Help desk
< May 27	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 29 >

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 28[edit]

New Page Reviewer[edit]

I'd really love to become a New Page Reviewer but I have been denied multiple times but that was a while ago. What do I need to read and what do I need to do? The Tips of Apmh 03:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Tips of Apmh, if something isn't explained in Wikipedia:New pages patrol, then you could ask about it in Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol. -- Hoary (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hover page preview no longer working[edit]

The page preview function when hovering over hyperlink text has stopped working, as of several days ago. I use Firefox and have made no change to my settings. What has changed and how do I get it to work again? 2603:7000:95F0:8B50:6116:C0EE:E063:BAD (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a wikilink or an external link with a

trailing after it? The Page Previews should work for non-registered users, but MediaWiki describes some methods to bring it back if it has disappeared. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Postage stamps (fair use question)[edit]

I would like to include reference images of two postage stamps (one Australian, see: 90c Embryo Chair Stamp; one German, see: Serie "Design aus Deutschland" Herbert Lindinger: Stadtbahn Stuttgart) in articles about the designers whose work is fêted on the stamps (Marc Newson and Herbert Lindinger, respectively). Is this permitted fair use? My understanding is that the images would not be accepted on Commons (the rules for which are bewilderingly complex to a non-lawyer), however they may be acceptable on en:wp specifically to illustrate the claim that the designer's work was featured on a postage stamp. [NB: The photo of the S-DT8.12 Stuttgart light rail car used in the Lindnger article seems to be the actual source image for the stamp itself.] Appreciate any advice and guidance. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cl3phact0 If it was to discuss the design. or designer, of the stamp itself, then as per WP:NFCI, that would be acceptable, "for identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it." However, you seem to want to use the stamp specifically to show the subject depicted on it, which is not allowed per WP:NFCI.
The answer also depends on the copyright laws of the country of origin - e.g. This stamp from India is allowed to be used to illustrate the subject because of the "National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP) of the Government of India" - Unfortunately I do not know the copyright rules for stamps of Australia, or Germany, you would need to look for stamps from those countries to see if there is a similar permission. - Arjayay (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Arjayay. The articles are both about designers, and in this case, the purpose of the image use would be to highlight the design of the stamps (which are, in both cases, part of series celebrating design itself). Also in both cases, the design of the stamp features an object designed by the designer in question, and in one case the design of the stamp ~~was~~ seems to be based on a photo found on Commons – thus my confusion about the fair use admissibility.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cl3phact0 You seem to be confusing my statements. If the article is about the designer of the stamp itself, that is allowed per WP:NFCI. If the article is about the designer of the object depicted on the stamp, that is not allowed. - Arjayay (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I wasn't clear. Let me rephrase: The claim in the articles is that there is a stamp which depicts the designers' work. I want to show the stamp itself to validate this claim (and also show the design of the stamp – not the design or designer of the object depicted). Therefore, the intent is "to discuss the design" of the stamp itself. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cl3phact0 Personally, I think you are stretching a point, as "to discuss the design of the stamp itself" doesn't really seem to be the purpose. I suggest you re-ask your question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions - Arjayay (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Arjayay, I am happy to ask again on the Media copyright questions forum you've kindly provided (the existence of which I was unaware of – so thank you for that too!). Please understand that I am not simply looking for the answer I'd (obviously) like to hear, I'm just looking for the right answer.

If one reads the WP:NFCI section 3. to the letter, then this is arguably a case of "identification of the stamp". That the "subjects depicted" also are relevant seems a function of the fact that in this case the raison d'être of the actual stamps is "Design" (notwithstanding who designed them), and the articles in question are about designers (who indubitably designed the objects depicted).

I am also happy to drop the matter altogether and not include these images in the articles if doing otherwise means protracted debate, tiresome defence of their inclusion, and the frustration of the eventual deletion of the uploads regardless (an experience I wish to avoid repeating – which is why I came here to ask before going to the trouble of sourcing and uploading the files, adding them to the articles, etc.). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done (Please see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions if interested.) Thanks again for trying to help solve for an answer! -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quote[edit]

A user rightly deleted my edit on the "Sergio Leone" page because the text was not in the correct place, but where can I insert this quote from the well-known historical figure?

(Il cinema deve essere spettacolo, è questo che il pubblico vuole. E per me lo spettacolo più bello è quello del mito.)

(Cinema must be spectacle, that's what the public wants. And for me the most beautiful spectacle is that of the myth.)

— Sergio Leone

JackkBrown (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JackkBrown, if you have contextual information (e.g., When did Leone say this? To whom? In reference to what?), it shouldn't be too hard to find an appropriate place to include the quote if it is indeed relevant to the article. A good reference source for the quote is important too. (It's an interesting quote, in my view.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple vandalisms, not undoable without rollback[edit]

Good afternoon, a rollback is needed here: CiccioGamer89. JackkBrown (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the latest edits by the IP as they were unconstructive. In the future, you can simply mark in the article's history which edits you'd like to revert to undo them all at once, no rollback needed. Help:Page history contains information on how to do this. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

disable the unsaved changes recovery?[edit]

When I edit a page, I frequently want to open a copy of the page to look at something. Whenever I do that, it "recovers" the changes from my first copy. This is unbelievably annoying. Is there a way to disable that behavior? Adoring nanny (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adoring nanny There are a couple of things you could try. In the source editor you can toggle the "Preview" option top right in the editing window and it will a split-screen view where the right-hand part is the full article and you can scroll this to look at any part of the existing article (without any changes you might be making in the edit window, since they are not yet saved). Alternatively, on a PC I often open a separate browser tab and navigate to the article (or any other relevant page) which then behaves completely independently. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the separate tab would behave independently. For me it does not. Perhaps I need to be logged out on the second tab? Adoring nanny (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I generally don't have any trouble with this when I open the edit link in a new tab. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adoring nanny: If you open the copy with a browser feature to duplicate the current tab then it's working as intended. It's done by the browser and not Wikipedia. Try to Ctrl-click the Edit tab instead. If you were making a section edit then it will edit the whole page. If you only want the section then Ctrl-click the left-most tab to view the rendered page, navigate to the section and click the section edit link. If you actually prefer the rendered page then just stop there. You can also try to open the copy as you usually do but then add & to the end of the url and press enter to reload. If this doesn't help then what is your browser and operating system, and exactly how do you open the copy? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Gemelli DiVersi", not "Gemelli Diversi"[edit]

Could someone correct the title of this page? The correct title already exists and, therefore, I would not know how to correct the current title. It's spelled "Gemelli DiVersi", not "Gemelli Diversi". Source: https://www.rockol.it/artista/gemelli-diversi; another source (this one is "official"): https://www.allmusic.com/artist/gemelli-diversi-mn0000718844. JackkBrown (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: You can move the page yourself, or ask over at Wikipedia:Technical move requests if it's an uncontroversial move. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: I cannot do it myself, I already specified why. JackkBrown (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: I added a request within the page you linked me to. JackkBrown (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, what do you mean when you say that https://www.allmusic.com/artist/gemelli-diversi-mn0000718844 is "official"? -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: what I mean is that RhythmOne ("AllMusic is owned by RhythmOne"), being a company, is certainly more "official" than the newspaper Rockol. JackkBrown (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, more "reliable", more "credible", more "authoritative", but not more "official". -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the title. -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: thank you! Anyway, yes, I used "official" improperly. JackkBrown (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, for ease of promotion, people in the public eye sometimes want to use a simplified version or spelling of their name, so a commercial entity connected to them would deliberately use such an "incorrect" version/spelling.

Consider for example the Dutch racing driver Rinus van Kalmthout, who on moving to the USA to compete in the USF2000 Championship adopted 'Rinus VeeKay' because he knew Americans would have difficulty pronouncing his real surname correctly.

This sort of usage is an example of a Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, so we would use it for an article title. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.210.77 (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP address, DiVersi is a play on words; in the Italian language "versi" can also mean "verses" as far as poetrys are concerned, while "diversi" means "different". JackkBrown (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information[edit]

I am not sure how to add information and I don't want to mess a page up. I was looking to see Rob Estes information and I noticed there is one movie that is not on his list. It's from this year the movie is Just Jake and he plays the main character Jake. It was on Hallmark. Sue4602 (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sue4602, sorry, but Rob Mayes starred in that TV movie. Cullen328 (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. I just realized who I said. Sorry about that. Sue4602 (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sue4602. Thank you for wanting to help improve Wikipedia. I see that Cullen pointed out your mistake, but for future reference: if you want to add something to an article but are not sure how, every article has an associated talk page where people can discuss how to improve the article, so in this case (according to what you thought) it would be Talk:Rob Estes. The other thing to note is that all information added to an article should come from a reliable published source, not from our own knowledge; so if we want to add something to an article, the very first thing we should do is look for a source, not rely on our own knowledge. In this case, if you had done that, you would have found your mistake! ColinFine (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]