Help desk
< June 26	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 28 >

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.

June 27

Use of Google Street View images

I read through Google's terms of use, and understood them to say that use of their street view content is allowed provided Google and its content providers are credited. However, when I attempted to use street view imagery on an article, it was marked for speedy deletion along with a comment that all of Google's content is copyrighted and cannot be used on wikipedia. Can someone help me understand this? I will provide links below that led me to believe the use of this image was allowed.

"Google Earth images

We know the imagery in Google Earth, both current and historical, can provide useful visual context to news websites, blogs, and other educational sites. And often these sites want to use the imagery found in Google Earth as still images, both as-is or annotated with additional labels and features. You may use a handful of these images in a news article or on a blog, just please be sure to follow our attribution rules. Note that Google Earth Pro allows you to export high-resolution JPEGs—particularly handy for these projects."

Google Earth Images for use on web: https://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines.html#maps-web

Proper Attribution: https://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines/attr-guide.html

Thanks for the help — Preceding unsigned comment added by PureMichiganChip (talk • contribs) 04:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PureMichiganChip: Google's conditions for using Street View imagery are fairly strict (https://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines.html#streetview) - they require a live link to Google's copy of the image, unless the re-use is for academic or non-commercial purposes. This is incompatible with the free licenses used at Wikipedia, which allow text and images to be re-used freely, even commercially. There are exceptions which allow some non-free images to be displayed at Wikipedia, but they won't apply to Street View images. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PureMichiganChip: You have to understand that Wikipedia allows LESS than you might have permission for. This is to guarantee the eternal availability for any purpose of the material that we create and host. This makes it considerably hard for the average person to determine what kind of material he can upload and use in an article. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File rename

I am having trouble. This page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Rename_media - is meant to show me how to revert a file name. I had thought that the file (see below) was named incorrectly and I therefore changed it. BUT - it is clear now that the file's ORIGINAL name was indeed correct. The file is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge#/media/File:William_Middleton,_Esq.,_of_Gledhow_Grange_Estate,_near_Leeds.jpg

You will see that it was originally correctly called - File:John W. Middleton Esq. of Fairfield, the estate in Far Headingley, near Leeds.jpg

Please help me reinstate this original and correct file name. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Srbernadette: I have posted on your behalf at the Wikimedia Commons help desk. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of a Previously-Deleted Page

Hi! I'm new here as a contributor. I was doing a Wikipedia search for something, and surprised that the page didn't exist yet. I looked on the logs, and it turns out that two attempted creations had been deleted for a multitude of reasons including COI and non-credible sources. The Wikipedia guidelines for "Criteria for Speedy Deletion" state that "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)".

If I were to recreate this page, would it be possible to have a draft looked at to ensure that it's "not substantially identical to the deleted version" (I have no idea what it looks like before, and can't seem to figure out how to view what it was before it was deleted, if it's possible?) and that the sources I believe to be credible (as per my interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines) are actually credible?

Thanks! Vorsipellis (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't see it - but an administrator can. You can ask one if they can provide the old text which they will often do if it doesn't contain copyright violations, personal attacks, etc. (Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention) Rmhermen (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to create the article, Vorsipellis, (and are satisfied that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, my suggestion would be to use the article wizard to create a draft in draft space. When you think it is ready, you can submit it for review; and if the reviewing editor thinks that it is acceptable, they will sort out moving it to mainspace. Depending on why the previous attempts were deleted, it may or may not be useful to look at them: as Rmhermen says, you can ask an administrator to give you a copy. --ColinFine (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, will go do that. Thanks very much! Vorsipellis (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

show name of google

sir i want know how show about myself on google if any person search my name how to add name & image informed me — Preceding unsigned comment added by PARAMESWARSUNA (talk • contribs)

In general, you cannot do such at thing yourself. You can always buy an ad with Google to advertise yourself of course. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in Local language

Can citation source be in local language other than English ?Can administrators take in count the third resource from Language other than english — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeep3434 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandeep3434: Yes, sources written in any language are acceptable; see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources for more detail. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandeep3434: and an English translation of the title may be helpful Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands vs Holland

Are they going to leave Holland known as the Netherlands (which it was called years ago) (This was done due to Michele Obama wasn't it?) This grouping was Spain, France, Bugaria, Germany, Holland - part of what is each country now was The Netherlands. It is causing problems, especially for Olympic athletes. Some of these countries athletes didn't get to compete.

Regarding the listing for the United States, if you watch an unedited version of the Trump inauguration, you will find Trump was not reinaugurated. It was stopped by a General of the UNITED STATES MILITARY, not a US led coalition which the Metro refers to constantly by Rueters.

Thanks, concerned American — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.108.141 (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The Netherlands" is the correct title of the Western European country north of Belgium. Part of its territiry consists of the two provinces of North and South Holland, and the country is sometimes as a whole referred to (incorrectly) as "Holland" The history of the area is quite complex, but Spain and Austria did at one time control it between them, and France and Germany have both invaded at various times. I don't think Bulgaria has ever had anything to do with it. I have no idea why you think Michelle Obama had any involvement, nor what it has to do with the Olympics.

I also have no idea what you're talking about re Trump's inauguration. Rojomoke (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

mailing list

I am a real estate broker and I am trying to get a list of email address for my County in Florida so I can send out a news letter trying to market my real estate company. How do I do this Thank You Jim Mathieu Alzie Realty Fort Lauderdale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alziehomes (talk • contribs) 14:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alziehomes. This is the help desk, which is for asking questions about using Wikipedia. You might try asking at the reference desk. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 14:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not disclose any e-mail addresses, of course, but some organisations do sell lists that they have compiled. If you ask at the computing reference desk, perhaps someone can point you to such an organisation. Dbfirs 16:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Draft / Talk

Good afternoon

How do i delete a Draft and Talk pages ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Francois_Delage

I.e., I only want the below to be accessible / for reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francois_Delage

Thank you in advance for helping. Kind regards Camilla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.80.230 (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted them, needs admin permissions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you meant the talk page of the article, rather than of the draft, that must stay so people can comment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "sic"

What should be done if a newspaper misspells someone's verbal quote? It seems a bit unfair to add "[sic]", given that "[sic]" tends to be used to draw attention to someone's alleged lack of written English skills. This was not Mhairi Black's spelling error, it was The Guardian's. Could the spelling be corrected in the quote? MaxBrowne (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A spelling error in The Grauniad! a scandalous accusation sir. That definitely sounds like she was speaking, making it the paper's error. Sic not needed in my opinion. - X201 (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Hi Max. As far as I am concerned, the source here is the person being quoted, and The Guardian's role as a source is in acting as a reliable conduit for what the words were, but not the spelling/punctuation. Also, the grammatical error made by the newspaper in transcription is not relevant to the quote's purpose in the article, so flagging it in the body would be a distraction. Accordingly, I see no need to retain The Guardian's possessive error. It should simply be corrected, with no [sic] flag. This is in keeping with MOS:PMC. However, it might be useful to add a commented out note (text between ) next to the corrected error, stating this issue itself. This would not be seen in the live article, but would be seen by anyone seeking to "correct" the quote by adding in the apostrophe or "[sic]", or both. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is specified in the MOS (manual of style) at MOS:PMC. RJFJR (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Hi! I am trying to create a wikipedia page about Nick Quested, a renowned documentary film producer who has won Emmy awards and been nominated for an Academy Award. Somebody has already tried to make a page about him, but the draft was denied publication. Now I am trying to edit it and resubmit to be evaluated, but I am not sure how to do this. I don't see where I can resubmit the page that was created by somebody else, but that I edited. I appreciate the help. JordanK713 (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a resubmit button in blue on the draft page, but don't resubmit yet, because you need to find independent references. A subject's own website and IMDb are written by the subject or their agents, so are not independent, and can be used only in a limited way. You need to find publications where the subject has been written about extensively (not just an interview or a mention). See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Dbfirs 16:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Emmys were shared with others, and a documentary he worked on was nominated for an Oscar, not him. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image Use

I'm going around and around on whether the image is relevant to the topic. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Braves_Spring_Training_Stadium If I'm wrong on this topic it's fine. Just need a third party to give it a look. I edited the caption to give context to the image. The same user still removed it. The user could be right, but the revert war is unproductive. The picture in question is a picture of a future location of a ball park. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an empty field showing grass, bushes and trees. There's nothing unique or identifying in the image itself, not even a sign saying "Future Spring Training Home of the Braves" or similar. Any photo of an empty field could be substituted, and no one would know the difference. - BilCat (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You opinion is referenced over and over on the article. Can someone else help with this question? The image is the future location and shows the undeveloped West Villages location. Nemov (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat, Nemov: Well, you've both violated the three revert rule x 3 (9 reverts each today I believe) in your edit war, and neither one of you have started a discussion on the talk page. After doing so and the issue cannot be resolved, you can seek a Wikipedia:Third opinion, and/or start a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. There's further ideas at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

As to the underlying issue, I'm somewhat torn. It's not "purely decorative" and as to MOS:PERTINENCE, it is relevant. It is the actual field as identified by the photographer, not some random field (meaning I think Bilcat's over-egged the pudding in claiming that this is literally no different than any other image of a random field) but is it "significant" when it's, well, just a fairly generic looking field; does seeing the actual field where something will be built, but has not yet been built, tell us much about the thing; does it increase our reader's understanding?

I think it does though not greatly. It's a hook for the content about the Stadium's yet-to-be-built status, and it also tells our readers some information about the ultimate location that is not just "empty field information". For one, we can see the location chosen is in a rural area with nothing around it for a long way, that is different information than, say, if it was of a field surrounded by buildings or there was lots of highways in view. But is it very significant? No. So if, for example, this article had many [other] relevant images and we were concerned about the number ("too many can be distracting"), then I would vote for this to go. As it is, though, I think it has a place. Feel free to transpose this post to the talk page discussion (though all of it or nothing), if you start it (as I urge you to do). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As is yours. I'm sorry, but however you know this, it's original research. I'm taking your word for it that its actually correct location, but how does anyone else know? Maybe you could put up a sign, and then take another photo. - BilCat (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bilcat: we relax our standards for images. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Image description pages: "Reliable sources, if any, may be listed on the image's description page. Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. If such sources are available, it is helpful to provide them."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been assuming good faith that this is the actual field. But it does look like any other field, which is my point. - BilCat (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks for your help. Good to know about the third party option as well. I should have have pursued that instead of all the reverts. I copied this over to the talk page for future reference. Nemov (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for pages containing words containing a substring.

Is there a way to use a wildcard at the beginning of a word when searching wikipedia? For example if I wanted to search for pages for words containing the substring "methane" so I could also find pages containing the word chloromethane, nitromethane, methanesulfonic, ect. How could I go about it? OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OrganoMetallurgy. Please see Help:Searching, including its subsection at Syntax which covers wildcard searches. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit wildcards don't work at the beginning of words. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@OrganoMetallurgy: An "insource" regular expression search can sometimes do the job (example) but in this case there are too many results for the software to return them all. -- John of Reading (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that solves my problem. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table problems

Hello, I'm a bit at a loss with the article Bournemouth (J. R. R. Tolkien's place of death...): (1) Although I entered the parameter class="wikitable centered" (I also tried class="wikitable center") for the second table in the Climate. How come this doesn't work? (2) Also, I didn't know how to fix the table[s] in the Demography section just below. Would somebody like to give me a helping hand there?--Curc (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Table is your friend:

{|class="wikitable" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Curc: This seems to be missing some " characters. There's a complete example at HELP:TABLECENTER. -- John of Reading (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk and John of Reading: Okay, at least I managed to fix the climate table, but I still couln't figure out what's wrong with the one[s] in the Demography section, but it seems as if the table's formatting as a whole needed a complete overhaul, doesn't it? Admittedly, I really don't have a sound knowledge of formatting tables... Best--Curc (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, missed a couple of quote marks.

What do you want from the two tables in Demography? Yes, there does seem (to me) to be a bit more markup that may be necessary. Why the different colors? Why the narrow blank columns?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, also some lines are thicker and in the two last ones the last line is missing each time.--Curc (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes" what? What do you mean by that? I don't know how to interpret that answer when applying it to the "what do you want from these tables" question (which is, to my mind, the most important question). Nor can I use it to answer the other questions I asked.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please excuse my "steno style". "Yes" was only used as an affirmative referring to your observations about the need of revision (different colors, blank columns). I hope things become clearer now. ;-)--Curc (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what you want? To standardize the colors? Delete extraneous columns? Normalize line thickness? Leave them where they are? Center? In short, my first question remains unanswered: What do you want from the two tables in Demography?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how to add a new page

Hello, I would like to know how I can create a new page that does not exist (for example in English) but is available in other languages. I have read the guide how to do it but could not find the way where to start, where to click. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirka1901 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jirka1901 . Are you sure the subject is notable? – that it/he/she has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources that you plan to cite to verify all the information and demonstrate that notability? You've read Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Translation, including its section on providing mandatory copyright attribution if you're translating? Okay, then, go the Wikipedia:Article wizard—it'll walk you though it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]