Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 May 24

Help desk
< May 23	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 25 >

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.

May 24

list of orphaned pages with incoming links

I am actually interested in helping de-orphaning the orphaned articles and I understand why AWB is not used to auto de-orphan to catch possible articles that should be deleted / merged or otherwise. Hence I just like a list of such pages so I can work on individual articles manually, reading and fixing it. So in short, a list of orphaned articles (tagged with category:orphan) with incoming list. appreciate if the list can be placed on my sandbox! Thanks --Xaiver0510 (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Xaiver0510: Wikipedia uses the term "orphan" is a special sense: see Wikipedia:Orphan. It means "an article without incoming links", the articles you are asking for do not exist. Alternatively, I don't understand what you are asking. -Arch dude (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Arch dude:Perhaps I was not very clear. I am looking for a way to generate a list of articles wrongly tagged as orphan (aka in Category:All orphaned articles) but actually have incoming links. There are articles which are tagged orphans but actually have incoming links (aka not orphans, example Alan Beaumont (footballer)). So specifically, I am asking for help to generate a list which fulfills such conditions. Thanks --Xaiver0510 (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

using photos

Hello, I run a small (bimonthly)railway paper in the uk. I would like to use a photo from your Union Pacific Big Boy article in my next issue. Are there any restrictions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingads1 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Short answer: Almost certainly but you must attribute the image. Long answer: Images here are under various copyrights. All can be used by you, but each is under its own type of license with its own rules. IF you click on the Image, you will see a bigger version of it ans a "details" button. Click on that button to see the copyright situation. In most cases, it's CC-BY-SA. If so, and if your paper is in electronic form, just add "from Wikipedia" with a link to the URL fo the image. If your paper is physical paper, also add "from Wikipedia" and the URL in printed form. Some of our images are here under a "free use" justification, and are therefore NOT under the CC-BY-SA. We feel that these are legal for us to use and maintain on our computers in the US, but you would need to ask your own lawyers about use in the UK or use in a newsletter. -Arch dude (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

For the complete story, see Wikipedia:Copyrights. We did not make the copyright laws, which have become a real mess. We do however, try as hard as we can to comply with them. -Arch dude (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Is this the picture? [1]? Wow, that's a big locomotive. It IS under a license (CC-BY 2.0) you can use merely by attributing the photographer via a link as above. Note that it's stored at a higher resolution than we use to display in the Union Pacific Big Boy article, so you probably want to download the high-res version if you intend to print to paper, or an appropriate-sized version for your specific e-pub. -Arch dude (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kingads1: The only restrictions on this image are that you must give appropriate credit to the author, link to the image license, and indicate if changes were made. You could use this text: "Image by Aaron Pedersen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/147028288@N02/47807163711). Released under CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en)". – Þjarkur (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Anglican Catholic Church.

Missionary Diocese of Australia and New Zealand.

Please delete Bp Denis Hodge who has now retired, insert Bp Ian Woodman.

Thank you and regards.

Bp Ian Woodman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.43.87 (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This, I presume, refers to Anglican Catholic Church#Leadership. The source for Denis Hodge still lists him, while this site calls Woodman the "Episcopal Vicar". I'm not familiar with the Anglican Church hierarchy/titles, so I'll leave it for someone else to resolve. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Seminole High School Notable People

To whom it may concern,

I work for Producer/Director James Fitzpatrick. For some reason, James and his brother Tony, whom both played Professional Football, was deleted from the Seminole High School page. Can you explain this mistake?

James Fitzpatrick's Wiki page connection to his last team: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Bandits

Cheers,

Julienne Ford-Hammond Five Star Studios PR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.196.62 (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You must comply with the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy; the latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement and not negotiable. They were removed from the list because they do not seem to have articles of their own(the links went to disambiguation pages, not articles, as there are other people with those names that do merit articles). If they merit articles, you should not be the one to write them. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

James is Jim Fitzpatrick (actor). This contains unsourced claims that he attended the school and played in both the CFL and NFL. He was not removed form the school article (Seminole High School (Pinellas County, Florida) but the attendance claim and the professional football claim all need to be sourced. There is no article for.Tony Fitzpatrick,but the claim that he played in the USFL is sufficient for notability as a pro athlete. Again, his attendance and his playing career would have to be reliably sourced. Meters (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Notability of books within an author's article

I'd like to know more about Wikipedia's policy on something. I recently edited an article to include a bibliography of an academics's works with ISBNs/OCLC links. These edits were reverted and I was told they needed reviews to demonstrate they were notable enough (my wording, but it was something like that). I also edit self-help and self-published author articles; there are sometimes titles listed that only link to where someone can buy it at Audible or to the author's website. This seems to be a bit promotional to me and they don't demonstrate the notability that I gathered is required.
My questions:
1. Is this true across Wikipedia biography articles, or only in academia?
2. Should all listed creative works have a review? Or just most? Or what?
3. If so, how good of a reviewing body does it need to be? I imagine Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, Booklist, and academic or trade journals are good. If not available, do blogs suffice, or not?
4. How many reviews is ideal?
5. If I can't find reviews, does a link to a bestseller list suffice to show notability?
6. Should titles that have no quality reviews on the open internet, JSTOR, etc., be removed from a list of an author's works?
Please point to the policy/policies on this.
Thank you!--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It would help if you'd tell us what the article was, DiamondRemley39. In any case, "notability within an article" is a bit of a misnomer; notability is only about whether or not a topic merits a standalone article and does not affect content in other articles. However, in the case of lists, some sort of non-arbitrary criteria is often needed. Authors can have dozens or hundreds of works, and sections in biographies are only supposed to list the most important ones, not necessarily all of them. Sometimes notability of individual items is a good criteria, sometimes not. See some guidance at MOS:BIB. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Finnusertop, for your reply and for including the link. You are right in it being a misnomer. I didn't like using "notability" but that was the best word I could come up with.
Mel Robbins is one article I mean. I intend to cite reviews for her works and create a separate "Books" section, but her "Audible Originals" don't have any reviews from typical reviewing sources (like Library Journal, Booklist, and Publishers Weekly) that I've searched; the works are not very book-like (they seem to be more like a paid podcast) and I'm thinking they should perhaps not be listed there as they seem to only be covered in user reviews. Ilaria Ramelli is the article on which my edits were reverted; I then added reviews to verify the... worthiness? of including the list and all is now well there.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, you don't need to cite reviews or the sort for a selected works list, unless someone asks for them. As always, if someone disagrees with your addition, it's always good to ask them what they think the problem is and what would rectify it. I see you started a discussion at Talk:Ilaria Ramelli. Others have since replied. You should continue to talk to them. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Finnusertop. I don't know that any more discussion at Talk:Ilaria Ramelli is required at this time, as I have done what is asked and my edits were accepted. I mentioned the Ilaria Ramelli article because that is where I got the (apparently mis-)-conception that reviews are recommended. My current dilemma is more about the Mel Robbins page and whether those items are worthy of inclusion on selected works. I will review MOS:BIB before making changes and will discuss on Talk:Mel Robbins. Thank you again. -- DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The Manual of Style section on Lists of Works (MOS:WORKS) says "The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship, are encouraged..." --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gronk Oz! That's what I needed!DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Help

I am a new wikipedia user who made a user only yesterday. That being said, today someone left a question on my talk board. How do you leave a question on someone else's talk board or respond to a comment or question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian1088 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

First off, you need to read Wikipedia:Signatures and comply with it, as you haven't done with this post – no blame, you're new and it takes some time to learn all this stuff, but as it says at the top of this page, "Finally, please sign any statement you post here by placing ~~~~ at the end of your post."

If you had signed your post with the four tildes, you'd have seen that your signature (and a time stamp) was thereby immediately created. Your signature consists of your user name which is wikilinked to your user page, and (usually *) "(Talk)" which is wikilinked to your Talk page.

(* Some people customise their signatures to display different wordings, but hovering on them should reveal where the links really go.)

As you've seen, other users can go to your Talk page and leave messages and queries – if they do you can reply to their query there (just type on the next line, starting with one colon more than their query has to follow our standard indenting format). Since they've posted on your Talk page, they will likely check it to see if you reply. To get their attention, you can include in your reply "{{ping|Theirname}}" which will send them a notification, but only if you sign your post before saving ("Publishing") it.

Alternatively, you can go to their Talk page by clicking on the wikilinked "(Talk)" of their signature and leave a message (or reply) there, but note that it's easiest to keep the whole conversation on the page where it started.

Hope this helps. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it all with practice :-) .{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.2.132 (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Al Jazeera

Please note that the byline when you Google Al Jazeera says: "Al Jazeera also known as JSC (Jazeera Satellite Channel), is a state-funded holocaust denial broadcaster in Doha, Qatar, owned by the Al Jazeera Media ..." - This does not appear on the main page but somehow on the Google description. Is this fixable as not correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.29.228 (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure it's fixable, but only by someone at Google. They copy Wikipedia content, which is fine by us, and "enhance" it with other content, which we here at Wikipedia have no control over. Though most of the material they display is from here, almost all the mistakes in it are from other sources. Maproom (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the OP is seeing an extract from our own article Al Jazeera, under a link to it, which (the extract on Google) really does contain the words "holocaust denial". These were added by an IP at 12:58, 22 May 2019 and reverted by User @Zombles: 3 minutes later. I'm still seeing it as of this moment, but hopefully Google's webcrawlers will pick up the revised version soon. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.2.132 (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The crawlers have revisited and the words "holocaust denier" no longer appear in Google. Dbfirs 20:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, the vandalism was reverted very speedily. Looks like it's all fixed now. Any ideas on how the crawlers work? Google already posts live extracts from articles when linking the article. Might be worth having some more information at a different location Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, 2.122.2.132, for your correction. BTW that's a great IP address! I understand why you'd use it instead of registering an account. Maproom (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, 87 etc was my fixed home IP for a long time, but then my ISP was taken over by one using dynamic IPs that change every time I have occasion to reboot my router. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.2.132 (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk: Daniel Sidney Warner

I have provided source references for this article; however, I believe Section 3 ("Movement that Followed") should not be part of Warner's biographical article. It describes the Church of God (Anderson), which is covered in greater detail by a separate Wikipedia article.

It's an issue because Warner staunchly denied that he was beginning a new religious movement, and in fact the writer of the biographical article aptly refers to him as an "initiator" of the Church of God. Also be aware that Warner's immediate successors differed from his teachings at several points. The present narrative doesn't cite them by name, which implies that these where his beliefs.

I see a couple of possible solutions:

1) Disambiguate Section 3 from the rest of the Warner article and incorporate it into the Church of God article. 2) Leave Section 3 with the Warner article, but expand it a bit to cite his successors by name and quote Warner's disagreement with them.

What would be Wikipedia's preferred way of resolving this?

Hoosierwriter131 (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Hoosierwriter131

@Hoosierwriter131:This is an editorial decision and you are the editor: do what seems right to you. We try to avoid having too many rules. But since you asked: I would move the material and incorporate appropriately into the Church of God (Anderson) article, and then add a discussion of the issue in the Warner article. -Arch dude (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Question

What is wikipedia. What does it do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmccain (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please click on this blue link and read the article:Wikipedia.-Arch dude (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:About might be a more suitable page for new users. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)