Help desk
< March 19	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 21 >

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 20

Infobox policy

What is the general rule when it comes to infoboxes being added to articles? Should articles have multiple infoboxes? There are several featured on this page: 2006 Richmond spree murders and I wondered whether they should all be there or not? Is it necessary to have separate ones for each individual perpetrator or should this be avoided? What is the general rule of thumb because I can't find a WP:Policy page that answers this. Thanks. Inexpiable (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Inexpiable: I don’t think there’s a specific policy - it only comes down to how useful the multiple infoboxes are in conveying the information in the article. They could also have been added as the result of a merge. There is info about merging templates, but that’s not the issue here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MIchael Caruso Musician photo

There is an editor/administrator coming after profiles that have been here for years. questioning and deleting photos etc. One of the photos on Tamara Champlin's biography may have been questionable credentials, but the photo on Michael Caruso (musicians) profile was uploaded by its photographer (Redacted) who is the owner of "Fragments" handle.

On Danielle Nicole (musician) biography there is a problem with the Concord Records photo. Please look into this and any help you can give me I would appreciate.

Here is the reply I received: @Paulhus15: I didn't remove the photo. I only asked about it at c:COM:VPC#File:Michael Anthony Caruso.jpg. The photo was tagged for speedy deletion by another editor named c:User:Jeff G. (see c:User talk:Fragmentsforart#File:Michael Anthony Caruso.jpg) and then subsequently deleted by a Commons administrator named c:User:Túrelio. Once the file was deleted from Commons, it was removed by a bot from the Wikipedia article. If you feel an error was made, you can always post a message explaining why at c:User talk:Túrelio. For reference, though, the fact that a file has been used for a long time doesn't mean it's was uploaded under an acceptable or verifiable license; it could just as easily mean that no body bothered to check the file's licensing for a long time. The same image can essentially be seen used online as the cover art of a single by Caruso that was released at least two years prior to photo being uploaded to Commons, and almost always in such cases more formal verification is needed for such a file to be kept. So, if the photographer who took the photo had previously allowed it to be used for the cover art before they uploaded it to Commons, all they will likely need to do is follow the instructions given in c:COM:Licensing images: when do I contact VRT? and the file can be restored after VRT verification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Paulhus15 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: Marchjuly —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paulhus15. This type of issue needs to be worked out on Wikimedia Commons which is a separate project with a separate group of administrators. In the case of the photo of Michael Caruso, the image appeared as cover art on one of his recordings two years before the image was uploaded to Commons, so that created genuine concerns about the licensing of the image to Commons. It was deleted for that reason. The photographer will need to provide convincing evidence of their identity and their intention to freely license use of the photo by anyone for any purpose. Wikimedia projects are very strict about copyright and licensing, unlike many other websites. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paulhus15, I see that you wrote elsewhere Mr Caruso is personal friends with the photographer who took the picture and I approached her to get a login and upload for him. It was picked at another time to go on his single of "Shoo Rah". Nothing to do with the photo itself. Before you just remove something the facts should be checked out That wording is not crystal clear but if you logged in on behalf of the photographer and uploaded the photo, then that is not legitimate. Only the copyright holder herself can freely license the photo and that power cannot be delegated to a friend or associate. It must be done properly, because it is a legal transaction. Cullen328 (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will see that she re-uploads the photo Paulhus15 (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulhus15:There's no need for her, you or anyone else to reupload the photo. Deleted photos aren't gone forever and they can be restored by an administrator when the need arises. That's what happened in this case, and the Commons administrator who deleted the file restored it so that it can be further discussed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Anthony Caruso.jpg. You and the uploader can discuss things there if you like, but most likely the best way to resolve things is going to be for the uploader to send her c:COM:CONSENT to Wikimedia VRT as explained in c:COM:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?. If she does that and there are no problems with the email, her consent and the file's licensing will be verified by a VRT member and c:Template:Permission ticket will be added to the file's page to let others know that the copyright holder's consent has been verified.

The other file you're asking about here (File:Danielle Nicole (EP).png) is a non-free file uploaded locally to Wikipedia. Non-free content use on Wikipedia is quite restrictive as explained in WP:NFC#Background and each use of a non-free file needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Non-free album covers are almost always only allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about the albums they represent as explained WP:NFC#cite_note-3; so, that is why the file was WP:PRODded for deletion. If you disagree with this assessment, you may WP:DEPROD the file; in that case, the file's non-free use will be further discussed at WP:FFD. I'm not a Wikipedia administrator but I do have quite a bit of experience with files; I wouldn't have proposed that the file be deleted if I thought there was a valid non-free use for the file. The fact that the file has been used for a longtime doesn't make the use comply with relevant policy. If a stand-alone article about the album is created, the file could be used there; however, the article about the album would need to meet WP:NALBUM to avoid being deleted. If you want to create an article about the album (EP) at Danielle Nicole (EP), then you can. Be advised, however, that someone recently tried to do such a thing, but they subsequently redirected the article to Danielle Nicole because they felt it didn't satisfy the notability criteria for a stand-alone article.

Finally, you should try to refrain from posting real world identifying information about Wikipedia or Commons account holders on any Wikipedia page, unless they've already done so themselves. Even when your intentions are good, doing such a thing might be seen as a violation of WP:OUTING and could possibly create problems for the other person as explained in WP:REALWORLD. If the copyright holder of this photo wants to log in to her account and identify who she is, then she can; you should, however, refrain from posting any links or making any such connection publicly until she does so. If you feel this information is relevant to some discussion, you can always use WP:EMAIL to make it known to an administrator since all administrators are set up to receive emails. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your help. I do a lot here myself and I am aware of the rules as well. Paulhus15 (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Herrera, Higinia tapia, Sergio MALDONADO

Occidental FAMILY ANSI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higiniatapia1 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Higiniatapia1: Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has authorised me to use one of his photos but doesn't want to write at Wikimedia

A friend has authorised me to use some of his photos (they've never been published on Internet) but doesn't want to write a written authorisation on Wikimedia. Can I update the file anyway? Dr Salvus 21:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they own the copyright, they must either upload the images themselves or give you a document that releases the copyright,(with the understanding that the image can be used for any purpose, including commercial). 331dot (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr Salvus. I don't believe you're going to be able to use your friend's photos without them explicitly giving their consent to do so if they are unwilling to upload the photo themselves and use the c:Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator. Wikimedia VRT doesn't accept forwarded third-party consent emails to the best of my knowledge; so, your friend is going to need to email VRT themselves if you upload the photo for them. Moreover, you should explain to your friend what it means to give their consent for their photos to be uploaded to Wikipedia (or Commons). The only types of free licenses that the Wikimedia Foundation allows are ones that would essentially allow the photos to be downloaded by anyone anywhere in the world at anytime and reused for any purpose (including commercial and derivative reuse). So, your friend can't only give their consent for only you to use the photos and for the photos to only be used on Wikipedia. Before asking your friend to agree to anything like this, you might want to take a look at a c:Commons:Licensing, c:Commons:License revocation and c:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia for reference. It would be even better for your friend to carefully read through those pages to make sure they understand what uploading their photos mean. Finally, emails between VRT members and copyright holders are not made public and VRT members will not reveal any details or discuss specific about the emails anywhere on Wikipedia. They might answer some very general questions, but they are actually not allowed (per an agreement they sign) to discuss specifics. So, your friend can email VRT and the contents will remain private only be visible to VRT members. All that anyone else will know is that the copyright holder's consent has been verified due to the c:Template:Permission ticket added to the file's page. If your friend agrees to do this, they should upload their photos to Commons since Commons is better suited than Wikipedia to host such files because Commons files can files can be more easily used by any Wikimedia Foundation project. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Salvus, your friend the copyright holder ("YFCH") can instead publish the photos on the web -- in such a way that they'll be open to all (thus not at facebook.com or similar) -- and there declare either (A) that YFCH waives all rights to them and donates them to the public domain, or (B) that YFCH copyrights each under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. When you can truthfully cite one or other of these two declarations, you can upload each photo to Commons. -- Hoary (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary and Marchjuly: he doesn't even want to do what you've said Dr Salvus 23:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

he's also asked me to take a screenshot of the photo so there would be no information about his activity on metadatas Dr Salvus 23:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately then, I don't think there's a way to upload the photo in away that will ensure it avoids deletion. What type of photo is it and how would it be used on Wikipedia? In some cases, a copyrighted photo can be used as non-free content, but the associated policy is quite restrictive and it would clearly need to be demonstrated that the photo has been published somewhere with the copyright holder's consent for it to avoid being deleted for not meeting non-free content use criterion #4. If your friend is unwilling to post the photo anywhere online or in some other print publication, then uploading it as non-free content would be a non-starter. Just curious as to why your friend wants the photo to be used, but is unwilling to do the things that would make it easier to use. Random unattributed photos aren't really going to allowed to be used in any Wikipedia articles per WP:IUP; so, the provenance of the photo is going to need to be stated somewhere on Wikipedia (usually in the description on the file's page). Simply stating "photo from my friend who wishes to remain anonymous" is almost certainly not going to be considered sufficient. You taking a screenshot of the photo or scanning the photo isn't a transfer of copyright ownership as explained in c:COM:SCREENSHOT and c:COM:2D copying; so, your friend's consent is still going to need to be verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Salvus:Your friend can transfer the ownership of the copyright to you, in the form of a "writing": a paper document with the original copyright holder's signature. It is then yours and you can upload to Wikipedia as the copyright owner. Wikipedia has no need to verify your ownership status unless someone challenges it. As the copyright owner, you are free to license it to Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA, and also license it separately back to the former owner under a completely unrestricted license. -Arch dude (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to get search to recognize NYC

If I do a search on: List of Carnegie libraries in NYC

I get no hits. This is because the page is named:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Carnegie_libraries_in_New_York_City

I think Wikipedia should know that NYC is a synonym for New York City. But, can I add " (NYC)" to the title and that will add NYC to the search results?

Don Wiss (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Don Wiss: The only way to make pages appear in the search result is to create them. For the purpose you describe, it seems creating a redirect from List of Carnegie libraries in NYC to List of Carnegie libraries in New York City would be the technical solution to the problem. Victor Schmidt (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone in the world knows that NYC is New York City, so Wikipedia prefers not to use acronyms in article titles. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms_in_page_titles.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Don Wiss: Never place two different names for the same subject in the article name like "List of Carnegie libraries in New York City (NYC)". Choose the best name per naming conventions. Alternative names can be handled with redirects or mention inside the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]