Help desk
< October 19	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 21 >

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 20[edit]

Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "CIAAW2016" defined multiple times with different content[edit]

Hi there, I was browsing Standard atomic weight when I noticed that once of the references has some big red text with the error Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "CIAAW2016" defined multiple times with different content. This ref isn't actually directly defined anywhere in the article, though. It seems to be transcluded in from various templates, via Template:CIAAW2016. Actually, the documentation for this template also has the invalid ref tag error.

I'm not very experienced with templates, so I'm not sure how to fix it. I made an attempt with this edit by making the text value in both switch cases equal, but that didn't seem to work. Does anyone have any insight on what is causing this problem?

Actually, the duplicate text feels like a code smell. Is there perhaps a better way to write that template? Ahiijny (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The error message disappeared when I purged the pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Oh, that's good then. Thank you! Ahiijny (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two different names on two different maps but same feature[edit]

(This was posted on WP:NORN but that forum is fairly low traffic) I have a question about how WP:NOR applies to maps. File:Micronesia and Marshall islands bathymetry.pdf comes from here and shows two seamounts named Aean̄-Kaņ and Wōd-Eņ Iōn̄. This publication has a differently styled bathymetric map of the same area, and this map shows two seamounts named Marovoiy and Nazimova. Based on a comparison of the two maps, Marovoiy = Aean̄-Kaņ and Wōd-Eņ Iōn̄ = Nazimova; would this conclusion be acceptable under WP:NOR? There is no source explicitly making the connection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not OR, in my opinion. It's a standard technique to extract information like this while comparing landmass timelines using maps and see how the names of locations have changed. Lourdes 09:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Be really careful when it comes to disputed naming of Pacific features, as they're one of Wikipedia's perennial hot potatoes. Because of the region's history, it's not unusual for China, Russia, the US, Japan, Korea, and whichever European power happened to reach the region first to have each given something their own name, and some of Wikipedia's most venomous and protracted edit wars have been over the naming of minor Pacific geographical features (because they're too obscure for there to be an obvious WP:COMMONNAME)—Liancourt Rocks, which is currently up to 22 pages of argument about the name and counting, is one that sticks in my mind. In this particular case, I disagree with Lourdes; given the sensitivity, I'd say the only approach you can safely follow in this particular case is to actually describe the sources ("the US government labels it Aean̄-Kaņ, a Russian source labels it Marovoiy") rather than explicitly state that the two terms are synonymous and describe the same feature, or favoring one name over another. ‑ Iridescent 09:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to Iridescent's suggestion. Lourdes 09:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks however like there is not enough material to write a dedicated article, so I've simply added the name information to List of seamounts in the Marshall Islands. It doesn't look like a case of a name change as much like a case where different researchers use different names. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I merge the pages Working_in_Canada and Canadian_Job_Bank?[edit]

Back in March, William Graham proposed that the the page Working_in_Canada be merged in into the page Canadian Job Bank. No one has objected. As someone with some knowledge of Canada and the sites involved, I think this is an excellent idea. As a regular editor, do I have the power to go in and do this, or are some higher level permissions required? If I can do this, which is the best place to find some instructions? If I can't do this on my own, how do I get someone else to do it? Thanks for any help/advice! Frances Woolley Fwoolley (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fwoolley: Please see WP:MERGE. WP:FMERGE gives step by step instructions (it's not as difficult as it looks at first sight!) but you should have a read of the entire page also. Come back if you need more help. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help fixing link of existing article[edit]

Hi, I have an existing published Wiki for "Keith A. Schooley" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_A._Schooley) which has recently had one of it's reference links changed to a PDF containing the same exact information from his Wiki article. Reference: "Building Effective Whistleblowing Programs". Murdock Global Advisers. June 2003. Retrieved December 22, 2015. The PDF containing the information has been moved to this location: https://thecostcouldbefatal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/BuildingEffectiveWhistleblowingPrograms.pdf The original link appears in reference #10 pertaining to this line: (Murdock Global Advisers listed Schooley along with seven other very notable whistleblowers as a result of his actions.[10]) Also, in addition to being at the #10 reference, it is also at #1. Is it possible for someone to remove the defunct link and replace it with the new one containing the original information? Very much appreciated, Hillary Chase — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillary Chase (talk • contribs) 18:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hillary Chase: Done:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_A._Schooley&oldid=865355963

CiaPan (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks. Did link #1 make the link on #10 redundant? HC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillary Chase (talk • contribs) 00:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Copyright tag for image[edit]

Hi, I am unable to find a copyright tag for an image. The tag is

Licenced under Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) from an image located at the National Portrait Gallery UK.

It is for the image: File:Sir Leslie Alfred Charles Fry.jpg

At the moment it is unlicensed, and a bot has marked for it for death. Can anybody help. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, both NonCommercial and NoDerivs are deal killers for us here. We can only accept licenses which permit both commercial re-use and creation of derivative works. So unless you can get the image licensed differently.... --Orange Mike | Talk 19:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orange Mike, so that is what it means. That's why there is no mention of a tag. This is the licence page here, Licensing. Its looks like I need to licence it using Fair Use. scope_creep (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, fair use is not a license. It is a claim of a very narrowly-drafted exception to the rights which the photographer has in a work done 60 years ago. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: To elaborate: File:Sir Leslie Alfred Charles Fry.jpg has indeed been deleted, but I see you uploaded File:Major_Sir_Leslie_Alfred_Charles_Fry.jpg instead (I assume that is the same photograph) with the correct paperwork. The file must not be transferred to Commons because it is not free, but it should satisfy all the criteria at WP:NFCC (which is a tad more restrictive than "fair use"), so, it is acceptable on the local wiki. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tigraan, the template was knackered, but it is now fixed. I know, I have done a few of these Fair Use images, 170 odd I think. The copyright is truly byzantine. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Hi, I have a question about the review of article submissions.

I submitted an arcitle for review in June and haven't heard back yet. I just wanted to ask what I can do about this, since all my other articles were review within a few days.

Thanks Modussiccandi (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Modussiccandi: Draft:Siegburger_SV_04 has already been reviewed. If that is not it, please provide a link to the draft that you submitted for review. RudolfRed (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It was re-submitted in July but little if anything was added to help it achieve notability. Eagleash (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]