Help desk
< October 30	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	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.

October 31[edit]

Move-to-commons assistant broken?[edit]

I've now tried two times to transfer File:East Berlin street sign for Marx-Engels-Platz and television tower, 1984.jpg to Commons using CommonsHelper with direct upload (with my TUSC username/password) and got success messages, no hint of an error - but still it didn't work. It used to work fine on the old Toolserver, maybe something went wrong with the transfer of the tool to WMFLabs? Gestumblindi (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get an answer here, then asking at WP:VPT is the best next step. Or you could try to figure out who the author of the tool is, and ask him/her directly. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gustakh dil[edit]

I had posted picture and a plot on Wikipedia I saved it hoping the changes will work but did not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.69.241 (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were undone because they upset the page formatting. I have put back your extra plot summary. For help with pictures, see Help:Introduction to uploading images - adding an external URL won't work. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate content[edit]

If a person is arrested for murder (and it is notable and it is in reliable sources), is it OK to list that person's name in a Wikipedia article? Or does that violate BLP? Please advise. Thanks. -- Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 6 to BLP Persons accused of crime reads: "Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement do not amount to a conviction. BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow." -- Jreferee (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about this edit to Abductive's post. There also is Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. That policy relates to the "protection" of Wikipedia editors who are children, no? What does that have to do with my question? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's was I get for not looking closely. Wikipedia:Minors and persons judged incompetent is an essay about editing about minors should be especially protective of their rights in light of BLP. It's only an essay, but when you combine minor (age 14) with accuse of a crime, I think consensus usually would fall on not including the name of the person in the article. Consensus could go the other way, so your request to discuss the issue is not unreasonable. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't even know about that policy, but it didn't seem right to stink up the articles on a town and a high school with sordid details such as the name of the arrested 14-year-old. Abductive (reasoning) 06:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is an individidual's name a "sorded" detail exactly? (See definition of "sordid" here.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, given all of the applicable policies, is it or is it not appropriate to include the name of an accused murderer in a high-profile murder case (i.e., both national and international news coverage) that has a multitude of reliable sources? Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on who the accused is. If it's someone who is well-known and in the public eye, and the murder accusation has been extensively reported upon, then it's acceptable (bearing in mind the usual requirements for neutrality and sourcing). If the accused is not famous for any other reason, then no, they should not be named until a conviction is secured. In the Danvers case, to which I presume you're referring, it isn't appropriate to name the accused; arraignment is not conviction. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is claiming that arraignment/accusation is a conviction. By that same reasoning, why would we name James Eagan Holmes, who only stands accused and not convicted of the 2012 Aurora shooting? Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were children; they were never convicted of a crime; they were not famous prior to the killings. Given your statements above, how do you reconcile this discrepancy? (There are a multitude of other examples in Wikipedia that contradict your statement above.) Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCRIME says: "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." In addition, this is a child and the article is about the city and not about the subject or the case. I see no reason to name him. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again ... Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were children; they were never convicted of a crime; they were not famous prior to the killings. Given your statements above, how do you reconcile this discrepancy? Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the instance that the murder receives sufficient coverage to make it a well-documented, historic event - and thus warrants a standalone article itself - then a case could be made for naming him in that article. In an article about the town, or even the school, there is no reason to name the accused, and as PrimeHunter points out, good reasons not to. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding whether an accused should be treated in a standalone article under WP:PERP and whether to list a name of a person accused of a crime in an article not about the accused are different issues. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning with this October 23, 2013 news article, there are hundreds of news reports world wide reporting the 14 year old boy's name in connection with the murder of Colleen Ritzer in Danvers, Massachusetts. The 14 year old boy's name does not belong in the Danvers, Massachusetts article since the murder is only a small part of Danvers, Massachusetts' history and the boys name only a small part of the murder. Please do not alter this edit by Abductive to the Danvers, Massachusetts article. However, the boy's name might belong in a Murder of Colleen Ritzer article, if you are thinking about creating it. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't, see the extract from WP:BLPCRIME above.--ukexpat (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another Example[edit]

So if Ariel Castro had committed suicide before pleading guilty, in which articles would it be appropriate to mention his name?Naraht (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cases have different circumstances. Let's not spend time speculating about hypothetical scenarios. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image and its Commons' counterpart[edit]

I found this image File:VillaSavoye.jpg in en-wiki to be not-completely free ('Do not copy to Commons'). There is however File:Vista exterior Villa Savoye.JPG in Commons, which shows very similar view of the same object. How should I tag the enwiki image? Template {{Duplicate}} doesn't seem to be applicable here, also {{Now Commons}} is not appropriate as that is neither an 'exact' nor a 'scaled copy', but I couldn't find a template to say 'there is a very similar image in Commons to be used instead this one'. --CiaPan (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply replace the non-free image in the article with the one from Commons. Non-free images that are not used in any articles are routinely deleted because their fair use rationale becomes invalid. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be more subtle than that, because File:VillaSavoye.jpg is not marked as a non-free image; in fact it is in Category:All free media. I don't know the answer. I suggest you post at WP:MCQ so that an expert can check the status of both images. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done [1] --CiaPan (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

help on editing Food and drink subjects[edit]

Good morning, how can I add more specific info on food and drinks ? The page List of pastries should/could contain "oliebol". A typical dutch fried pastry, especially consumed on New-Years eve. (made with raisins and or sundried fruits) Other pastry, like the "pastel" from brasil aswell. Pastry made with cachaça, to make it extra fluffy on frying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.186.103.27 (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You can make changes to (almost) any page here by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of a page - if you can provide sources showing the existence/importance of these foodstuffs, then you are very welcome to add the information. See the Wikipedia tutorial for a thorough guide to editing articles. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a Oliebol article, so you should be able to add it to List of pastries. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links deleted?[edit]

Please help me - for some reason, i have wrote some pretty good articles, where I had put in some external links to substantiate my argument and facts.

I have linked to a couple of different pages, where I have founded my facts. I have linked, from some underside from this mainsite. It's some danish links i have made, therefore not meaning if I posted them here on danish - www.xmoke.com.

Can anyone maybe help me, or try to tell me why ?

Looking forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:61:E904:7C01:1CC:88E1:7CC2:2474 (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to provide links to those articles, as your current IP address is not the one you used to contribute previously. As such, we can't help here until we know which articles you are referring to. drewmunn talk 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will probably be able to figure out why by reading our external link guidelines including what types of links are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article and why links may not be appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say that you had put in the links "to substantiate my argument and facts". If the links are to sources which Wikipedia regards as reliable sources, then you may, and probably should include the links in the form of [[WP:Introduction to citations. If they are not reliable sources (for example if they are to blogs or forums, then they are not acceptable as references, and probably not as external links either. As long as they are reliable sources, it is fine if they are in Danish: English sources are preferable if they are available, but if not, foreign-languages sources may be used.

One other point: you refer to your "argument". This may be a translation issue, but please be aware that no Wikipedia should advance an argument unless it is summarising an argument in a referenced source: otherwise it would be original research, which is not permitted. --ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental post[edit]

I accidentally posted my Wiki, but I am in a class, and we were not supposed to let our articles go live yet. Is there anyway to take it back down? My post was on Goal Attainment Scaling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brachel7 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, you haven't let your article go live yet, you've just put it up for review for Articles for Creation. I've removed the template which marked it as ready for review so you don't need to worry. If it is a requirement of your class that only you write the article until it is submitted, you might want to revert to the version last edited by you. Samwalton9 (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph D. Lyons House, Sunderland, MD[edit]

Although the house itself is on the National Register of Historic Sites, it is privately owned, and is a private residence, not open to the public. Please be advised that the photo with this article was taken by a trespasser, without the consent or knowledge of the property's owners, and was put on Wikipedia without our knowledge or consent. This is not only an invasion of our privacy, it is a nuisance in many ways, since it leaves the public thinking the home is open for visitation, and also give potential thieves and/or vandals detailed information.

Please remove this photo from this Wikipedia site! The text is public information, but not the photo!

The article has been up with the photo for some time--we requested that it be removed, and for awhile you did remove it. We don't know who put this photo on the article again;--we suspect it was the very discourteous person who trespassed to take the photo. This person has no right to use this photo on a public site, and has no permission to do so.

We further strongly suggest that you do not accept any other articles or photos from this person particularly if the subjects are other historic properties in the southern Maryland area. He or she is dishonest, and has more than likely trespassed on other private properties.

Sincerely,

The owners (and residents) of the Joseph D. Lyons House, Sunderland, MD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.104.101 (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article to make it clear that the house is privately owned and not open to the public. As to your allegations about the photo, you have absolutely no evidence that the photographer was trespassing - they could have used a telephoto lens from a public place, and that is perfectly legal.--ukexpat (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the editor who uploaded the image of the discussion here.Naraht (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My casual inspection of the situation appears to be this: Looking at aerial views of the property, I suspect the image was taken from Wayside Drive or Solomons Island Road (both publicly accessible roads), with either a decent lens or zoom. If so, I think we would need an extraordinary situation to consider it trespassing, if it were taken from a public space (the road). We have myriad more pictures just like this of other private homes. Also, here is another picture on a different public site. Chris857 (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the photographer had been trespassing (which has not been established) that would be a matter between the photographer and the property owner, and no business of Wikipedia's. It would not affect the copyright in the photograph at all. In general, under US law, a person is entitled to take pictures of private property from any public street or other publicly accessible location, and doing so is fully legal. There are particular exceptions. DES ^(talk) 16:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took the picture from public property on Wayside Drive with an appropriate lens for the task: as I recall it was a moderate telephoto shot (105mm to be exact, hardly a long lens) with some cropping of the image, and I never even got out of my car. The house is clearly visible from the road. I never trespass on private property when I am documenting NRHP properties. That said, I also understand and respect the concerns of private property owners, and as a courtesy to the owner, will remove the image from the house's article, with a note to that effect. Acroterion (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's going above and beyond what's necessary and I am tempted to put it back...--ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but the consensus of the NRHP project in such cases has usually been to respect the owner's wishes. In reviewing the article history, an image was removed at the owner's request in 2010: had I known about that and that the owner was sensitive about that I wouldn't have taken the image in the first place, as it's really more important to maintain goodwill than to retain an image in an article just to make a point about publicly-accessible views. Acroterion (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primož Trubar: refs[edit]

Hi, the article Primož Trubar has two same footnotes regarding the year of his birth (1508) in the section 'Notes'. Can someone please simplify the syntax so that the two refs will both refer to the same note. Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done A little tricky with multiple note groups and refs inside templates. DES ^(talk) 19:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia articles[edit]

Is there a forum or a page somewhere in Wikipedia in which a new article may be proposed and (for lack of a better word) approved before it is written? Or does an editor have to go through the (sometimes laborious and time-consuming) process of creating the article first and then seeing if it is deleted (as being not notable and, thus, not worthy of an article)? The former seems more proactive, the latter reactive. The latter also seems like a waste of everyone's time, if the article would never get "approved" in the first place. So, what is the process and procedure here? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be hard to judge notability without seeing some context and the proposed sources in support, which is part of the reason why WP:AFC exists. WP:RA also exists but doesn't do quite what you are looking for.--ukexpat (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could create a userspace page in which you put a very short summery of the proposed article and links to some sources. Then you could ask an experienced editor to review it for notability and appropriateness. What is the subject you have in mind? DES ^(talk) 18:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Murder of Colleen Ritzer. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to which see #Appropriate content above.--ukexpat (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ah that would fall under WP:N/CA where the guideline page says, in part: "Articles about criminal acts,[5] particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." From the section above, I gather that there are multiple news stories about this event, so sourcing will not be a problem. However note also that coverage should not be a brief "flash in the pan", but have lasting effects. See WP:LASTING (another section of WP:N). Note also WP:PERSISTENCE (yet another section) where it says that "... a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article.". Please consider these carefully before going ahead with such an article, Joseph A. Spadaro. DES ^(talk) 18:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph - I originally suggested the topic Murder of Colleen Ritzer in a prior Help Desk thread to move the issue from the Danvers, Massachusetts article, where it did not belong. On considering the Murder of Colleen Ritzer topic, it lacks the elements noted above by DES, particularly since the event took place only a few weeks ago. There is a significant amount of news coverage, but we still need to consider why the topic is being written about to help figure out a best place for the material in Wikipedia. In this case, the media is not being driven to write about the topic due to the victim, the accused, the geographic location, or the murder itself. Rather, the topic is receiving attention because it was a killing at a school of a teacher by a child (under 18). A Murder of Colleen Ritzer article would be specific to the particular murder event and to the death of Colleen Ritzer and those involved. A Murder of Colleen Ritzer article would not be a representative survey of the relevant literature because it would not be an article discussing attacks involving teen students in schools. In other words, I don't think a Murder of Colleen Ritzer topic would be a good candidate for a stand alone article on the topic now being written about by the media. Wikipedia does have articles where the material possibly could be posted, such as List of school-related attacks, school shooting, or School violence. However, when you consider the newness of the topic and its place in world wide history/coverage on school-related attacks, school shooting, or school violence, the information probably would not merit being listed in those articles. Wikipedia is not going anywhere and we may be in a better position in a few years to determine whether Murder of Colleen Ritzer topic meets WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE. If you look through Wikipedia's Murder of articles,[2] you can get a better idea of what other editors considered acceptable for a stand alone article in this area. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even better - take a look at Wikipedia:"Murder of" articles to get an idea of whether Murder of Colleen Ritzer would make a good topic for a stand alone article. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will read through all those links, when I have a free moment. But, as to your post in general, that is sort of my point. I see many, many, many articles of the "Murder of [name]" variety. Which is why I was (am) thinking of creating this one. Another point: many current events become articles rather quickly, if not immediately. I don't think that I would "wait a few years" to start this one. Thanks for the input. I appreciate it. I will look through the links you suggested. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]