Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 November 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.

November 1

Bullock family

Ref number 5 - I have tried to add the URL - but got it wrong. Please amend. thanks Srbernadette (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Srbernadette: You need to add |url=. Eagleash (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I have tried but citation it is still in red - looks wrong to me. Sorry. Srbernadette (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed by adding |url=.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

"Paper print" entry: the wrong title

How to change the title of an entry to make it correct?

The entry entitled "Paper print" only discusses the use of still images printed on paper to copyright motion pictures shot on movie film in the first two decades of motion picture history.

The term "paper print" refers to any (photographic) image printed onto paper. A still photograph produced by taking a processed negative and printing the positive image on paper is a "paper print." When a motion picture negative was used to print each frame of the film/movie onto paper (whether a card containing strips of frame, or a 35mm wide roll of paper) is also a "paper print." But it's only 1 kind of paper print.

The vast majority of paper prints have been still photographs. The paper print process was important for copyrighting movies ca. 1893-1910s and after. But an entry on "paper print" should not be exclusively about motion pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streible (talk • contribs) 01:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The best place to discuss such things is the talk page of the article: in this case, Talk:Paper print. Maproom (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Problem regarding coat of arms

Why does the link for the coat of arms in this article does not redirect properly? I am expecting it to linking to this. What is the problem? --Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jeromi Mikhael: The documentation at Template:Infobox former subdivision says symbol is the link target. I have changed it.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I've been looking everywhere for this thing! --Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Changing IP address to User Name

While editing the article Citizen science I made an edit without having logged in to my usual account, as I had forgotten I was not logged in. So the IP address is shown on the editing page for that article, whereas I would prefer it to be my usual User name.

Is there a way to change that IP address to my usual account name and then delete the IP address account (which is a mistake basically)? There has been an edit since then by another user which reversed my former edit, though that is not the reason I wish to change the IP address to usual name: it just might cause more confusion. I don't want the IP account to be regarded as a sockpuppet for me. Perhaps a redirect? Richard Nowell (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Edits cannot be reassigned. The IP address can be hidden for privacy reasons. See Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. It is allowed to edit logged out. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Editing while logged out. I wouldn't worry about one edit if it wasn't used for edit warring. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the link.Richard Nowell (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

How do I make a chart?

I would like to make a chart for Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild speedrunning. I would like to put in the dates, category of the run, the name, the time gotten, and the source. I was wondering how I would do this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrainerLink4 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

That article does not have any mention of speed running. If you're planning on putting the chart in that article the best place to start would be to hold a discussion to see if there's consensus for it. It could save you a lot of wasted hours because creating a chart will take a big chunk of time. - X201 (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! However, I was referncing the "List of the Legend of Zelda speedrunning recordsList of the Legend of Zelda speedrunning records". I am sorry I did not clarify this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrainerLink4 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio and endless discussions

Ok here is the situation. I have proposed a text to be inserted in an article. An editor denies the insertions as he claims there are copyvio and WP:CLOP problems. When I ask him to point them out, he refuses as he says it is not his burden. I have modified my text several times, and other users contributed to the modifications. I have opened a section in the talk page of the article to discuss copyvio claims but he does not participate. So...my question is: does he have the burden to provide evidence of his claim or should I keep changing the wording, paraphrasing and so on, in order to satisfy him?Cinadon36 (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

On what source is the text based? Ruslik_Zero 20:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Ruslik. This one.Cinadon36 (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• This is WP:FORUM because the OP has asked similar questions in a discussion thread at the talkpage of Diannaa in the section User_talk:Diannaa#Copyvio_concerns and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Copyright_Cleanup#Suggested_text_in_EOKA_article. Since the OP is a prolific edit-changer, the version where the copyvios existed is at this link. It appears that the OP copies full sentences from the book and then he cannot account as to why or how he copied them and s/he cannot retrace his/her steps to find the copyvio sentences, choosing instead to badger other editors, in multiple fora, to point these copyvios to him/her. Please see relevant discussions at talk:Dianna and talk:EOKA. Dr. K. 02:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• As an example, please check this sample string: "Most house bombings and riots were ordered by EOKA as a way of forcing the army to commit more troops to the towns and so relieve pressure on the mountain gangs." and this proposed addition by Cinadon where the sample string "Most house bombings and riots were ordered by EOKA as a way of forcing the army to commit more troops to the towns and so relieve pressure on the mountain gangs." is also present. Somehow, Cinadon cannot account as to how, or why, this text was copypasted from the book to his proposed text on talk EOKA. Furthermore, Cinadon seems unable to detect further copyvios on his own, by simply comparing his proposed text to the text of the book, and he expects other editors to tell him where the copyvios are. Dr. K. 02:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Still missing the argument. The question is whether you can play the copyvio card without providing evidence.Cinadon36 (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

No, you are missing the argument. If someone, you in this case, can copy a whole long sentence from a book and needs someone, me, to tell him, and he, meaning you, does not know how to find it by himself/herself, then there is a very high probability that many more copyvios are to be found in the edits of such person. So an investigation is a very reasonable proposition. Dr. K. 05:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I will wait someone else to answer my question. It is very simple. Cinadon36 (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not a simple question. Your said: So...my question is: does he have the burden to provide evidence of his claim or should I keep changing the wording, paraphrasing and so on, in order to satisfy him? Your comment indicates that you do not know how to spot copyvios, even if it is you who is creating them. Trying to fix them by yourself, under these circumstances, is impossible. All I am trying to say is, you need supervision from someone who has the time and knowledge to guide you. So when you propose an edit on a talkpage, your mentor would make sure it is copyvio-free. This mentorship should last for as long as you get an idea how not to copypaste from books, and more importantly, how to spot copyvios of your own making. If I don't have time to vet your edits at EOKA, this doesn't mean that I am trying to delay you. It also doesn't mean that your proposed edit is copyvio-free. In fact, in all likelihood, there may be more copyvios in that text. So, you could ask a mentor, or a copyvio expert, to give you their opinion. That would speed up things a lot. Dr. K. 05:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I can offer some help? The general rule, as used in universities and colleges, is that to paraphrase some prose, you must change 80% of the words in the original. You cannot, for example, take a slab of text and then replace every 3rd or 4th word with a synonym, and claim that it is somehow different from the original. Copyvio can exist not only in wording, but also in structure. So, for example, if you take a series of headings and copy them exactly, while substituting some original prose around those headings, it still constitutes a form of plagiarism - because the structure has been borrowed and requires some sort of acknowledgement. Copyright violations are relatively easy to detect. Wikipedia has a tool for this. But a simple visual comparison of the original and the 'borrowed' passage soon reveals how close they are. There is a raft of more complex copyright rules surrounding artwork. Copyvio is a serious business - it can lead to heavy fines for both the person who breached copyright laws, and also for any organisation that supports it or turns a blind eye to it. So, it is not just some silly thing that Wikipedia cooked up to annoy editors and make their lives more difficult, but is something that can be legally enforced in all countries that are signatory to the copyright conventions. Authors, editors and publishers have a personal responsibility to ensure that their work is free from potential copyright problems. BronHiggs (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you would be the perfect mentor for Cinadon. Thank you Bron. Dr. K. 06:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @BronHiggs:. I think that Dr.K. is playing the card of copyvio just to obstruct the process. I think of that because he made some claims in the past for the proposed text such as uni prof French David(historian) is not a suitable source, he claimed that there is a novel style prose in my text, he made NPOV claims and keeps throwing "policies" in order to justify a rejection of my text. So I would like to ask if there someone third who can jump in the article and find out if his copyvio and CLOP claims are valid. Because I think they are not- I think they are just a playing card. I have changed the text and summarised it dramatically. I do have concerns though, ie when I am listing the death toll or the numbers of house-bombings, I think that is not CLOP, numbers are not creative elements. ps-as for mentoring, I think Dr.K. needs mentoring if he thinks that David French is not RS plus using the title of policies just to provoce other users (ie see how he uses WP:WEASEL in the talk page of EOKA). Cinadon36 (talk)

He's not playing the "copyvio card". He's noting that you copied text from other sources. You can't do that. You're supposed to write, from scratch, your own wholly unique and fresh text, and then cite the original source you used to get the information (but not the text) from. It is plainly clear that you aren't writing your own wholly original text. There are enough examples here of taking someone else's writing and passing it off as your own to establish that you are doing it. What we're telling you is stop that. Don't do it again. Also, since you made the mess, we're asking you to help us find the problems so they can be fixed. It was you that took other people's words and tried to pass them off as your own, Dr. K. didn't do that, you did. He's just asking you to tell him all of the times you did that, not force him to play "gotcha". This isn't a game that you get to "win" if you can hide your misdeeds, and "lose" if you admit to it. We're just trying to write a good encyclopedia, and taking other people's writing and copying it over to here is causing a problem. --Jayron32 18:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron, I am going to write it again, from the scratch, but how will I ever prove that there are no copyvios in the next version? 19:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Cinadon's text, modified by Ktrimi on 31 October, but not cleared of copyvios: This incident sparked bloody inter-communal riots in Nicosia the next day, and a series of strikes as Greek Cypriot workers protested at Turkish violence in Nicosia French's book: provoking inter communal riots in Nicosia the next day, and a series of strikes as Greek Cypriot workers protested at Turkish violence in Nicosia. Houston we have a problem. This is clearly not a one-man job. Dr. K. 09:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Once more, I am trying to pose a question and have a decent conversation with a third party and Dr.K. constantly fills the discussion page with all kinds of accusations (distraction technique).Cinadon36 (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Cinadon falsely claims at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup that: We have been discussing this for two weeks or so, but the editors who oppose the insertion of the text, do not get in trouble to proove their claim. (exept in one case a couple of hours ago). Not so. On 22 October I wrote on talk:EOKA: "Good catch Alexikoua. But there are other problems as well. For instance, the passage:

  By March 1957 neither EOKA or the security forces could claim victory. The very best of Grivas guerillas have been captured or killed, the Limassol arm smuggling network had been eliminated. The security forces were on top but did not eradicate EOKA, they had only contained its campaign of agitational terrorism.

  is a copyvio from French's book Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus. That's bad enough...." See French's book: The security forces were on top but did not eradicate EOKA, they had only contained its campaign of agitational terrorism. and The best of Grivas's mountain guerillas have been killed or captured,... the Limassol arm smuggling network had been destroyed.. Dr. K. 09:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a new proposed text,[3] hopefully copyvio-free (version 5) for anyone who wants to help sort this out. I have made mistakes, unquestionably, but I tried to fix them. Dr.K. is presenting quotes from previous version. Thanks. Cinadon36 (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

You haven't just "made mistakes", you have made a lot of personal attacks and accusations of bad faith. You should be thanking Dr.K. Khirurg (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

How to cite archaeological site forms

I found the following in a source that I can cite "One Prehistoric Site, The Hawthorne Rails-to-Trails Site, The Florida Master Site File contains one Archaeological Site Form for the City of Hawthorne (AL 2562) date 10/90. This site was discovered during the Gainesville to Hawthorne Rails-to-Trails Survey. The site was evaluated as eligible for National Registry, significant as part of a district, and significant at the local level. The recommendation was to save the site."

In the article I am expanding, I wanted to include what the archaeological site contained so I contacted an Archaeological Data Analyst for the Florida Master Site File at the Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State. The analyst sent me the site file details report which does include more information about the site and its contents (like what culture, what type of site, and what artifacts). However, I cannot publish this document because it contains the location of the site. The analyst had this to say "archaeological site locations are exempt from the public records law, under Florida Statute 267.135. Please do not publish, distribute, post on the internet or otherwise disseminate this data. Any interested parties should contact the Site File directly." More querying of what I could do resulted in that all the information is public except the location of the site. So I can't upload the file to commons (or wikidata) so I can cite it in the article [unless, I suppose, redact the location].

Now that you know the history, what is the best course of action here? How do I cite the site file details report?

Thank you. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 19:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The location is just data. It is not protected by copyright. So, it can be published if known. Ruslik_Zero 19:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Ruslik0, data or not, it is protected under law. I am not sure how they would prosecute me but nonetheless, I understand the reason for it and I choose not to publish the document given to me. So, I ask again, how do I cite the "Florida Master Site File"? PopularOutcast^talk2me! 20:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not think that any law can prohibit you from publishing this information unless you signed a legally binding non-disclosure agreement. Ruslik_Zero 20:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Ruslik0, regardless, are you able to answer my question how to cite? I am not going to publish the location of an archaeological site. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 20:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

If that document can not be published, it can not be cited. Ruslik_Zero 20:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Ruslik0, a document at the State of Florida exists and it meets WP:VERIFY, WP:SOURCEACCESS. Anyone can call or write and get the information. I want to cite a document stored at the Florida Master Site File in the State of Florida. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 21:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I am going to try to use Template:Cite archive. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 21:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure that {{cite archive}} is the correct template – as I understand it, that template is to be used to cite something in an institution's archival holdings (some library's holdings of famous person Joe Blog's papers during the time that he as an example author at en.wiki, etc). What you describe sounds to me more like a government report or paper somewhat akin to the National Park Service's Register of Historic Places (example). These are public documents that often omit the location of archaeological sites. There is no requirement, none, that sources cited in Wikipedia articles must be available on the internet; it is sufficient that the source has been made available to the public, that you have seen it with your own eyes, that I can, if I choose, go to an appropriate Florida government office and obtain a copy or see the original for myself.

Were it me, I suspect that I would use {{cite report}} or {{citation}} to cite this document.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Trappist the monk, Thanks so much. I did make an attempt with cite archive mostly because it had fields for the information I needed to convey. I will try to make it fit in {{citation}} or {{cite report}}. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 23:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@PopularOutcast:citation templates are just convienience tools. You are not required to use a template. If it's not doing what you want, don't try to force it, but instead just format your ref the way you think it should be formatted, just using wikimarkup. Put a comment in there to explain that there was no template that did the job. If your solution may be preferable in other places in Wikipedia, then the otehr alternative is to create a new template. -Arch dude (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Arch dude, hmm, never even considered that. I don't have a strong knowledge on how to cite things for a bibliography or footnotes (there's always some prescribed structure) but that should be easy to look up. Thanks for the suggestion. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 13:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)