Help desk
< September 8	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 10 >

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.

September 9

PHOTOS

I want to add a picture or photo to a biography, how can I do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanelchole (talk • contribs) 00:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UPLOAD CTF83! 00:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First edit - movie poster resolution

I arrived at Billing (filmmaking) and noticed the movie poster for the Towering Inferno was rather small and doesn't illustrate the point of cast prominence very well because of the difficulty of reading the cast listed along the bottom (or so I thought, until I saw a larger version which clearly shows the bottom images are labeled as characters not cast). I found a larger version of this which might help others see this more clearly to avoid the confusion. I was going to post it, but 1) I apparently can't upload files yet as this is a new account, and 2) I was reading that low resolution movie posters are required due to copyright (something about affecting the potential saleability of a product?). The image is 1098x1500, not large enough to actually print a movie poster size output from, but large enough to see the details on the poster to read the text at the bottom. I suppose "Low Resolution" is relative - I personally print on 14" wide paper and find anything below 2500x3000 to be low resolution (for my output size). With the purpose of Wikipedia, would a normal (for smallish prints) to high (for display on a monitor) resolution file not be acceptable for a non-current, previously publicly displayed movie poster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Pfingstmann (talk • contribs) 07:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fine line between Fair Use and not, really, so it's a dangerous area to tread. Any file that could be used to make monetary profit that does not go back to the copyright holder isn't allowed, as that would be allowing copyright infringement. Our poster uploads are meant to be for the top of film articles, showing a basic idea of the film visually, and then describing it in a more detailed in the text. As more detail is needed in the image, I'd suggest replacing it with a free-to-use alternative. There are some films made by projects that don't claim copyright on them (see, for instance, Big Buck Bunny), and finding such a poster (one that has been released into the public domain), would mean you could upload it at full resolution. drewmunn talk 07:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that this falls under Wikipedia's non-free content criteria which are more strict than the "fair use" doctrine under copyright law.--ukexpat (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Display in-app Wiki pages

Hello,

I'm developing a mobile application having brief descriptions of nature, birds, animals, locations, etc. The content and images belong to me (copyrighted)

I want to add a "Wiki Link" under each subject description (inside the mobile app) where more information about the subject can be read/found at the Wiki page. The Wiki page will open "inside the app" so users do not have to leave the application while going through the information.

Let me know if providing a "Wiki link" and opening the "Wiki content" inside the application (by calling the mobile browser) leads to any copyright infringement.

Note: I'm not copying any Wiki content - only opening the Wikipedia page through the mobile browser "inside the app".

Thank You, Yadunandan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ypujara (talk • contribs) 08:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ypujara:As long as you credit Wikipedia for the information, it should all be ok - You may be interested in WP:CW, which has more information. If it links to the site, a link label such as "Article on Wikipedia" should be absolutely fine. Mdann52 (talk) 10:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just be aware, though, that the content of articles on Wikipedia can change, and some articles actually disappear from time to time.... —Anne Delong (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mistake

i want to know how can i put my name on wikipedia in the right order, and i also created two accounts and now i want to know how to delete one of them, under the name: user moha ennaji thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youssra bettache (talk • contribs) 09:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts on Wikipedia are not deleted, as they must be kept for attribution purposes. If you have previously used Moha ennaji and Ennaji moha, just stop using those accounts, and preferably put a note on the old user talk pages to say that you are now editing as Youssra bettache. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to that, if you wrote the article Ennaji Moha about yourself, you ought to read WP:Autobiography and WP:COI. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to ship page

How do I edit page so edit is kept. ie... Ships history USS Donald B Beary FF 1085 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.76.52 (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to stop you editing the article. Just ensure that any changes you make are supported by references to published reliable sources to satisfy the rquirements for verifiability. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting from non existing topics

I proposed a few days ago to ptopose the speedy deletion of Hungarian Empire, which is a redirect to Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1526). My motivation was that Hungary was never an empire, it was only a kingdom and in recent times a republic. The process was stopped by User:DMacks, who contested the deletion, his reason being valid redirect therefore helps readers learn that info . I am a little confused, is it right to keep erroneous names? Firstly, this is like suggesting that the "Kingdom of Hungary" is also known as the "Hungarian Empire", which is false. If the only purpose of this is to help the readers to reach the correct article, we could also add redirects like Byzantine Kingdom, Costa Rico or Novak Djokovich. This sounds comepletely unencyclopedic to me 79.117.169.22 (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is (whether erroneously or not) referred to from time to time as Hungarian Empire is confirmed by Special:WhatLinksHere/Hungarian Empire. The redirect is therefore worth keeping. Which criterion in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion did you think it met? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it meets CSD:G1. Thanks for pointing out the mistakes at Basarab II of Wallachia, Siege of Krujë (1450) and Červený Kláštor (monastery)‎. I guess the confusion is made because of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which is a different subject (that was a constitutional monarchic union between the crowns of the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary)79.117.169.22 (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not CSD:G1; you need to read that definition again. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a redirect does not imply that we consider the redirected name valid. We are just trying to be helpful to users who get the name wrong. For instance there is a redirect for Micheal Jackson. Maproom (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also redirects to Costa Rica [1] and Novak Djokovic [2]. Hungarian Empire doesn't satisfy any speedy deletion criteria. You can nominate it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion but I doubt it would get consensus for deletion. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harland and Wolff Categories

How is Harland and Wolff in Category:British Shipbuilders Corporation, when that does not appear in the source? Is it because of the inclusion of Template:British Shipbuilders evolution, which is in the category? H&W was an anomaly; when the UK government nationalized ship-building, it was kept as a separate entity because of the delicate political situation in N Ireland.
In general, should templates be put into categories anyway? Rojomoke (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Using templates to add categories to articles is very common; Some Wikiprojects are built on it. Mdann52 (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Individual edit links for each table cell

I find editing tables a bit cumbersome sometimes and I'd like to have an edit link for each cell (leading me to an edit page that shows only the cell contents, much like a section edit link). Is this possible as a user option somehow? If not, is it possible by modifying the table? --134.102.219.96 (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the first question is "no". As for the second question, in theory you could create a separate page for each cell, and transclude each page into the corresponding cell within the table. I would strongly advise you against trying that: Although I can't cite a rule that doing this would violate, I see no value in this, and I suspect other editors would have stronger objections. And it's possible it wouldn't even work, technically.

More generally, there have been proposals to create a Table namespace, so that editing a table would be done with an editing interface specifically adapted to tables. Personally I think this could help make VisualEditor into the preferred editing alternative, but the WMF developers have shown essentially no interest in the concept - see Bug# 2194. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the transclusion idea, I can imagine that given a sufficiently large table that it would bog down the WP servers to serve up that table when it is loaded for the end user/reader. Dismas|^(talk) 20:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have a setup that does something "like this" in my userspace that I was developing for the list of gymnasts. Feel free to go visit it and check it out. It's not a "per cell" or even "per row" solution, it's based on grouping gymnasts by various characteristics (style, country, gender iirc), but it shows it is "technically" possible to create such a beast. The downside is, as counter intuitive as it sounds, it actually makes it more difficult for many to edit because of its intimdating design. I also advise against it. Technical 13 (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As another alternative, look at List of current NCAA Division I women's basketball coaches, which allows you to edit each row. It isn't ideal, I think it looks a little ugly, and would like to see a better option, but this is an example of a table that gets updated many times, so it would be a pain to edit the entire table every time a new coach is named.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow... I think that basketball page looks flat out ugly... User:Technical_13/SandBox/Gymnasts/nation and User:Technical 13/SandBox/Gymnasts/discipline are the sandbox tables I was working on FWIW... Technical 13 (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping there would be a simple user setting or table attribute to do the job without changing the source too much. I guess I'll go with manual editing for now. But thanks a lot for the feedback :-) --134.102.219.96 (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You can directly edit the contents of individual cells right now in WP:VisualEditor (for well-formatted tables, not for creative ones or tables that look like tables but are actually templates). If all you want to do is to change the contents of an existing cell, that should work for you. If you want to do things that are even slightly more complicated (e.g., adding rows), then check back in a month or so to see whether the next phase of table development has been reached. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update old company logo

Hi. Can someone help me upload the new GT Nexus logo to the GT Nexus Wikipedia page? The logo currently used on Wikipedia is an older version of the corporate logo. The currently used logo is available on their website gtnexus.com (notice the different shades of grey). Thanks in advance for your assistance. 24.246.122.161 (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the new logo and put it on the page.Frmorrison (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 24.246.122.161 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions relating to WP:IS

I am confused after reading WP:IS as to whether primary sources are ever preferred. I want to offer these questions for discussion:

Is a winners list of an awards show better cited to a press release on the show's official website or a news website reporting it?
Are the dates of an artist's world tour best supported by her official website or an outside news website reporting it?
When quoting a tweet, do we cite the original tweet page or a news website quoting it? (Although we are clear that the tweet is no sufficient evidence of any fact in a conflict, per WP:IS and possibly WP:NPOV.)

In those cases, I think the first ones are better sources, because although primary, these are official.113.108.133.50 (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

outside sites are generally better, as they also show notability and can present criticisms about it better than official sources. Mdann52 (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside sources are generally better. For #1 and #2, there is additional content that readers would find valuable. (Larger issue: citations are not only to prove that text in a Wikipedia article is true; they are also, generally, places for readers to get more details, and that is quite valuable in itself.) Regarding #3, citing only an actual tweet is a violation of WP:NOR (because you, as the editor, are implicitly deciding what is important and what is not). Citing a news website shows that mention of the tweet in the Wikipedia article is justified (at least potentially), because Wikipedia article, as overviews, are not intended to capture each and every detail of a subject. (Otherwise, why not include each and every tweet that a person has ever made?) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fundraiser

I'm trying to start a world wide fundraiser and I know if I put it on here it will for sure become well known. It's called Dollars For Collars and basically people buy 4 dollars wristbands that say "Dollars For Collars" with paw prints on either side of the wording and the money goes toward a designated charity every month or two. My father and I have taken in, cared for, and raised over 100 cats and this is something very close to our hearts. This means a lot to me and if I can't put it on here is there anywhere that you know of or anyone you know that could help me get this fundraiser out there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigkkilla (talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Wikipedia is not here to promote anything.--ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could make a blog or a facebook page about it instead, or record a Youtube video! —Anne Delong (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I request an editor for a Wikipedia submission who has specific expertise

I have submitted a Wikipedia page from my sandbox that describes a program for performing power and sample size calculations (see my sandbox). I would like to request that this page be reviewed by a biostatistician or someone who is familiar with these calculations. I have linked this page to my User talk page were I make this request. Is there anything else that I should do in this regard? That is, is there any Wikipedia tag or other device that I should use to make this request?

Sincerely,

Likelihoodist (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that your sandbox is now merely a redirect to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PS Power and Sample Size, which is where your draft was moved after you submitted it for review. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really have a system for requesting review by an editor with specific expertise. You could try to find a project related to the area of expertise, but it can be hard to find one, and not all projects are that active, so even if you do, you may not get a response. Perhaps someone will see your request here, and you could try a WP:REFDESK question relating to the equations. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the {{Expert-subject}} template, but again, articles can be tagged with that for years and get no response. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David and Monty845,

Many thanks for your response. It sounds as if my best option is to let the normal review process run its course.

Best wishes,

Bill

Likelihoodist (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You draft currently merely mentions the existence of published reviews, this is good because the existence of reviews go a long way to prove the notability of the subject. However, the core of the article should actually be based on those published reviews and so reduce the reliance on primary sources. Wikipedia cares very little for what the creators, promoter and sellers of a product have to say about it - they have a direct interest in promoting it - we strongly prefer the opinions of neutral critics and commentators. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contact Us link in Android app not working

I wanted to leave some feedback about the Wikipedia Android app (v 1.3.4), however the Contact Us link in the app does not work. It tries to navigate to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileFeedback&feedbacksource=WikipediaMobile%2F1.2, which says "No such special page". Where can I report this problem (as well as reporting the original feedback that I wanted to leave about the app)? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameboy: probably on WP:VPT Mdann52 (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Jameboy (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]