Help desk
< March 22	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 24 >

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.

March 23

More than one non-free image in same biography?

I have just merged Germaine Kieckens into Hergé (unopposed merger proposal). Kieckens' biography included a Fair Use image of her with Herge (her husband). However, the biography of Herge already includes a Fair Use image of him in the Infobox. Is it permitted to have more than one Fair Use image of the same (deceased) subject in a single biography under WP:NONFREE? Muzilon (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usually not. Ruslik_Zero 08:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0: OK, so we can't use the image of Kieckens in the Hergé biography then? Tagging uploader Midnightblueowl here, just for the record. Muzilon (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The use of fair use images should be kept at minimum - just to show how a person looked like. Ruslik_Zero 08:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Bryant Triggs

I have self published a biography on Arthur Bryant Triggs. [ISBN 9780987588814] It is available at the National Library of Australia and from me directly. It would seem appropriate that it be included as a reference for Triggs in Wikipedia. How do I go about doing this?

Dear Stephe Jitts (assuming that is whom I am addressing – please electronically sign your posts here by adding 4 tildes ~~~~ ) — Having confirmed your book exists via its NLA catalog entry, I have added a Further Reading subheading to Arthur Bryant Triggs with a reference to your book. Muzilon (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding selfpublished stuff like this is a little iffy, but probably no great harm will come of it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're not supposed to cite self-published biographies for living persons per WP:BLPSPS, but A.B. Triggs died in 1936. Muzilon (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about WP:SPS in general. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page views

Hi! I am a Cochrane author and I am adding new information in some Wikipedia pages. Is there any way to count the views of the pages after I made changes? I have seen in a conference poster that the authors reported 9.5 million views after they made change. Please let me know. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara3054 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sara3054! On every article-page (at least if you're on a laptop) there's a column of links on the left. Choose "Page information" under "Tools". Scroll to the bottom of the new page, there you find "Page view statistics" under "External tools". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sara3054: The link is also at top of the page history. With User:PrimeHunter/Pageviews.js you can get it under "Tools" on every page if you are logged in. "Page information" also has a field "Page views in the past 30 days". Clicking the number will show a graph but the 30-day period cannot be changed. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. Thank you so much!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara3054 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Double spaces in Cayman Islands

In the infobox of Cayman Islands, the caption of the first map goes 'Location of Cayman Islands (circled in red)', which clear double spaces between 'of' and 'Cayman', and 'Islands' and the opening bracket. Can someone please fix that so there are only single spaces? Thanks JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 09:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is due to use of {{spaces|2}} in {{map caption}}. That template uses {{spaces}} several times but I have no idea why. @Jonesey95: The spaces existed years before your edit, but do you have any idea why it is used? Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Kaldari might be familiar with the template's history. Any ideas on why spaces is used? Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JackintheBox and Johnuniq: It looks like a long time ago someone tried to hyper-optimize the spacing by adding in little micro-spaces, i.e. non-breaking spaces at tiny font sizes like 2px. A couple weeks ago Jonesey95 stripped all the font-sizing out of the template per MOS:FONTSIZE, so it then became obvious that the spacing was weird. Most of those extra spaces just need to be removed. The one specifically at fault here seems to be the   on the 3rd line, although it wouldn't hurt to remove some of those {{spaces}} as well. Unfortunately, I no longer have template editing rights, so I can't help. Kaldari (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've fixed all the wacky spacing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you have! Thanks all! JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 18:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JackintheBox, Johnuniq, and Kaldari:: I wasn't sure what the spaces did, so I left them (per the Hippocratic Oath of Wikipedia, or something). They looked silly but not wildly harmful. I figured that if they were harmless, there was no problem in leaving them, and if they were not supposed to be there, someone would notice and file a bug. I have found that it's generally safer (for the health of my talk page) to leave something in a template that looks like a bug than to remove it and expose the depth of my ignorance. Looks like my plan worked! (i.e. The depth of my ignorance is as yet unrevealed.) Thanks, all. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia Page - Rita Jain international table tennis player

Any suggestion on how can one create a page for Rita Jain. Please help. Email me at <email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.216.117 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the notice at the top of this page: I redacted your e-mail address. -Arch dude (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To reate an article, please read WP:YFA. The most essential step is to convince yourself that the subject is notable by our definition, not yours. See WP:RS. An article about a non-notable subject will be deleted, no matter how well-written it is, frustrating you and making extra work for us. But if your subject is notable, we will help you get it into good shape. -Arch dude (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- also see Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Notability (sports) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - Epinoia (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent dead link - 'link rot' or 'spam blacklist'?

The Big Muffin Serious Band page contains a YouTube link to our music video Mr T Pot, first uploaded in 2013 and which I can't link to now (explained below), but at some stage the link has been disabled and has a 'permanent dead link' tab. The video has not moved since its original upload, and when trying to find more info on problem, I get two messages - one says 'link rot' while the other claims we are on a 'site spam blacklist'. The latter popped up when I tried to link to the video here. I'm mightily confused, especially as the site that is spam blacklisted seems to be YouTube, and I need steering in a direction that is a bit more helpful than the links provided by searching either of those terms. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debfu (talk • contribs) 21:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Debfu: You added a working link in [1] but then broke it 36 minutes later in [2] by removing .com from youtube.com. A working link was already in Big Muffin Serious Band#Discography, side projects: Serious Ukulele Ensemble, The Weatherspoons, Goulash Archipelago and is still there. You said "our music video" so see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I have fixed the broken link [3] but changed it to a reference. We generally don't make external links in the middle of article text. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does Category:Parallel universes in fiction can be considered as part of Category:Fiction about the paranormal?

I just don't want to make assumptions, that what I ask?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NeoBatfreak: This should be a matter of editorial judgement, and you are an editor, so you make the call. That's the proper help-desk response. However, I have been reading Science Fiction for over 50 years, so I will also give you my opinion. Having just re-scanned paranormal and some of the links from Parallel Universe, I feel that the first category is NOT part of the second. Parallel universes are considered a legitimate part of "hard science", while the paranormal is not. As you doubtless know, most works of science fiction fall somewhere along a spectrum from "hard science" to "soft science", so you can find works that mix just about any blend of the two, including mixes of parallel worlds with the paranormal, but this does not make either category a part of the other, it just places those works in both categories. If further discussion of the question is needed, we will need to find a venue other than the help desk. Perhaps you can try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction. -Arch dude (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Arch Dude. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor who has been reading science fiction for over half a century. I also agree with Arch Dude. Although I would never have thought of the idea of parallel universes being related to the paranormal. But of course in fiction you can mix up almost anything. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with editors of a certain age on this thread. We should join a club. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the conclusion, but not with the reasoning. "Paranormal" means roughly "not possible/explainable under the law of physics". "Parallel universes are a science thing hence not paranormal" is thus not sufficient, because the way parallel universes are used in fiction is (usually) not supported by the actual science behind it (same thing for lasers, time travel, invisibility etc.).

Because fiction involves suspension of disbelief, nothing in fiction can be viewed as paranormal (unless described so in-universe): the laws of physics are simply different, and match the description of events rather than former knowledge of physics. Psychokinesis is common in the Star Wars universe (see: The Force), but in our universe, Uri Geller is a paranormal fraud. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]