Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 December 28

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.

December 28

I don't understand your scribbling

I don't understand a bit of all your scribbling . Please make a little bit easier to understanrd. I enjoyed reading your articles on different topics since the first day. 104.36.119.6 (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Which page are you referring to? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! If you have an issue understand a specific article, you can share your specific concern on the article's talk page. You might also be interested in the Simple Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

English is a simple language (this is why it's so widespread in the world), American even more so; making the encyclopedia even more readable would be excessive. JackkBrown (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Peter Finch Martineau

Could the recently added portrait be made a bit smaller please. I cannot do this. Sorry ! Srbernadette (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Done, it might be worth adding infobox person.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Best way to change about 70 wikilinks to incorrect Ise Saiō to plain old Saiō?

Hello, folks, and hope you're enjoying the year as it winds down. I was wondering what the best way to go about correcting a large number of wikilinks as described in the section heading.

Background: I just closed the RM at Talk:Saiō#Requested move 13 November 2023, where the now-blocked nom said: I have since changed almost all links to Saiō to Ise Saiō, but nothing in that RM showed that Ise Saiō is a real phrase. However, the list at is daunting, so I was wondering if there were a semi-automated way of doing it. Thanks in advanced! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 08:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352: Yes, ask at WP:BOTREQ and someone with a bot, or access to AWB, will do it for you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352: At the risk of contradicting Pigsonthewing, I suggest WP:AWBTASKS instead, due to the small number of articles to be changed. GoingBatty (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep this for future reference; it seems someone else has already helped me cut the links down to 61, so I went ahead and cut it down further to 51. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Peter Finch Martineau

Please add the page number - which is page number 4 - into citation number 14. Thank you in anticipation,

Srbernadette (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done - Dents (talk 🖂) 10:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Zucchero Fornaciari

The reference n. 80 doesn't work. JackkBrown (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

JackkBrown, go here to (try to) recover broken links – for this case, you can use this working link. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Is Paraphrasing scientific description copyright infringement?

I have been working on describing plants, fungi, and animals. The edits include facts which consist of description of measurements or where an plant is found and I have made similar publications in published scientific journals with no issues. But here I ran into issues with several users claiming copyright infringement on my content. Sometimes when there are new discoveries or reclassification of species there are limited sources making creating issues with descriptions. Several users on copy patrol have been scrutinizing my edits and blanking facts which are describing the species. These all come from scientific descriptions that are facts.

In this edit I spent time paraphrasing the description from this source and I added attribution.

Also I copied a list of synonyms from kew and added attribution.

On this page I had my edits of a single sentence of 18 words stricken from the history because my statement of the facts are too similar to the source material where they made the description. Here on this page I added the description for the new classification of Chantarelle mushrooms and the editor again blanked the one sentence description for copyright violation. It is difficult for any edits to be made distinguishing mushroom parts other than the words used there.

I thought these list of information was allowed based on the supreme court opinion from Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. case where:

• "The first is that facts are not copyrightable; the other, that compilations of facts generally are. Each of these propositions possesses an impeccable pedigree."((Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. (1991) 499 U.S. 340, 344)
• That there can be no valid copyright in facts is universally understood."No author may copyright facts or ideas. The copyright is limited to those aspects of the work -- termed 'expression' -- that display the stamp of the author's originality. (Id at 350. citing Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises)
  • The descriptions I am adding are measurements and shapes of a the plant written by taxonomist distinguishing the difference between them
• "To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. See Harper & Row, supra, at 547-549. Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity" (Id at 345)
  • I believe the use of a scientific description of a plant or a group of plants is similar the Feist case where the work author of this source copied the measurements from other books as listed in their bibliography

It is my understanding that using paraphrasing to represent facts is fine because of the Feist opinion where "This inevitably means that the copyright in a factual compilation is thin. Notwithstanding a valid copyright, a subsequent compiler remains free to use the facts contained in another's publication to aid in preparing a competing work, so long as the competing work does not feature the same selection and arrangement." (Id at 349)

Here is a link to the Feist case.

Is there a reason this is not allowed on wikipedia? or am I misinterpreting the supreme court ruling here or are the other users misinterpreting the copyright law? Please advise --Cs california (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Diannaa and GreenLipstickLesbian:, whose edits are questioned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Andy. Here are links to the previous/ongoing discussions:

• Talk:Bulbophyllum sect. Hemisterantha
• User talk:Diannaa#Possible close paraphrase/copyvio

To sum up my comments from those two discussions: facts are not copyrightable, but prose is. Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. It's okay to copy from compatibly licensed sources, but attribution is required. This is typically done using templates. — Diannaa (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cs california, Diannaa, and GreenLipstickLesbian: IMO your edits do not violate copyright law or Wikipedia's strict interpretation, for the reasons you described. However, we need a simpler way to resolve these challenges in the future: a multi-paragraph query here at the help desk for each incident is not very efficient. I think we need a guideline page that is crisp and to the point and not intermixed with all of the rest of our copyright guidance. Then, whenever you or another editor creates a one-sentence fact-only cited summary, you can just add a link (maybe WP:FACTONLY) to your edit summary and/or to any subsequent WP:BRD discussion. -Arch dude (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Arch Dude. Your advice is not in alignment with what people who work on copyright cleanup consider to be a copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, copying eighteen-word sentences is a copyright violation. It doesn't matter if the subject is scientific facts or some other topic. — Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Diannaa:Sorry, I shoujld have read the sentence. It's a copyvio unless it is the only possible way to convey the facts. This occurs in the field of computer software. If there is no alternative wayt to convey the facts, it's not copyhrightable. -Arch dude (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Diannaa, GreenLipstickLesbian, User:Arch dude Most of the cases I have no options to describe the parts differently just rearranging the text. I made attempts to accommodate Diannaa standards but I can't make up other names for existing parts of plants or fungus making it unintelligible. For example if a source says "The sky is blue on the east side". It would not make sense for me to paraphrase "The sky has the hue of the primary color blue on the opposite of the western side"

Furthermore the case above expands on the rule codify in 17 U.S. Code § 102 (b) where

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

This is just to show it is not only a supreme court opinion but the rule is grounded in US law. I am sure this applies to

It matters if it is scientific fact see the above US code and below:

"Census data therefore do not trigger copyright because these data are not "original" in the constitutional sense. [...]. The same is true of all facts -- scientific, historical, biographical, and news of the day. "They may not be copyrighted and are part of the public domain available to every person." (Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. supra, 499 U.S. 340, 348)[ citing Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1981)]

In a recent 2nd Circuit Opinion on Abdin v. CBS Broad., Inc. where Abin sued CBS for their use of tardigrade description the court stated that:

"Here, the district court properly concluded that all tardigrades "have eight short legs that run in pairs along a rounded body, . . . an O-shaped mouth in the center of the 'face' and . . . are capable of surviving in space without protection." App'x at 243. These scientific facts are not copyrightable because they are part of the public domain and thus do not provide a basis for an infringement claim." (Abdin v. CBS Broad., Inc. (2d Cir. 2020) 971 F.3d 57, 67.)

CBS describe tardigrades is similar to the edits I perform where I described a plant or a fungus.--Cs california (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

My edits were mentioned here, so I figured I'd better respond- and while I know this isn't entirely within the realm of the Help desk, and I know my efforts in this issue haven't been perfect (again, apologies to Dianna who had to fix some of my mistakes yesterday), I've worked really hard cleaning up over a hundred unattributed machine translations. While I volunteered to do it, and don't expect any gratitude, there's a lot of context missing from Cs california's post.

And, to clarify- I'm not on copy patrol. I merely clicked the "Recent changes" tab two weeks ago, saw an edit summary that said "import from the German wikipedia" and thought- hey, I bet that editor doesn't know about the attribution rules! I'll go let them know, and I'm sure they'll fix it! I'm also not going to comment on the fair use thing right now, because I'm quite tired and I don't think I'd write the best explanation of why "No, facts aren't copyrightable- but the prose used to describe those facts is!"

I've since spent the past week fixing 150+ unattributed edits that Cs California made- and, so far, all of them seem to have been made after they were told how to provide attribution when copying from public domain works or works shared under the CC-SA-4.0 license by Dianna in 2021, Diannaa in 2022 (to which they responded with the classic "If you want to add that go ahead no one is stopping you", and by DanCherek later in 2022 (to which they ever so politely responded "You know my account is older than your account and auto confirmed."

Well, we all make mistakes- but throughout 2023, they had to be warned by Diannaa about attributing material they added to Wikipedia from our foreign-language counterparts again. And again. And again. And again.

And then I asked them to provide attribution, to which they (over the course of a conversation, responded "If you want to add the links go right ahead", said that "there is no mandatory requirement per WP:IAR."

And then Diannaa had to step in and warn them about a completely different article they'd taken from the deWiki without attribution. And then again, she had to warn them again.

For those of you who have lost count, that's 10 warnings over the exact issue in the span of less than two years. Of course, there couldn't be more? Right?

2007, they invited somebody to join their Orchids Wikipedia because "Wikipedia also does not really allow Copyright images". 2009, somebody had to warn them, on Wikipedia, about taking their images onto that Orchid Wikia without attribution- and yes, the user told them, in very basic terms, how to provide attribution.

So, despite their very recent claims, directed towards Dianna that "The fact is you continued to point out the issue and failed to properly address by showing how to attribute with a reference as User:GreenLipstickLesbian did.", that they were "ignorant of the way to fix it" and that Dianna's behaviour amounts to "comparative negligence" is, to put it quite frankly, bizarre- and a little upsetting. She's putting up with both of our antics, and in exchange, she's being treated like that. I don't think that's very fair. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

These issues are separate to the topic of this discussion which is what material is copyright, and were previously addressed. If you want discuss conduct issues including copyright issues going back 16 years, you can open a dispute resolution. --Cs california (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cs california:I was just providing some context- but fine. If you take a look at those cases you found, I think you'll see that even they stuck the exact phrases used to describe those facts in quotes and attributed them to the original source. Does that answer your question? Would you like me to state it another way?

Also-"copyright issues" do you mean your copyright issues? And please, take it to dispute resolution or ANI or whichever noticeboard you feel is most appropriate to discuss this issue. You keep bringing it up- so it clearly seems like something you feel would be helpful. So, again, please do! And, while you're at it-could you open a case about your edits at WP:CCI? I think we're well past their 5 edit threshold, and I think this is rapidly turning into something I can't clear up on my own.GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I am going to request that a Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations case be opened so that the remainder of their edits can be checked in an organized way. Thank you very much for all the work you have put into this case to date. — Diannaa (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you for opening up the case. A methodical check seems like the best solution right now. (I'm probably going to step back from this area for a few days, however, for obvious reasons. But again, thank you.)GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

edit notice

So maybe it's just not enough coffee yet...I added an edit notice and when I looked at the page, it was visible in Read mode. What am I doing wrong? Thanks for any help! Valereee (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: Hello! What do you mean by Read mode? All I see is that you added a template to a page and then reverted your edit. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to go here: Wikipedia:Editnotice#Creating_editnotices to add an editnotice, not in the article page itself. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I added it, then realized I'd screwed up and reverted it and came here. :) I am template-impaired. It always takes me at least one screwup to get a new template use correct.

Oh, no kidding, I have to go fill in a form page? Good grief. So many of our how-to pages are so complex and make so many assumptions of what people already know. I swear I was at the how-to page just before I came in here, and I didn't notice that. I'll go look again, and thanks, @Deltaspace42! Valereee (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Editnotices work in the opposite of the opposite of how you'd think they would. It is conveniently crazy but our guide does do a so-so job of explaining how to make one. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

hahaha! I did find it, once I knew what I was looking for. :D Valereee (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

New donate channel

Hi Experts, I am from China. I want to donate. I have AMEX credit card, but things go error. I will keep trying, but will you open the wechat or alipay channel? These two are easier to donate. RobertRivers9 (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@RobertRivers9: Hello! If you have any questions about donating, please email donate@wikimedia.org Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Best way to cite different portions of the same AV media and mixing AV/written references with web citations

What would be the most appropriate way to cite different segments of the same piece of AV media, a la page numbers? I'm working on a draft that already uses a note section and has been exclusively web-sourced so far. I haven't had to use several non-consecutive pages of a book or AV media segments, and I'm trying to figure out how to properly combine all the references (web, written, AV). Spagooder (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

If this is about Draft:The Snake Pit and this source, perhaps start like this:

<ref>{{cite AV media |first=Ian |last=Bennett |first2=Mike |last2=Todd |date=2005 |title=Catch: The Hold Not Taken |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bg3qTlGx3Q |language=en |publisher=Riverhorse |via=YouTube}}
*{{harvnb|Bennett|Todd|2005|loc=[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bg3qTlGx3Q&t=690s 11:30]}} – &lt;{{var|description or, if you must, a quote}}>
*{{harvnb|Bennett|Todd|2005|loc=[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bg3qTlGx3Q&t=955s 15:55]}} – &lt;{{var|description}}></ref>

References

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Thank you very much. There wasn't much guidance on AV and some of it conflicted or seems outdated. How does it look to you now? Spagooder (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Your article, you decide if you like how it 'looks'.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean if I did the references properly. This is the first article I've written from the start. Spagooder (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Spagooder, if you want to avoid the awkward mixture of citation styles, you can use WP:NAMEDREFS to have the source appear just once in the list of references, and use Template:Rp after each ref in the body of the text, giving the appropriate timestamp (rather than a page number) in the template. I think that's what I'd do. Deor (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Did you mean something like this?

References

Spagooder (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about my delay in replying, Spagooder. Yes, that's what I meant. Just give the ref a name in the inital <ref> tag, like <ref name="Catch">, then just use <ref name="Catch" /> for all subsequent citations of the source, with appropriate {{rp}} templates for the timestamps. (The documentation of {{rp}} recommends using "{{rp|at=45:17}}", but the template works without the "at=".) Deor (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Spagooder: Per the instructions at Template:Cite AV media, I suggest replacing |type=Youtube with |via=YouTube. GoingBatty (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Latvia and Lithuania

What is the country next to Latvia and Lithuania? 184.61.44.94 (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Have a look at Latvia and Lithuania. Bazza (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Belarus? Questions like this belong at the reference desk WP:RD RudolfRed (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

See File:2008 Europe Political Map EN.jpg. Belarus and Russia are the only countries with borders to both (Kaliningrad to the southwest of Lithuania is part of Russia). Estonia is the third of the Baltic states and may be what you actually want. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

maps.google.com Spagooder (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal Of Vital Information

Why have you removed the Ben Gurion Canal page? I will never donate to you again. 97.122.228.114 (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello! See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ben_Gurion_Canal_Project if you want to know why the page was removed. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, and there seems to never have been the article Ben Gurion Canal [1]. Also, the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia, is quite stable financially and therefore won't terribly miss a donation or so. Cheers ‍ Relativity 20:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, see Deltaspace42's comment above. I linked to the wrong article ‍ Relativity 20:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Threats to withhold financial donations to the Wikimedia Foundation will never have any impact whatsoever on the content of the English Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Uploading cover art for songs

Hi, I have two questions regarding uploading cover art for songs. My first one regards Peace Sign (Kenshi Yonezu song). I uploaded the cover for it already, but I think the cover of the limited edition (which has the main character from the anime "Peace Sign" was the theme song of) would be a better visual identifier. How would I go about replacing it (if I can)?

My second one relates to Fukyōwaon. I was planning on reformatting/adding references to the "Chart performance" section, and noticed the rather excessive amount of covers (do we really need five? I think the regular edition and maybe Type A as well would be sufficient), so what should I do? (This is also the case for some of their other singles Silent Majority (song), Sekai ni wa Ai Shika Nai, Futari Saison, Kaze ni Fukarete mo, Ambivalent, Kuroi Hitsuji.)

I would appreciate any advice or feedback about these issues. Thanks, ayakanaa ( t · c ) 21:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ayakanaa: You can upload the cover art as a non-free file with Wikipedia:File upload wizard. The only information I could find about the number of cover art images to use is Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover. GoingBatty (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! ayakanaa ( t · c ) 17:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Procedural keep close for "Inside Voices / Outside Voices"

What is the correct venue for requesting a procedural keep close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inside Voices / Outside Voices (2nd nomination)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: Hello! Here Wikipedia:Speedy keep are the criteria for speedy keeping, but I don't think any of them applies here. You can ask the nominator to withdraw the nomination, or you can ask some admin to close per Wikipedia:Snowball_clause. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

What articles have talk pages?

Is there a good category or other place that shows what pages in the article namespace do not have talk pages? I know that you can search under All pages but I do not know if there is a good way to search specifically for articles without talk pages. Thanks! Jay eyem (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jay eyem: Hi there! Sounds like a good candidate for Wikipedia:Request a query. GoingBatty (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, will look there. Thank you! Jay eyem (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)