Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 November 1

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.

November 1

Question about uploading a photo of a person to their wiki page

Hello, I was trying to upload a picture of Sandy Rios to her Wikipedia page (it lacks one), but when I attempted to upload it I got an error message saying that the picture was not suitable for the Wikimedia commons. The picture I obtained of Sandy Rios was sent to me by her for the expressed purpose of updating her Wikipedia page.

I'm not sure what to do and any help would be appreciated.

This is the page in question. Sandy Rios Eastern-Roman-Empire-482 (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Eastern-Roman-Empire-482 This is really a matter for Wikimedia Commons. You will need the copyright owner, almost certainly that is not Sandy Rios, to look at and comply with the process at c:COM:VRT, please.

Why do I say Ms Rios is unlikely to be the copyright owner?

This picture is, or appears to be, a picture of the subject, offered to you by the subject, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via c:COM:VRT.

Yes, copyright and licensing is complex. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Eastern-Roman-Empire-482 Having examined the Rios article I have noted that the referencing is less than helpful. I am also unsure that Rios passes WP:BIO. You may wish to find better references and also edit the article to assert and verify her notability. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If you have any connection with Rios, please also read about conflicts of interest. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 11:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Red Links are All blue now

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T315347

Dear Wikipedians, Why has every red link turned blue? Who decided this was a good idea and made a global change to the wiki style? It's now impossible to tell live links apart from dead ones. I expect to waste an enormous amount of time clicking on dead links disguised as live links. This was a bad idea. Please change it back to normal. 98.240.217.220 (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide an example? A quick check in my sandbox isn't showing this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, but I think I encountered this situation before. I don't know how this happens, but it has occurred on talkpage redlinks before. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 02:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I was just browsing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Anseriformes. But I found another dead blue link earlier today and thought it was a one-off. This page ^^ has all links blue, not a single one is red, but all the blue links I tried for extinct species were dead links. This... really isn't a good design for a wiki. 98.240.217.220 (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

There are so many links on List of Anseriformes that it's impossible to figure out exactly which ones you're asking about. I randomly clicked some blue links on that page, and they all seem to work: they either go directly to the target article itself or via a WP:REDIRECT. If by "broken" you mean the name of the link doesn't match the name of the target article, then WP:NOTBROKEN might be what you're seeing. A "blue link" by definition is a link to an existing page, and it doesn't seem technically possible for a link to a non-existing page to be "blue". If you find that to be the case, please provide the name of the link so that it can be checked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I specifically described that the blue links to extinct species are not working. If you clicked on blue links to extant species instead then of course you didn't replicate the problem. You seriously want me to copy and paste the name of every single broken link on that page? Anserpica kiliani, Headonornis, Headonornis hantoniensis, Presbyornis mongoliensis, Presbyornis recurvirostrus, Presbyornis pervetus, Telmabates howardae, Wilaru tedfordi, Wilaru prideauxi, etc. Those are just from the top fifth of the list. I don't want to spend several hours clicking every single link on that page. They all say "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Wilaru prideauxi in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings. You need to log in or create an account and be autoconfirmed to create new articles. Alternatively, you can use the article wizard to submit a draft for review, or request a new article. Search for "Wilaru prideauxi" in existing articles. Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title. Other reasons this message may be displayed: If a page was recently created here, it may not be visible yet because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes or try the purge function. Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title. If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was the page I created deleted?" 98.240.217.220 (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing this same problem on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Corvus_species now. There are no red links, only blue links. But in the fossil species section, many links are blue but dead. I.e. Corvus galushai, Corvus hungaricus, C. bragai (which is badly named too), Corvus neomexicanus, Corvus fossilis, New Ireland crow, Corvus betfianus, Corvus pliocaenus. The message they give me is the same message I copied/pasted above. I used to get that message if I accidentally clicked on a red link, in previous months/years. 98.240.217.220 (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing them as red links; this sounds like a CSS problem on your end. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@IP 98.240.217.220. You didn't have to list every single link; just one would've been enough. In addition, just saying links to extinct species wasn't very helpful because you might know what that means in the context of List of Anseriformes, but not everyone at this help desk might not share your knowledge. Let's look at one of the links you mentioned above: Anserpica kiliani. It's looks red to me because no article exists by that name. That's not an indication of anything being broken; it just means nobody has created a Wikipedia article about that subject yet. Now, if when you look at the article and the code [[Anserpica kiliani]] is being displayed as blue link, then that would be odd. I believe users with registered accounts can set their preferences so that they can display links in a certain color per H:LC#Styling all links just for you, but I don't think that's an option offered to IP users. This could be a known issue that others are currently working on resolving; so, I'll post something at WP:VPT to see whether anyone there might know what's going on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The links are also red for me. Which browser/app/device are you using to view Wikipedia? Are you viewing it at Wikipedia's own site en.wikipedia.org? Do you have any browser extensions? Is it the same at other Wikimedia wikis like wikt:subpoena#Derived terms where "subpenal" and "subpoena ad respondendum" are red for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I checked the VPT archives and this appears to have been discussed before at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 182#Red links are shown as blue in mobile version; it also appears to be a problem specifically affecting those using the mobile site. One thing you might try is going to either of the articles where you've noticed this happening, scrolling down to the very bottom of the page, and then clicking on "View in desktop mode" or something similar. Perhaps this will "correct" the problem you're experiencing. It might only be a temporary fix and perhaps even a bit inconvenient, but this appears to be a known issue that at least was reported as being resolved. If it's happening again, then it's not really a problem that can be resolved here, but probably needs to be reported as explained in WP:PHAB. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have the same issue. It seems to only be present in the "Vector 2022" and "Minerva Neue" skins. Avessa (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have that problem (and I don't use the mobile site) if the page uploads as "raw formatted" text, i.e. basic text without the pretty formatting, when I am using too much RAM - I wait until the application has finished, or turn off some unused applications. Have you tried turning some other applications off? - Arjayay (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Red links only have the class new in the HTML of the page itself and get CSS from elsewhere to color them. For Vector 2022 it's this:

@media screen {
  a:where(.new:not([role="button"])) {
    color: var(--color-destructive,#d73333);
  }
}

Registered users affected by the problem can try adding it to Special:MyPage/vector-2022.css, but if it fails loading from elsewhere then it may also fail loading from there. Also try to bypass your cache. Use Ctrl+F5 in Windows browsers, not F5 or the reload button alone. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If you really need to see red links on a specific page and you know how to add CSS to the current page in your browser (also possible for unregistered users) then you can add this simpler version:

.new {color:red}

PrimeHunter (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe that something has changed recently (i.e. this week) in MediaWiki that caused red links to show as blue for some people in some skins, including Vector 2022. I have had a custom blue color for blue links in my personal CSS since Vector 2022 was released, and red links worked fine. Red links turned blue for me this week; I had to modify my personal CSS to get them back. See T315347. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If the editors having this problem aren't using a more-or-less updated mainstream browser, it may not support the :where{} pseudo-class. Saw this happening today on an old laptop and tracked it down to that; easy enough to fix with custom CSS as described above. Gamapamani (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Indus Valley Script

Indus script states that "Despite many attempts, the "script" has not yet been deciphered." The article does not refer to Yagna Devam's deciphering of the Indus Valley Script even though the Wikipedia article has been updated in 2024. Is that a mistake or is Yagna Devam's work not considered to be valid? Thanks. KUBH (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@KUBH:, volunteers at the Help Desk are unlikely to know the detail of the content of an article like Indus script. You could ask at the talk page of the article, my impression is that the article has not been updated because no Wikipedia:Reliable source has been found for the claim that the script has been deciphered. TSventon (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Having briefly websearched, it appears to me that Yagna Devam's proposed decipherment has only very recently been well publicised, and that there has not yet been enough time for other reputable scholars to peer-review and comment on it. Like all such indeciphered scripts, many different and incompatible decipherment proposals for the IVS have been made, ranging from deluded to plausible, so determining which are WP:FRINGE and which are worthy of mention is not easy.

In view of the above, it may be WP:TOOSOON to add this particular theory to the article yet, but if it proves on further academic analysis to have merit, as-yet-unwritten WP:Reliable sources will be published that will qualify it. I hope this happens, because being able finally to understand the IVS will provide invaluable historical insights.

Wikipedia only summarises already-published reliable sources, and in academia publishing is often measured and slow, so delays in being able to include new findings are usual. I notice for example that in a parallel case, a recent proposed decipherment of Linear A (suggesting it's not Minoan, but Egyptian hieroglyphic shorthand – the proposers's book was due to be published this October) which I find very persuasive has not yet achieved a mention. Oh, well, I've been waiting 60 years . . . . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Manipulation in Wikipedia

The article about HonestReporting, and NGO, is not real and generates misinformation about the conflict in Middle East. As example, was completely real that journalists of CNN, AP, Al Jazeera and others participate of terrorist acts. The NGO fights against misinformation, and with the entrance in Wikipedia lying and spreading fake facts, the site contributes to the free hate. Berele (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Berele, please go to Talk:HonestReporting. Start by reading the section near the top, "Warning: active arbitration remedies". If you believe that you can comment in a way that will satisfy this, then make clear proposals, of course authoritatively referenced, at the foot of the talk page. Mere complaints will get you nowhere; instead, say exactly what is wrong, and say exactly how it should be fixed (of course, with references to reliable sources). -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Permanently Banned on Hebrew Wikipedia

Hello,

Nice to meet you. I'm Noam, 32 years old, from Israel. Recently I was permanently banned on Hebrew Wikipedia, for stupid reasons, and despite doing everything I can to explain the situation, and contacted the admins, nothing helped.

A few questions about this I have:

1. Can you help me contact Hebrew Wikipedia Admins to explain everything? There is a misunderstanding on there and I cant contact them because im banned.

2. They banned me for a very stupid reason. I had a small argument with someone else and they banned permanently just because of that. Do they have a right to?

3. I contribute alot to Wikipedia and being banned makes absolutely no sense.

4. If i remain banned on there, it means i will be banned on this english wikipedia too?

thanks, noam Noam Atadgy (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Noam Atadgy:
Can you help me contact Hebrew Wikipedia Admins to explain everything? There is a misunderstanding on there and I cant contact them because im banned.
Each language is its own individual project and has its own policies and guidelines. The English Wikipedia does not have any say in how the Hebrew Wikipedia operates. Most Wikipedias should have something similar to the {{unblock}} template.

If i remain banned on there, it means i will be banned on this english wikipedia too?
Your actions on the Hebrew Wikipedia won't reflect the fate of your account here, though if you're found to have caused trouble across multiple projects, there is a chance that your account will be globally locked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. Just to confirm my conclusion is correct from what you're saying,... being banned on the hebrew version has no effect on here? I have a feeling there is some effect... But like i said, they're ignoring me. I have the email address, of their support team but they fail to respond. And they banned for stupid reasons... they didnt even give me a chance to explain anything! What can we do? Noam Atadgy (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

As long as you edit in accordance with English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you should be fine. In other words, what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas until you start doing the same things outside of Vegas. In that case, someone could cite your ban on Hebrew Wikipedia as possibly an early indication of problems you're now causing on other WMF projects, which in turn might lead to someone deciding Wikipedia:Global actions is needed.

There's nothing English Wikipedia can do to help you with your ban on Hebrew Wikipedia. FWIW, many who end up blocked/banned on English Wikipedia claim that it was for "stupid reasons", but in almost all of those cases the block/ban was justified. If you happen to be the rare exception and really want to get back in the good graces of Hebrew Wikipedia, perhaps the thing to do would be to follow the advice given in WP:OFFER and WP:NOTTHEM, and show you're willing to eat a little crow (even if its fake crow). Step outside yourself and try to look at your block from the eyes of those who blocked you to try and understand what they saw. Wait a few months to give yourself sometime to show others you're reflecting on things, and then file an unblock request in which you state you understand the problem and have no intention of repeating it. If you keep peppering Hebrew Wikipedia with emails or unblock requests, you're probably only going to reduce your chances of getting unblocked. You can use this down time to make productive edits on other WMF project pages which you can than cite as evidence that you know how you messed up and have no intention of repeating your mistakes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Noam Atadgy, when someone is banned from a Wikipedia and there is no option to discuss it locally they sometimes open a Meta Request for Comment, see m:Requests for comment. I see a few Hebrew Wikipedia related requests there. I don't think they work out often, but they do exist. Out of interest, was your ban part of the 50+ editors who were blocked from Hewbrew Wikipedia in June that I heard about? Commander Keane (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm relatively new and wasnt around in June. I joined as editor in september or so,but ive been reading wikipedia for years. Pls read my reply to Marchjuly, I explained there. Noam Atadgy (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the detailed reply Marchjuly. Yeah I understand, it has no effect here. I tried to talk to them but they dont answer. What happened on Hebrew wikipedia was, I simply became a little rude and made irrelevant comments somewhere and ended up banned because one of the immature admins on there became angry. However, the comments were because someone else was rude first, he reversed my edits without a valid reason and tried to erase my contributions on a few articles. I'm actually very helpful, I edit alot and contribute alot and I try to respect everyone and I'm almost never rude or disrespectful, not even on talk pages of articles. Its all good right? I mean we can forget hebrew wikipedia and focus on here. What do you think about everything I explained to you now? Noam Atadgy (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Nobody's going to really care what happened on Hebrew Wikipedia as long as you don't start doing the same thing here on English Wikipedia. You're describing a situation that users are sometimes also blocked for here on English Wikipedia. It matters not who was rude first or whether you feel the admins were immature and overreacted; you're still going to be expected to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:DR when dealing with disagreements over edits. I'm not an admin, but there are plenty who answer questions at this help desk and one of them will probably say the same thing. FWIW, almost everyone who ends up being blocked says they were only being helpful. In some cases, they might have been to some degree, but their helpfulness ends up be overshadowed by other things; in other words, they start to become more of a negative than a positive to the point that others get tired of dealing with them and decide it's best for the project for them to be moved on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I have an idea. How about you go over my history of discussions, talk pages, edits, contributions, and more, and tell me how ive been, or go ask an adminn to do so? you can clearly see how much i respect other people, how much i contribute to health related articles and mediacations and more. im a very nice guy! what happened on hebrew wikipedia wont happen here and you can be sure about that mates. lets sit down and have a beer or roll up a cannabis joint, shall we? Noam Atadgy (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

What, why did you become silent? Because I talked about alcohol and drugs? XD Noam Atadgy (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

add new article

Sam new here so we want add new article for our company Wizfreelance (talk) 07:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

how many day take to review article and accept from new user Wizfreelance (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Wizfreelance, please read Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia very carefully. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Short answer: you can't, WP is not a marketing platform.

Longer answer:

• WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing
• WP:NORG

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

question regarding charts

i'm working on a draft page right here and i need some help with the charts. is there a way to get the Official Albumss Charts UPDATE on the charts because there is only the regular uk2 on the template and i want the one with update. is it on the chart template? Ddellas (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The chart you provided seem to be a non-default of UK chart, so in this case you'll need to fill out the specific citation information instead of having the algorithm generate by itself. Check out "Maunual Referencing" part of Template:Album chart for detailed instruction. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

How do I speed up the process to review the page I created?

I have created a page and I improved it following the guidelines, but somehow it's still under review and it keeps postponing. How can I speed up the process? Thanks. DialaSharief (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no way to speed up the process; drafts are reviewed in no particular order. 6 weeks is actually very low compared to the recent past when the wait was months. Please be patient. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm writing about this photographer just like any other random pages I tried to create. I'm trying to understand why none of this would work. I get the notability part and reliable source, but I edited it following the guidelines. I also tried to edit some other random pages on Wikipedia and they got rejected too. DialaSharief (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Now reviewed and declined for a third time and for the same reason. Please attend to the issues hightlighted by the reviewer before submitting it again. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @DialaSharief. A point to realise is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

Only one of your three citations even might be an independent source. ColinFine (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I totally get the reliable independent source and I edited it according to what I found articles online. I created and edited other random pages and they were all removed or deleted or rejected. It became a challenge. I'm just learning how to fix it. Appreciate your feedback. DialaSharief (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

DialaSharief, has anyone yet pointed you to WP:42 and WP:BACKWARD? They're both fairly brief pages, and article creation may become much easier for you if you're able to keep their guidance in mind. Folly Mox (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

question re article featured on main page

can someone please tell me why the excerpt for "today's featured article,' on the front page, is NOT the same as the actual opening of the article? the featured article today is William de Ros, 6th Baron Ros. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

please ping me when you reply. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Funnily enough—speaking completely partisan as the guy who wrote the bloomin thing—I've always thought our blurbs weren't that different from the lead. I could be wrong! But, you know, if it's an anniversary, it should state outright that "Today, X years ago, Y took place ion Z" etc. But it never does... it sort of makes the reader guess, or dig out for himself, a reason for that article being on the main page. (And of course, mostly, there isn't a reason, as if there's no anniversary, it's just randomly scheduled.) If a reader works it out, fine, but by then they must already be reading it, whereas if it stated the anniversarical reason, it might draw people in who might otherwise not have thought of doing so. Paging @TFA coordinators , also in an effort of reassurance that no hint of criticism of the stalwart work they do is intended, just an alternate view on a very minor aspect. @Sm8900:, for further and more general info, see WP:Today's Featured Article. HTH! SerialNumber54129 13:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It's almost always based on the lead, but given we have only 1,025 characters to do our work, the need for compactness of language may lead to a number of omission from the article lead, and sometimes, more rarely, additions, either because the lead is short or we want to emphasize the anniversary if there is one.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sm8900: The text in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 1, 2024 is not automatically extracted from the article. We never allow that on the main page. It was mainly written 12 October 2024 [1] with minor changes [2] since then. You can post to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in the summary of the featured article if something needs fixing in the main page text but not if you merely want to synchronize with the article wording. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sm8900, We are restricted to 1,025 characters (including spaces and "(Full article...)") for the blurb, so leads all have to be trimmed and distilled down. Just by way of example, De Ros is 3,105 characters, so we have to lose two-thirds of the text just to get it to fit. This should also explain why there isn't space to include any reference to date connections. - SchroCat (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It does not explain that at all. Specifically, inserting (for example) ...who died today in 1414 would add a grand total of five words, and frankly, if some of our top-FA writers can't shave another five words odd when as you say they've already cut >2,000 then that is obviously a completely acceptable alternative. SerialNumber54129 14:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

As his date of birth is in the first line, maybe it doesn't need to have the additional text? That would certainly come in for criticism at WP:ERRORS, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

ok yes, these replies really help me to understand this. thanks!! Sm8900 (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

i need someone to review my draft

Draft:London Borough of the City of Westminster (its a redirect btw) Size5football (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirects aren't done via the draft process. You should just create it. 331dot (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

im making the draft so it can redirect to City of Westminster Size5football (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You should be able to edit London Borough of the City of Westminster to create the redirect. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

okay Size5football (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@331dot sandbox, improve, or article wizard? Size5football (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

In this case you can just click the red link I created to create the redirect. In the future you can just create a link in your sandbox to accomplish the same thing. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Problematic Search Suggestion

When searching for “Sprunki” a popular kids game, one of the search suggestions is “ejaculation” which depicts four photo frames of an erect penis ejaculating. Whether the page for ejaculation really requires an actual picture of an erect penis ejaculating while pages like that for “urination” take a more delicate route is not what I want to get into, but it seems like the search term “Sprunki” does not need to offer “ejaculation” as a suggestion. Who moderates this sort of thing? 2.101.138.60 (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. I'm guessing that the issue here is that the name of the game is close to a slang word for ejaculate, which is why that is coming up. See WP:NOSEE for options on suppressing the display of images. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you give a more detailed explanation of what you did? When I put "Sprunki" into the search box, all it offers is Draft:Sprunki (which has no images) and "Search for pages containing Sprunki". When I pick that option, I'm taken to Special:Search/Sprunki, which says Showing results for sprung. No results found for Sprunki. Nyttend (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Now I'm wondering if you were shown results for spunking where I was shown sprung? There's a redirect from spunking to ejaculation (don't mouse over either of these links if you don't want to see the image), according to Special:Whatlinkshere/Ejaculation. Nyttend (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The OP may be referring to the search box at https://www.wikipedia.org/ where I get the reported results. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry yes, the offending suggestion is prompted and listed 5th of 8 suggestions by typing into the search field. 2.101.138.60 (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thumbnail doesn't match full image

I recently requested a significant edit to this image, and someone just uploaded a new version. When I first loaded the file description page after the new upload, the cache apparently reset, because the 590×599 pixel preview image was different, but the original thumbnail appeared in both versions of the file history. Any idea why this would be the case? I've tried purging, but that didn't help. Not urgent of course; I'm just trying to understand. Nyttend (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It takes time to update the thumbnail, probably something to do with the algorithm. The thumbnail looks good now. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

User Edit Count

Under my user page's "Your Impact" section, it lists a bunch of total edits I've made. Is it true that if I create the entire draft of a Wikipedia page from scratch and press the publish button, that this counts as one edit? While at the same time if I, for example, make a small copyedit say altering the simple grammar of one sentence on a Wikipedia page, this also counts as one edit. Yet the amount of time and work involved in both of these one edit conditions is vastly different. Thanks. Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I do think that is how it works. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

⚖️ Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

An "edit" occurs when you click "publish changes". The time it took you to generate the edit is not factored in. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Since there are certain status levels granted editors based on total number of edits, I wonder if this strategy is fiar. Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

fair. Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja, you are correct. By the way, it is quite risky to write an entire new article in the edit window without intermediate saving, because a power failure or other technical glitch could cause you to lose all your work. I recommend use of your sandbox space to draft new content instead, with fairly frequent saving, to prevent such a disaster. The valid point that you make, though, is why an individual editor's edit count is only the roughest approximation of their productivity. For example, I am a highly active editor with over 110,000 edits but probably 10,000 of those are correcting my own typographical errors. What matters most of all is the decent quality articles that an editor writes or expands, and the useful, friendly work they do behind the scenes to make the encyclopedia function more smoothly. Cullen328 (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Cullen328. Also noted the green and red indicators next the edits in my "Contributions" section. Def have been sandboxing my entries before moving them to draft space, but thanks for the tips and clarifications! Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja, as for autoconfirmed and extended confirmed, these are not "status" levels. They are effective user metrics designed to minimize vandalism and POV pushing in specific articles prone to certain types of disruption. They are not shiny badges and they have no impact on editing the vast majority of articles. Cullen328 (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. I am fluent in Spanish and English and have been editing Spanish Wikipedia entries the past few days. I read that in order for me to qualify to be able to translate using the Wikipedia Spanish to English translator, I must first have more than 500 edits. Instead of status, perhaps experience is a better term. Also should note that the total edit count is not combined across my Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja Spanish and English edit entries. Wikipedia:Content translation tool#English Wikipedia restrictions Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The red and green indicators next to individual contributions (diffs) indicate only whether the edit decreased or increased the byte count of the page source. They are not value statements or "points" (although if someone's entire contribution history is only removals, their value as an editor may fairly be questioned). See also WP:EDITCOUNTITIS. Folly Mox (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Candidates

Can candidates of a alliance as third alliance in an assembly election be added in Candidates section of an Indian state assembly election article? Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 22:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 07:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@RITWIK MAHATA I don't see why not, as long as you cite a WP:reliable source. Try it. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 09:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Photos by museums, auctioneers, and authors

Is a recent photograph of a 200 year old letter, taken by one of the above and appearing on the internet, usable on Wikipedia? What about photographs of other antique items of similar vintage? What about photographs of antique paintings?

Similarly, authors of books may publish photographs "by courtesy of..."; does copyright in the book apply to the image?

I know of a relevant cases by individuals: a very old miniature painting is held in a private collection, the person (not the owner) was allowed to photograph it and now claims copyright on their photograph. (Yet several copies appear in blogs.) Humpster (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Humphrey Tribble, copyright law is highly complex and also varies from country to country. So there are few absolutes. There are general principles, though, that can be used for guidance. In the United States, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. established the principle that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. The "Subsequent jurisprudence" section of that article discusses how other courts have used that particular decision in other cases. So, a photo of a two dimensional painting, document, poster, or book cover is OK to use, no matter who took the photo, if the originals are in the public domain. This legal theory does not apply to photos of three dimensional objects like sculptures in the public domain. The photographer's decisions about lighting, angle, framing and lens choice introduces a level of creativity that justifies a copyright of photos of such objects. Cullen32c8 (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The "courtesy" notice you mention just indicates that the copyright holder has authorized one time re-use of the image for a specific purpose. It is not a general copyright release. Cullen328 (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Humphrey Tribble, it's my understanding that if a two-dimensional painting, letter, photograph or whatever is in the public domain (probably because of its age), then, regardless of how much time, effort and skill was needed to create it, a faithful photograph of that work is also in the public domain as far as Wikipedia is concerned. (A three-dimensional work is a different matter. And where two- becomes three-dimensional -- bas-relief? impasto? -- is a question I can't answer offhand.) Wikipedia is here following its interpretation of US copyright law. Nations outside the US have other copyright laws. If somebody took a photo of a centuries-old artefact, that person may indeed own the copyright to the photo in this or that jurisdiction. For further questions about such matters, you'd be better off asking at Wikimedia Commons. -- Hoary (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Oops, edit clash. Cullen328's answer is good. -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hoary, two good heads are better than one, especially when we reinforce each other. Cullen328 (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both. I will proceed with using photos of two-dimensional objects, but not three-dimensional artefacts. For the latter, I will just have to visit or get some Wikipedian to take a photo. Humpster (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I am closing this question. Humpster (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Adjusting photo sizes

Regarding WP article "Paul Martin (illustrator)." Heading, "Gallery of Poses." I added the picture, which has the caption "Check exchange..." The entire row of pictures then became supersized. I tried lowering the 155px. Nothing happened until it reached 141px, and then the row of pictures became super small. How can that row of gallery pictures be drawn inward and lowered in size just a little? Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@JimPercy This seems to have been fixed by various editors, including yourself, today. If there are still problems, it is probably best to WP:PING those involved to the article's Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@User talk:Michael D. Turnbull. Right. An editor removed an unrelated picture, which brought the row of images back to their original sizes. I think the deletion of the picture form the article is iffy. I might go the more correct route, as you suggested. I thought that editor might notice my summarized comment in the history section. Update. Maybe reasoning was the pic didn't add anything to article (even though rare in form). JimPercy (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

My removal of the file had nothing to do with its size, but rather because its use fails WP:NFCC. The file is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 3#File:PosterArtists.jpg and you're free to seek consensus in favor of the file's use there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Please also don't add in-body descriptions related to image locations or image existence like "picture below", "picture above", "pictured", etc. to articles for the reasons given in MOS:SEEIMAGE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)