Help desk
< July 5	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 7 >

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.

July 6[edit]

Please update image for me[edit]

Could someone please update visa policy map of Lebanon as the original one is incorrect when it comes to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Visa + immigration approval is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihavejustchangedstuff (talk • contribs) 07:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ihavejustchangedstuff:, could you please provide a wikilink to the particular article, out of our 4.8 million-plus, that you have in mind, so that a willing volunteer editor does not first have to waste time with extensive guesswork and searching? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the article is Visa requirements for Bosnia and Herzegovina citizens. Links to articles are always helpful if you want a quick answer. Dbfirs 19:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbfirs:

My apologies, I meant this image file: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Visa_policy_of_Lebanon.png#mw-jump-to-license where Bosnia and Herzegovina should not be in green color but in brown. Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihavejustchangedstuff (talk • contribs) 21:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ihavejustchangedstuff, for future reference, the best place for requesting changes to maps is on Wikimedia Commons at the Graphic Lab Map Workshop - here. Seagull123 Φ 20:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Green Street Holigans[edit]

~~Can somebody with a bit more knowledge of page-moves have a look at what used to be Green Street (film) but is now Green Street Holigans please?~~

In the past I've tried to undo page moves, but have universally failed each time and created more of a mess than previously existed. Even if the page move were warranted, it should be "hooligans", not "holigans".

~~Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Never mind, for once I think I've done it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein[edit]

Can somebody explain why my edit was reverted by CLCStudent twice? He also sent me one of those automatic warning that my edits "appear to constitute vandalism". Is it just because it mentioned the word prostitute? It is an essay, for God's sake! If somebody reads the essay will understand the example. Looloophole (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Looloophole: Not entirely certain (the lack of edit summary does not help). Hopefully CLC will see the mention here and comment further. If they do not respond you could start a discussion (preferably) at the article talk page or directly at the other editor's TP. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The singer does not appear to be the same entity as the person involved in the Hugh Grant controversy. Eagleash (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah: that's the whole point of the list in question – hypothetical examples of different people having the same name who could be falsely equated by faulty synthesis, against which the essay is warning. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CLC is probably following WP:BLP which says "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." TSventon (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 'poster' that is the point so the removal of another example is not clear. 'TS' Without an ES from CLC the community is left to 'guess' at the reason, although that might possibly be it. The reference to vandalism does not help (seems likely to be a GF edit to me). Eagleash (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash:, I agree the original edit may have been GF, however it would have been better to follow WP:BRD rather than posting the edit twice. CLCStudent seems to focus on dealing with unconstructive editing and using the twinkle tool and standard edit summaries and warning messages means they can do so a lot faster. Editors can respond to the messages if they disagree that their edits were unconstructive. Also a reference to vandalism is probably slightly less contentious as part of a standard message. TSventon (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsventon: Without a given reason a newish editor might be justified in thinking it was OK to restore their edit. Also per WP:TWABUSE "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used". Eagleash (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash: Good point, in the end both editors had to use their judgement. TSventon (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references duplicate key[edit]

Sabri alhaiki صبري الحيقي

Your draft had two different references named "foo", which resulted in an error message. I have renamed them "foo1" and "foo2", which cleared the message. I recommend you read WP:FIRSTARTICLE before doing more work on your draft, as articles which are not suitable for Wikipedia May be deleted. TSventon (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alhaikitivo:, I have also fixed the info box. If you want some feedback on your draft you could ask at Wikipedia:Teahouse. TSventon (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing[edit]

Hi, I created A Shakespearean Baseball Game and wonder if the image of the comedians performing it in 1958 in this source (6th image from top) qualifies as fair use? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yoninah. Wikipedia's rules are a little more restrictive than general "fair use" conditions: you would need to establish that the use of the image meets all the criteria in the Non-free content criteria.

The sticky criterion would, I think be no 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." That criterion is regularly used to justify covers, album covers, logos etc. The question is whether it applies to the action shot as you are suggesting. I think you could make a case for this, but my impression is that shots like this have not often been used in this way (but I can't think of a way of searching deletion discussions to see). --ColinFine (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your article on "No One Cares About Garage Bands"[edit]

Actually who cares about Wikipedia, that's why you were begging for money to keep your joint open. There are garage band sites on the net that have lots of hits because people WANT to read about & see pics of bands particularly back in the early day's. You are delusional if you arrogantly think garage bands are nothing & should not be paid attention to! PNWbands is a very popular garage band site that gets a high # of hits. I have gotten emails from people in Europe who have asked me questions about my band. There is also a Facebook page dedicated to that site. The only difference between a band on a record label & one that is not, is who you know, is where you go! We have ALL been bombarded with the whose who bands & they are the only bands that matter crap, all our lives! The net has brought peoples attention to bands who were playing live back in the day & even releasing there own music then & today also, which they put up on sites like Jamendo. My music is up there & 1,000's of my songs have been downloaded. People are more interested in Independent music now over record label crap. Success isn't measured by what record label you are on, money or how many people know who you are, but by accomplishment. The day's of whose who in the zoo are pretty much over now, it comes down to who produces music that people really like & want. The trouble with people like you, is the fact that you are brain washed by the record labels & you think that if so many people say that a particular band or song is great, then you think they must be right & jump on the band wagon. People are stereo followers & follow the crowd & that's the problem with people, no one thinks on there own. It's just like the commercial radio stations, a DJ use to play a song by a new artist & ask the listeners, what do you think of this song, but if HE didn't like the song, he would say it in a tone that would come across in a negative manner, pretty much condemning the song to death. If he liked the song, it would get a very positive, What do you think of this song. I always thought it was so funny but yet stupid & so stereo typed, how Seattle never paid any attention to Hendrix, he couldn't get anyone to pay attention to him at all here & then when he went to England & became successful, he now became,"Seattle's' Own Jimmie Hendrix".LMAO! People like you are nothing but record label successors but kissers. YOU are no different than a cheap news outlet on the internet,(NO BODIES) but yet you have the nerve to say that about garage bands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.83.222.237 (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the humor-impaired, the article Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band has the following hatnote:

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

-Arch dude (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not an article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability (music) but it is a similar standard to what he complains about. Rmhermen (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, Wikipedia is not social media, and importance on Wikipedia is not judged by popularity or number of "hits" online. Articles on Wikipedia have to be written using information available in reliable published sources so that content can be verified by readers. Those are basic core principles of Wikipedia, and these are the reasons why garage bands, almost by definition, are not appropriate here. By their nature, they have received little to no mainstream coverage, and so there is little to nothing available with which to write a Wikipedia article. If they have received sustained coverage in reliable sources, then they are most likely not a garage band. GMG ^talk 13:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]