in red - please repair - I cannot work it put at all, thank you 175.38.37.197 (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UK copyright query

Hello. I would like to use a photo from British newspaper from 1908. I have looked at the "image use policy" and the "when Does copyright expire" page but this kind of thing isn't my forte and I am struggling to grasp it. I believe the photo is relevant and beneficial for the article but would appreciate some guidance in normal English please! Thanks BJCHK (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BJCHK: It's impossible to answer without knowing which image, from which paper, and/ or the identity of the photographer if known. Please provide a link, or details, or both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BJCHK My understanding is that if the photographer is unknown, the photo is in the public domain and you can upload it on Commons as such. Otherwise [2] it may be PD depending on when the photographer died, life+70 years is the line. If this is about a leadimage for a WP-bio, you can use it locally on en-WP if it's not in PD. Probably. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BJCHK, if the newspaper was published before 1923, any copyright in it has expired, and you can upload an image to Commons and use it in any Wikipedia. (I also disagree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång's statement about unknown photographers: if you don't know who the photographer was, you won't be able to establish their date of death, and so won't be able to use the "after date of death" calculation.) Maproom (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the Commons Help says, which is: Anonymous works: Photographs created before 30 June 1957: 70 years after creation if unpublished, 70 years after publication if published within 70 years of creation (so fine in this case) but Standard copyright term: Life + 70 years if the photographer is known. GGS is therefore correct. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same minute. WE ARE BORG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom That, according to Commons, is the British part of the equation.

"If the work is a photograph with an unknown author taken before 1 June 1957 then copyright expires 70 years after creation or, if during that period the work is made available to the public, 70 years after that. "

I agree that the US part of it is fine, but Commons need both US and country-of-origin-if-other rules to be cleared. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Pigsonthewing @Michael D. Turnbull - thank you for all your input. I will take Maproom's approach and upload it as it is over 110 years old now. For clarity, the article is Week of Self-Denial and the photo is of two of the central women standing outside a tube station collecting money for the cause. BJCHK (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing My Work Entirely

How can I publish the entire page publicly? Masierra2008 (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Masierra2008: Assuming you're talking about Draft:Medusa Film, you'd use {{subst:submit}}, which you've apparently learned to use at User:Masierra2008/sandbox. Your draft does not have any inline citations that establish any wikinotability, so it definitely won't be considered as it is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Appreciate it! Means to me! Masierra2008 (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quack...Do you have another account by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey milk

Harvey Milk's wiki page has a random, uneditable section on Lithuania for some reason. Should be removed, but is a protected wiki. 2A02:C7E:300B:3A00:9935:E255:90AF:77D5 (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for pointing this out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix! 2A02:C7E:300B:3A00:9935:E255:90AF:77D5 (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why is this 2A00:23C4:C303:A901:586B:BD3B:C364:F081 (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a random section because an editor thought it was an improvement. If you are curious you can look at the article history. TSventon (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Membership in a diffusing subcategory and also in its supercategory

Claude Jorda was both a judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (a UN tribunal) and a judge of the International Criminal Court (a non-UN international court). The article was included both in Category:French judges of international courts and tribunals and in its (usually) diffusing subcategory Category:French judges of United Nations courts and tribunals. (It was the only article included in both categories.) Not realizing the subtlety involved, I removed the supercategory. Now I'm wondering whether that was correct. If he'd only been an ICC judge, he should only be in the supercategory; and if he'd only been an ICTY judge, he should only be in the subcategory. There's a somewhat irritating asymmetry in the fact that his role at the ICTY is now explicitly reflected in the subcategory, whereas his role at the ICC is only implicitly reflected in that he's in the supercategory by virtue of being in the subcategory. Perhaps it was appropriate to put him in both categories after all? I couldn’t find anything about a case like this in WP:Categorization. Joriki (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to set an account and create a wikipedia page

Is there a number to call to guide me as to how I can set up a wikipedia page? I have tried but it will not go thru. 45.49.230.182 (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no phone number to call. There should be a link to create an account on your screen, or you may use WP:ACC. We write articles here, not "set up pages", and writing an article is the most difficult task to attempt here. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no number, but there is a live chat. Look for the line at the top of this page that says "For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Let me know what you think before you speak. All I need to do is go do my thing. Masierra2008 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you meant to put this comment in the earlier section #Publishing My Work Entirely, @Masierra2008? (Not that I can make any sense of what you've said wherever it goes). ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 August 26

Contents