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.
The article ISOBL seems to simply be a press release with tons of unrelated citations. I'm a fairly inexperienced Wikipedia user, but I think this page should be a candidate for deletion (notability, press release, etc.). I've already flagged the page as a press release, and made some notes on the talk page. Any advice for me, or does anyone else more experienced want to review and take action? Chrisw80 (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrisw80: Looking at the article now, there's a notice that says it's currently in the AfD process. See the deletion discussion here. If you want to contribute, state clearly whether you think it should be deleted or kept, and then say why you think this, refering to wikipedia policies to back up your statements. There's a more detailed explanation of the process at WP:AfD. Seagull123 Φ 22:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I asked this several days ago and the problem still is not solved:
Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 December 31 Is it my job to remove the unreviewed sign after hearing from them?Jzsj (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Which pages were you thinking were reviewed 26 KB (3,213 words) - 18:16, 3 January 2016
(I sent an answer to the respondent at the time, mentioning the articles, but got no answer to my question.)
Now "Swister Twister" just notified me that my new article "St. Xavier's School, Nevta" was reviewed, but now again the "unreviewed" tag remains. Again, may I remove the tag after getting a "reviewed" notice?Jzsj (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed, made further changes and removed the tag.--ukexpat (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jzsj: this is not important; but it would be helpful to other editors if, when you refer to an article, you would provide a link to it like this St. Britto's, Goa, rather than just giving the name St. Britto's, Goa. Maproom (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder, but, again, is it OK if I remove the tag when the reviewer fails to do this?Jzsj (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the status of the St. Xavier's School, Nevta article. I observe that it has no independent references, and is therefore in danger of deletion. Maybe ukexpat can clarify. Maproom (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated it for deletion via AFD. The author can expand it within the next seven days. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, secondary level schools are almost considered de facto notable, but I have no issue with discussing it at AFD.--ukexpat (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with your discussing it either. I'm simply trying to give these high school and universities in India a start on a Wiki article so that they can expand if/when they are ready. I'm using most everything that seems of value off their website, which is usually the only thing available on the web for these high schools in India: it's not like the US! I have no knowledge of books published on these schools. If I find newspaper articles on achievements of the school I use them but web archives are the only possibility for these articles after the first year or so. Please advise.Jzsj (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll[edit]
Clicking on "highest estimate" and "lowest estimate" options on the templates for this page puts most of the content in the correct order, but not all of it. Does anyone know what is wrong with the templates? --Steverci (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the columns are a mix of text and numbers, the sort does a character sort, and not a numeric sort, which leads to the incorrect sort order. IOW, "123" is *numerically* before "0234", but when sorted as characters, it's *after*. The solution is to enclose all the numbers in template:nts. I've done one column, and will work on the other over the next few hours. Rwessel (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added data-sort-type="number" to the column headings. This should take care of most or all problems.[1]PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
my granddad was born in England on 30th January 1909
how come he isn't listed on here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniyahboo1 (talk • contribs)
If you're talking about List of living centenarians, or similar articles in Lists of centenarians the listing criteria is generally not just living past 100 years but being an otherwise notable individual. Most on such lists are the subject of articles, and there must be published reliable sources that confirms the age and indicate notability. Living past 100 is not so unusual. On the other hand, being a "supercentanarian" is more unusual, and age alone may deserve mention (your grandfather is 107 so would not yet be eligible). We have an article at List of British supercentenarians – though to be listed there would still require source evidence of age. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Contributions/Kent Pørksen I notice that this new user is placing links to a geosciences program at the University of Denmark in several articles. Perhaps, someone could provide some gentle guidance on the subject.User:HopsonRoad 13:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on how you define "new user". They've been making edits since 2013. Though they only made one edit in 2015 and one, so far, this year. That said, their edits are not helpful. And you are "someone". So, you could help the user out by posting a friendly note on their talk page. Dismas|(talk) 15:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So far I only did really minor contribution therefore I'm not familiar with all the guidelines of Wikipedia.
My question is: There are articles of major importance available in English language but not in Arabic. And I think they have a direct link and great importance to the recent happenings in the Muslim and Arabic speaking world.
So, Provided that I find a Classic Arabic scholar to help, Does a verbatim translation of those articles to Arabic a disregard to the guidelines in anyway? and how to get a page protected?
Confusion about rules regarding submitting articles about yourself[edit]
Hello Wikipedia,
I am confused about the rules regarding submitting articles about one's own career. On some pages it says you can not write about yourself, on others it says you can if the entry is notable and accurate.
I ask because I am film maker and artist with extensive credits, and I am mentioned on existing Wikipedia pages (such as movies I have written or directed), but there is no page about me. I have many friends and colleagues who do have pages, otherwise I wouldn't even be inquiring about this.
I don't want to break any rules, so please advise what my best course of action is.
Thank you.
Papreet (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We cover this situation in our conflict of interest guideline. The short answer is that ideally you would let other people edit your article because neutrality can be difficult when you are very close to the subject. Your input will be welcome on the talk page of the article where you can point out faults and make suggestions. Anything non-controversial like spelling errors or grammar can be just done by anyone. HighInBC 16:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Are you talking about an existing article about yourself, or an existing article? If you would like an article created about yourself, see WP:AfC and you can make a request there. Otherwise as HighInBC said, if the article exists then there is some very limited editing you are permitted to should do. Are you referring to Dana Gould by any chance, or is that not you? Tiggerjay (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tiggerjay, there's actually no prohibition on writing where you have a conflict of interest; it's just strongly discouraged, as it's difficult to avoid being promotional. Rojomoke (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree there is no prohibition on it, just a discouragement for the reasons you stated. And perhaps twice as true for new editors unfamiliar with the policies and guidelines. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editing a Wikipedia article to add a photograph by linking to a publicly available copyrighted online photograph in the archives of a news magazine[edit]
I would like to add a photograph to a Wikipedia article on a historic public figure by linking to an online photograph which is copyrighted and is available on the public web site of the archives of an international news magazine. Is this allowed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbansban (talk • contribs)
In order to add a photo to the article you need first to upload it to Wikipedia. Since the photo is copyrighted, the only possibility is Wikipedia:Fair use. Please, follow this guideline. Ruslik_Zero 19:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind providing a more specific answer? The photo is of a historic figure as depicted on the cover of TIME magazine in 1938. I searched Wikimedia and it does not appear to be available there. Do I first need to buy it from TIME magazine, upload it to Wikimedia and then link to it? So linking directly to the URL of the photo on TIME magazine's site is not allowed?
If you are saying you want to display a photo on an external site (rather than just a textual link to it), it is not possible. (It is disabled by the software.) —teb728tc 20:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC) To elaborate, ordinarily a website uses an html <img/> element to display an image, but the MediaWiki software use on Wikipedia disables the <img/> element. —teb728tc 21:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And if you are saying you want to upload a magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover, that is not permitted. —teb728tc 20:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't a photo from 1938 in the public domain now? Or not? RudolfRed (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would be in the public domain if the copyright had not been renewed, but undoubtedly Time renews its copyrights. Works first published in the US before 1923 are in the public domain irrespective of renewal. —teb728tc 21:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Nope, not necessarily. Copyright laws are a bit more complex and renewals can also extend the time period. There is a universal date of the United States of works published prior 1923 being in the public domain. Presumably for this work it would be 95 years from the date of publication. You can see more at WP:PD... As such Sbansban would not be able to use that photograph without permission of the copyright holder, or otherwise prove that it is explicitly in the public domain and/or copyright has lapsed. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the explanations. But what if I bought the photo from TIME - would I then be able to upload it to Wikimedia commons with due acknowledgment that the copyright for the photo belongs to TIME magazine? Methinks not - as I do not recall seeing this on Wikipedia, and to my knowledge, Wikimedia files need to be in the public domain and non-copyrighted? Please weigh in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbansban (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia files can be copyrighted, but they must allow unrestricted commercial distribution (among other things). If someone sells an image chances are they won't allow unrestricted commercial distribution.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you buy it from Time, you get a high-quality printed cover that you can hang on your wall, but you don't get Time's permission to upload it to Wikipedia. Most images on Wikipedia are copyrighted but licensed under a license that allows reuse by anyone for anything. —teb728tc 21:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note. This could have been made a lot less complicated if you told us the article that you wanted to edit, provided a link to the image, and explained exactly what you wanted the image for. Instead, there was a lot of dancing around the issue of what article you were talking about, what you intended to do, etc. Dismas|(talk) 23:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and it would still be helpful because perhaps we could locate an image that would be acceptable for inclusion. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
