Help desk
< January 17	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 19 >

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.

January 18[edit]

Changing Pacific Sun Newspaper Image[edit]

Hi, I've been assigned by my work Pacific Sun newspaper to update our Wikipedia listing. I've been able to change everything except our photo. We made the photo and we are happy to make it available to use on the 4 agreements by waiving our copyright and making it common usage.

I'm getting an error saying I'm unable to upload the photo based on it not following wikimedia commons. The current photo is a cover we published years ago, the photo we would like to upload is here https://issuu.com/metrosiliconvalley/docs/pacific_sun_1851

This is the page we are having the issue on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Sun_(newspaper)

How can we proceed, we really would prefer a different photo in our infobox?

Thank you, Candace Simmons Legals/Classifieds/Digital Management PacificSun.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenchimodel (talk • contribs) 00:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candace, who owns the copyright to that photograph? We have strict rules about respecting copyright, and that picture would have to be licensed by the copyright holder to meet them. Also: we don't care what the subject of an article wants in the article about them, unless it is inaccurate. (Candace has been warned of our requirements for disclosure of paid editing.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the copyright status of the current image but for it to be replaced, a new image would have to be released with licensing that allows anyone (not just Wikipedia) to do anything with the image, and editors interested in the article would have to agree that the new image would be an improvement. The easiest release would be to put it on a website controlled by the Pacific Sun with a suitable copyright notice. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the present image in the infobox of Pacific Sun (newspaper) is a non-free image. It could be replaced by uploading another non-free image to Wikipedia (not Commons), tagging it with {{Non-free newspaper image}}, and providing a non-free use rationale like on the present image, File:Pacific Sun front page.jpg. Changing the image name in the infobox to the new image would then make the present image an orphan; so it would be deleted. —teb728 t c 10:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While a non-free "fair-use" image will work, a free image on commons is preferable because it allows the image to be used on other Wikipedias. As Johnuniq said, just put your image up on your own website with a CC-BY-SA copyright license notice, and Then put it on commons. A person in your position already knows, but for completeness: for you to grant this license, you must be the copyright holder, and that license allows anyone anywhere to use the image or modified versions of it in any way they want. This would include a competitor deciding to publish a newspaper with the same look and feel as yours (Other, non-copyright laws such as trademark, trade dress, misrepresentation still apply, but not copyright.) -Arch dude (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to add reference about a guinness world record without an official blog post?[edit]

I was on Hypixel and saw one of its Guinness world records says "non-primary sources needed". So I went to Guinness world record website, searched that record: that record does not have an official blog post on the site, although it can be searched in the "Record application search".

The problem is: if it had a blog post, then it can be directly linked, and it can be used in references. Record application search, however, requires login to view (although creation of accounts is free), and doesn't have a permalink. I wonder how, if at all possible, can this type of source be cited.

User670839245 (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User670839245. Better here would be secondary sources such as press and magazine reports (not blogs). To give you a start I've added a sentence under "Accolades", referenced to existing Ref 9 (Variety), to verify that four Guinness World Records have been won, although not specifying them all: Bhunacat10 (talk), 10:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User670839245: A source does not need to be linkabl. In fact, it does not need to be on the Internet at all. Any source that is theoretically available to the general public in some way can be cited. Examples include books in libraries. The citation must contain sufficient information about the source that another Wikipedia editor can find the source. This is independent of whether or not the source is reliable. Your sources are primary, not secondary, so they cannot be used for anything except the fact that they exist (i.e., in this case, the fact that Guiness awarded the "world record") and other bare fats. Any inferences about these facts must be cited to reliable secondary sources. Note that blogs are not generally considered to be reliable secondary sources. -Arch dude (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of litterature[edit]

Hi, I used wrong and corrupt sources which was manipulated and created by the zionists. So i want everything created with the following usernames, deleted from wikipedia permanently

"MuhammadMudassir786" and "MohammadModassir786" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.232.243.179 (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we don't know who you are, and we don't normally completely delete everything unless there are copyright or libel issues. I suggest that you log in with your accounts and correct any errors that you made, explaining why in the edit summaries. Dbfirs 07:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock or Sockpuppet Report?[edit]

There's been vandalism across a few IP addresses to actors' Wikipedia pages with the exact same pattern of editing (changing the birthdates to January 1, 1 AD). Would it be reasonable to request a range block (if that's possible) since it's just a few accounts, or to open a sock puppet investigation though it's obvious that the IP addresses are used by the same person? Or, is there another approach I could take? Thanks, Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 08:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalina2427 I should say this is one for the admins. Check whether the problem has already been dealt with and if not, assemble diffs and post at WP:AIV : Bhunacat10 (talk), 13:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhunacat10: After being blocked on that IP address, the editor resurfaced with another IP address on the same article with the same editing pattern. That IP address has been blocked as well for 31 hours; should I assemble a sock puppet report anyways to let admins know? I'm also requesting page protection. Thanks, Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 03:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I filed a sock puppet investigation; after some research it seems that the user has used nine IP addresses over the past month. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 04:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a file in wikimedia[edit]

I have made an .svg file and uploaded it to commons.wikimedia.org. However, after I tried to use it I realized it does not look as I intended, so I wish to delete it. I do not see any way to do that, only the possibility to upload a new version. Can I delete it? Answer to my talk page is preferred. Carystus (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carystus! Unless you're an admin, you can't directly delete a file (if anyone could delete any page, that could have disastrous effects), but you can mark it for deletion. If you uploaded the file to Commons in the last 7 days, first make sure that it isn't used on any Wikimedia projects. If it's not, add the coding {{SD|G7}} to the top of it, which states that the author or uploader of the file has requested that it be deleted. An admin should soon come around to delete it. Hope this helps and let me know if you need me to explain further.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've replied here because it's more convenient for others to keep discussion in one place, but I'd be more than happy to copy my reply to your talk page if you would like.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have followed the advice. It is fine to answer here. I wonder, are there are any discussion groups or help as to how vector and bitmap illustrations are made and which format to choose? My problem was that the .svg I made (using LibreOffice Draw) unexpectedly displayed different when published on wikipedia compared to viewing it locally in Image Viewer, and still different when opened in Firefox. I would prefer to use plain Postscript, but I don't know if it is compatible with wikipedia markup. Carystus (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" links[edit]

I am being told by an editor (User:Calton) that I cannot place a "See also" link in an article unless some reliable source has explicitly drawn a connection between the topic of the linked article and the topic of the original article. I cannot imagine that to be the case, but I am asking here. The relevant discussion is here: Talk:Kidnapping of Jayme Closs#Joseph E. Duncan III. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of a reliable source that makes the connection is probably not necessary to place a link in the See also section (for the first time). However, once the basis for the placement has been questioned and challenged, as here, I would say that yes, unless the connection is truly obvious and the debate is clearly absurd, a reliable source making the connection should be required before restoring it, rather than relying purely on the opinion(s) of the editor placing the link and/or small number of other editors, since the placement is obviously not uncontroversial. General Ization ^Talk 21:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, how does your view comport with WP:SEEALSO then? Where are you getting this "new standard" from? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I stated at that other Talk Page. The WP:SEEALSO policy specifically states, quote: The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. If one topic is "indirectly related" and "tangential" to another topic, why on earth (and how on earth) could we expect reliable sources to "explicitly link them" (as User:Calton has suggested demanded)? That "standard" makes no sense at all. And I'd like to know where that "standard" came from. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: This is a form of content dispute. Please discuss this on the article's talk page. I do not think the details of "guidelines" about "see also" are very useful here. Instead, look at WP:SYNTH, which is an expansion of a policy (WP:OR), not a guideline. If the other editor does not agree that there is a supportable linkage between the subjects, then the "see also" constitutes a synth. -Arch dude (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article notability question....[edit]

I'm writing a new article on a sports phenomenon within a sport. It's received mainstream attention, but most sources also have opinion inserted in them. Is it OK to still write a topic on this? I'm new, so sorry for this. 162.200.70.94 (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you tell us the topic? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kapu caste[edit]

Request to delete the below content in "" from Kapu caste page.

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 (Redirected from Ontari)

Jump to navigationJump to search "Ontari" redirects here. For the 2008 film, see Ontari (film)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.16.162 (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed the redirect Ontari for discussion: see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_18 : Bhunacat10 (talk), 23:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user,

All pages on Wikipedia say "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
You got "(Redirected from Ontari)" only because you accessed Kapu through the Ontari redirect; it provides a way to get back to the redirect.
The ""Ontari" redirects here…" provide access to the film article for reader interested in Ontari as a film rather than a subclan.

Those lines are useful for some people and do no harm to others. —teb728 t c 01:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notable enough...[edit]

Would you consider a sports phenomenon within a sport which has received mainstream coverage notable if most of the topic's sources have some opinion in them? I'd rather not disclose the topic at this moment. New user. 162.200.70.94 (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you're being so vague as to make it difficult to help you. Most scandals, for example, are phenomena within another, broader subject; and people certainly have opinions about scandals (or so-called scandals; see moral panic). Likewise, innovations of style, posture, technique and technology within a sport can draw very fierce opinions without thus not being notable.

Why not simply disclose the topic? It's not like you get paid for having an article here. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey IP, you just asked the same thing two topics above. —teb728 t c 01:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone reverted my above topic back... As for the disclosing, I'm not getting paid, but I'd still not disclose the topic for unspecified reasons. 162.200.70.94 (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carefully read the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) and make an written objective point-by-point analysis of the notability of your topic. If your sources are reliable, the opinions do not in general detract from the reliability of the sources. If you objective analysis is that the subject meets the guideline, then it deserves an article, unless in your editorial opinion it is better to cover it within some other article. -Arch dude (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]