Help desk
< August 30	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	September 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.

August 31

Glen Affric

Please fix ref number 54 on this page. I cannot do it and I am annoyed. Sorry 175.32.82.245 (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, the access date was misspelled. (Should be spelled August) OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 01:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information

Hi, we have been working on a docu-film about the Lancastria based on survivors accounts and take everything we do serious. All the information we have and use is from the horses mouth so to speak. We felt it was a good idea to start putting our findings on Wikipedia. Please let us know if you find a problem with any of this.Thanking you in this instance David Dalrymple Lancastria-recognition-Campaign — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Dalrymple (talk • contribs) 08:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Dalrymple You use "we" above, are you the only person operating your account? Accounts cannot be shared. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research or your findings; Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about any findings you might have. Facebook is also inappropriate as a source, please read WP:RS. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one registered and use Wikipedia, however we are as one as in the sense of the same mind, is that a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.7.235.211 (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in before posting, so your posts are properly attributed to you. If you use "we" it makes it sound like a group is operating your account. It sounds like you have a conflict of interest as well, please read WP:COI. To make further replies, please click "edit" next to the section header, or at the top of this page, to avoid introducing unnecessary formatting(when you click "new section "). 331dot (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David Dalrymple. I hear that you are passionate about your project. But I earnestly advise you to stop thinking about posting anything on Wikipedia connected with the project for the moment. The problem is that, if I'm understanding the situation right, anything you post will be at least one of promotion, righting great wrongs, or original research - none of which are permitted on Wikipedia. If you can get any of your findings published by a reliable source, then that could be cited, and the relevant information added to RMS Lancastria - but even then you should not add it yourself, as that is regarded as a conflict of interest. But until the information in your findings has been published in a reliable source, it may not go into a Wikipedia article, however convinced you are of its truth. Sorry. You are of course welcome to edit Wikipedia in other areas. --ColinFine (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of lowercase in templates

In the template Template:Flaglink, in line 1, I would like to know why the template name Country data started in lowercase. Adithyak1997 (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody chose to write it like that. It's very common and allowed. Page names cannot start with a lowercase character but it works in links and template calls like Template:country data or {{country data}}. The first character is automatically converted to uppercase. You can even write adithyak1997 when you log in. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox or Wikidata help needed

Hi. I've created the article Tarantella (1995 film) with the {{Infobox film}} template and then uploaded the information to Wikidata. I'm having problems trying to find what's wrong, because the data from Wikidata are not getting loaded automatically here, unlike what happens in the Catalan Wikipedia -where I usually edit. Thanks in advance! --Judesba (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikidata details wiki data use on en.w. It seems that infobox templates have to be specially written to accept wd data - a list of those is here: Category:Infobox templates using Wikidata. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, OxonAlex. So what should be done in this case? --Judesba (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the short term, manually fill the information into the Template:Infobox film. It may be helpful to start a discussion at either Template talk:Infobox film or Wikipedia:WikiProject Film, as to whether the data should be imported from wikidata, although be aware a lot of editors care a bit much about infoboxes - see this arbcom case . — Preceding unsigned comment added by OxonAlex (talk • contribs) 13:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Large category TOC

Hello, how can one get rid of the extra line spacing / blank line rendered before transclusions of the above template (such as in Category:Redirects with possibilities, for instance)?--Hildeoc (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your example you can just remove the blank line before the call in the source of the category page. Module:Large category TOC starts the output with __NOTOC__ followed by a line break. The caller cannot currently avoid this. You could make a request at Template talk:Large category TOC but does it really matter? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Thank you very much! I just followed your advice. Just for clarity, where exactly in the module do you find the __NOTOC__? I can only see a line return '__NOTOC__\n'..tostring(toc_frame) at the end. ???--Hildeoc (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. The code is at the end but it produces the output which starts with __NOTOC__ and a newline \n. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Okay, I guess I got it right then. Now, the problem is that seemingly all transclusions produce that extra line spacing ...--Hildeoc (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikidata property

How come this template always links to the talk page ("Discussion") of each Wikidata property item instead of to the "Property" page itself? I couldn't find any pertaining explanation in the template description. Thanks in advance for any support! Best wishes--Hildeoc (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Template talk:Wikidata property#Proposed change about link target. The property page is hard to understand and Wikidata has the documentation on the talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Thanks once more! Wouldn't it make sense then to add a corresponding note to the template documentation? What do you think?--Hildeoc (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Now done. Thanks again! Best wishes--Hildeoc (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political party of subjects of articles

I feel it is not necessary to post the political affiliation of people in the public eye. If your VOTE is private it should be no one else’s business what political party you adhere to. In today’s violent world , you could be inspiring some nut to use this private and personal information for harm. Physical or otherwise. Please limit your articles to awards win, age, spouses etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.172.28.18 (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stating the political affiliation is usually limited to people who have political positions or are public about it. We have more than a million biographies and you failed to give an example. Do you have a particular article in mind? Age and spouse is omitted for privacy reasons in many articles. I'm surprised you apparently want this to be stated for everybody. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The guiding policy here is WP:BLP. If the party affiliation is not relevant, it should not be in the article even if there is a reliable source. Feel free to remove it from the article, and cite the policy in your edit summary. If another editor disagrees with your change and reverts it, then discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Note that for a public figure, if the party affiliation has itself been discussed in reliable sources, or if the person is a politician, then it should remain in the article. If you feel that WP:BLP is insufficiently precise and should be modified, then please discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. -Arch dude (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about images in my article

Hi. I'm writing an article on an artist I interviewed, which she has agreed to. I took photos of her paintings at her house and put them in my article. I think they've been deleted. I'm not sure why. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Doyen (talk • contribs) 19:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Doyen I suspect based on the deletion nomination at Commons that it is problematic to take images of an artist's paintings in their private home (possibly in a museum as well) from a licensing/copyright standpoint. Even if she said you could do it, that isn't properly donating the materials(please see WP:DCP) and I'm not sure the artist understands what doing so would mean(it means that anyone could use the image for any purpose with attribution).

For that matter, an interview does not generally establish notability as it is not an independent reliable source(coming from the subject themselves). It might be useful for other purposes, but not notability. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. It's still not clear to me. If I was adding a photo of a Banksy artwork, would I have to get the artist's permission? Does any artwork on any wikipedia page have the permission of the artist? If so, how do I officially go about getting that and submitting proof to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Doyen (talk • contribs) 22:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris Doyen: Copyright law is ridiculous, but we must follow it anyway. 1) Any work that is published is copyrighted automatically, whether or not there is any copyright notice. 2) A painting is copyrighted. Copyright belongs to the painter. 3) Your photo is a copy, "a faithful reproduction of a 2-dimensional work", in which you have not added any "creative element", so you do not have a separate copyright as a "derived work" and only the painter's copyright is relevant. OK, this means that the painter needs to grant a license to Wikipedia. The simplest approach would be to help the artist create a login and then help the artist upload the image. As 331dot said, please make sure the artist understands the ramifications of the license. The "proper" alternative is via the WP:OTRS mechanism. An alternative might be to take a photo of the painting with a printed card in the picture that states that the painting is licensed CC-BY-SA. Upload that full image and then (under CC-BY-SA) upload a cropped version to remove the card: Your CC-BY-SA assertion remains as part of the metadata. The status of a picture of a work by an anonymous artist is a mess and I don't have an answer. -Arch dude (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure about Bansky, either, since that artist puts their art on publicly viewable surfaces in public areas. It would probably depend on if there is freedom of panorama in the UK. The same would go for Christo and Jeanne-Claude's works. 331dot (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article to which you linked, the UK, Canada, India, Australia and New Zealand have the most free "freedom of panorama"; more free than the USA, but even here, photographs of artwork come under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, where there is an exception which allows copying for the purpose of “criticism or review”, but not for mass reproduction. Even Banksy objected to the mass marketing of his images in Italy. Strangely, the copyright restriction does not apply to buildings or sculptures which can be reproduced freely. Dbfirs 11:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. It seems the best route is to have the artist upload her work. I'll give it a try. : ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.75.147 (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]