Help desk
< November 6	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 8 >

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 7

Finding articles from a category not in another category

Does anyone know of a way to find a list of articles that are in one category (say Category:Featured articles), but not in another (say Category:Articles with short description)? Thanks. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LittlePuppers: You can do so pretty easily using PetScan. Go to https://petscan.wmflabs.org/, put "Featured articles" in Categories and "Articles with short description" in Negative categories, but keep everything else the same, and it should generate a list of all featured articles which are not in the short description category. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 00:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is exactly what I was looking for! LittlePuppers (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HELP

I am not good with coding. But I manage a law school's social media and digital marketing pages. A lot of the information on the page Wikipedia has for them is incorrect and outdated which is unfortunate because the search results appear when googled. Is there someone I could submit changes to to be made ASAP? I am referring to the page about Birmingham School of Law in Birmingham, AL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psterling92 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have a conflict of interest, and presumably receive remuneration from the subject of the article, you need to declare your WP:paid status, and it would be better if you suggested updates and corrections on the talk page of the article. Uninvolved volunteers will then edit the article with your updates. If you can provide WP:Reliable sources for the information, then that will make it easier for the volunteers to make the changes. Please avoid any marketing language, since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Dbfirs 07:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Birmingham School of Law and the talk page is Talk:Birmingham School of Law. Dbfirs 07:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gabriella Windsor

Ref number 7 - I could not do the PUBLISHER - please help. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rex publications added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Srbernadette may never get it right but editors here don't help if they simply do Editor Srbernadette's bidding. This is wrong:

{{cite web |title=Majesty  Magazine |url=http://majestymagazine.com/editors_letter.php |accessdate=7 November  2018 |publisher=Rex publications|quote=Forty-year-old Tom, whose father is a Queen’s Counsel...}}

"Majesty Magazine". Rex publications. Retrieved 7 November 2018. Forty-year-old Tom, whose father is a Queen's Counsel...

when citing a magazine, use {{cite magazine}}
the name of a magazine goes in |magazine=
the title of the article or section inside the magazine goes in |title=
|publisher= is not normally used for periodicals
the source has an author so that information should be included
because this source is a magazine, |date=, |volume=, and |issue= should be included
This particular source is problematic because the |url= doesn't change with each new issue but its content does. In a month or so this citation will become useless unless the url is archived somewhere. I have preemptively archived it at archive.org so |archive-url=, |archive-date=, |dead-url= are required

The proper citation should look something like this:

{{cite magazine |last=Seward |first=Ingrid |title=Editor-in-Chief's Letter |magazine=Majesty |url=http://majestymagazine.com/editors_letter.php |volume=39 |issue=11 |date=November 2018 |accessdate=7 November 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181107093744/http://majestymagazine.com/editors_letter.php |archive-date=2018-11-07 |dead-url=yes |quote=Forty-year-old Tom, whose father is a Queen's Counsel...}}

Seward, Ingrid (November 2018). "Editor-in-Chief's Letter". Majesty. Vol. 39, no. 11. Archived from the original on 2018-11-07. Retrieved 7 November 2018. Forty-year-old Tom, whose father is a Queen's Counsel... {{cite magazine}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:SpeedReader

Does anyone know why User talk:SpeedReader will not automatically archive? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: The bot runs once a day and may be delayed. The archiving request was added less than 24 hours ago. Give it a couple of days. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has now archived it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright

A book published in India in 1969 about a person that died in 1891, contains certain valuable photographs of the subject, his wife (who died in 1844) et cetera. Can the photos be scanned and uploaded? I am explicitly talking about photographs (to emphasize the huge number of years, that have passed in between; doesn't they render copyright in-eligible?), not artistic drawings which might have post-dated their death.∯WBG^converse 15:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No; per Template:PD-India the Indian copyright will lapse 60 years after publication i.e in 2029. URAA cross applies that copyright into the US. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: American copyright law applies to media hosted at Wikicommons, but we conservatively apply other countries' laws. Copyright in a photograph belongs to the photographer and expires 70 years after the photographers death. Copyright of the photos is, as you thought, separate from copyright of the book, and the book's copyright date does not magically reset the copyright date of the photos. Therefore, I think you can make a strong case for declaring these to be in the public domain. Just make sure your copy includes only the photograph and not any text or frame from the book, and of course attribute the book in the description of the image. -Arch dude (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:, what Arch dude says is absolutely correct. It doesn't matter if the book was published this year, the image copyright is a separate matter. The only exception is if the original has been so heavily and creatively modified as to effectively change the copyright. I've only come across this once when a medieval carving was photographed using a composite of images obtained with specialist lighting. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missing edit toolbar

I am unable to see the edit tool bar at the top of any page. The problem persists on different computers and browsers. Is there a way to restore it? It's basically impossible to edit without having access. Thank you! - MainlyTwelve (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MainlyTwelve: See #Toolbars. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing has "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" which gives another toolbar. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Thank you! I appreciate the help. Just to be clear, is there no way to restore the older version?--MainlyTwelve (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MainlyTwelve: Not currently. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Support ends for the 2006 wikitext editor @MainlyTwelve: DuncanHill (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: Thanks for the link, I had no idea support was ending or that I was using a comically outdated interface. Sad to see it go!--MainlyTwelve (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "enhanced" toolbar is far less useful than the old one. DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's subjective. The enhanced toolbar has more features, and most of the removed features are in the edit tools most users have below the edit area. Most editors will probably prefer the enhanced toolbar if they learn to use it. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden behind invisible icons, or requiring more clicks to do what they could do before with fewer. I appreciate that you think you know better than I do what I will or won't like, but you don't. DuncanHill (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said "Most editors will probably ...". You jumped into a discussion seen by many users, you don't have the default skin, you have enabled a gadget which changes the color of many things including the toolbar, and you may have many years of experience with the old toolbar. I don't think you are representative, and neither of us know what MainlyTwelve or other readers of this will prefer. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a link to a related, and more detailed and highly relevant thread, then responded to the OP's thanks. Do you have a problem with that? That the "enhanced" toolbar requires more clicks to access some functions is not subjective, it's the kind of fact that Bishop Berkeley would have broken his foot on. I don't think you are representative either, and I did not claim to be representative despite your insinuation, what I object to is your patronising pretence to know what people will or will not prefer. DuncanHill (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your first post gave the link I also posted in the first reply at #Toolbars but thanks for repeating it here. The enhanced toolbar has more features so it has to require two clicks for some of them unless it has a huge interface. I think many users will enjoy the extra features and accept an extra click sometimes. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I think that you are wrong. Perhaps we should have a new page called "PrimeHunter tells people what they will like (regardless of whether or not they actually will like it)". Now we've got that out of the way, can you actually offer any help to editors adversely affected by the change? DuncanHill (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The automatic change for users of the old toolbar is to have no toolbar. At #Toolbars or here I have said they can enable another toolbar at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, learn more about it at Help:Edit toolbar#List of functions, how to add nowiki tags with it, and how to add source comments with another tool. I also posted a link to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Support ends for the 2006 wikitext editor where users can follow developments. A recent post gave code for your common JavaScript to make a toolbar with some of the features and graphics of the old toolbar:

mw.loader.load("/w/index.php?title=User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/legacyToolbar.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript");

Both section starters here have thanked me so some users may find me helpful. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fellas! I just wanted to know what had happened to the old toolbar. Thank you both for your help.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE

HELLO, I PUBLISH A ARTICLE A COUPLE DAYS AGO, BUT STILL NOT SHOWING! WHATS THE WAITING TIME FOR IT TO BE APPROVE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unaesperanzaviva (talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Unaesperanzaviva: I guess you refer to User talk:Unaesperanzaviva. It has not been submitted for review but don't try that here. This is the English Wikipedia. A Spanish article belongs in the Spanish Wikipedia. I don't know Spanish or their policies but see es:Wikipedia:Asistente para la creación de artículos. The English Wikipedia has a process at Wikipedia:Articles for creation but it's only for English articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]