Help desk
< March 21	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 23 >

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.

March 22[edit]

Archiving a Talk page[edit]

I've followed the instructions for making my first Talk page archive. Here's the result: User talk:Quisqualis/Archive 1. As one might expect, given the instructions, the page lacks functionality.

Wikipedia has "evolved" to the point that it is assumed that a WP user is a programmer. That is not my chosen career, nor the career of anyone I know. If instructions say copy to clipboard, I copy the text to the clipboard, not expecting functionality, and, not surprisingly, not getting it, either. Was I to read between the lines? How might I obtain an archive of pre-2019 posts to my Talk page?--Quisqualis (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Quisqualis: If you were following the instructions at Help:Archiving a talk page#Step-by-step procedure, I believe you may have skipped step one, "Click on the Edit source tab for the talk page you wish to archive." I've fixed up the archive for you. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, John of Reading.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make a clean Wikipia format when I make a new article[edit]

I read some articles from Wikipidia and then I want to write some articles to put more information. However, I couldn't find a way to make a article clean like Wikipidia format(templates). For example, I couldn't find clean chart and line. In addition, I wanted to changed a picture so I edited it. Nevertheless, I was failed to change a picture but just uploaded a picture. Would you mind if you teach me a way to change Wikipidia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunghokyoung (talk • contribs) 08:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sunghokyoung: I have left some information on your talk page on how to get started. scope_creep^Talk 08:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What was added was taken directly from this website. It's a verbatim copyright infringement, and highly promotional as well.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use the image used in the article on Wikipedia?[edit]

As far as I know, the images used in Wikipedia have copyright problems, which many people seem to upload images used in articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chominkook (talk • contribs) 08:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chominkook: What images are you talking about specifically. scope_creep^Talk 09:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Scope_creep, based on Chominkook's edit history I imagine they're talking about this photo, the copyright status of which I agree is extremely confusing. I'd consider myself one of Wikipedia's authorities on image copyrights and even I can't figure out its status; it appears to have five different licenses, all of which contradict each other, and one of which includes available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal printing by the subject(s) of the photograph (which would prevent Wikipedia using it if that's the case). ‑ Iridescent 12:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Iridescent: I see it has a verified OTRS ticket at the bottom on the Licensing page and may be used for any purpose as its free use on any page. scope_creep^Talk 12:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@scope_creep, it doesn't appear to be as simple as that. The OTRS release is the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page (and the OTRS release for the image from which it's cropped is follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page, but in this case, "the terms mentioned on this page" include only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way. which would invalidate it for use by Commons or Wikipedia, as the OTRS release is releasing it conditional on compliance with terms that are incompatible with our terms of use. (The idea of an OTRS release for an image that's been scraped from Flickr also seems extremely odd; why would they go through all the hassle of sending the release to us rather than just changing the Flickr licensing status?)

The Flickr page from which the image has been scraped is uploaded under CC BY-SA 2.0, so it is valid for reuse on Wikipedia and all the terms and conditions they're trying to set can be disregarded, but I don't in the least blame the original questioner for being confused. ‑ Iridescent 12:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: It is one of the most complex licence pages I've seen and it would confuse me as it would most folk. So it is always the image uploaded licence that counts and any added on copyright licences are invalid. scope_creep^Talk 15:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an extra column to a list template[edit]

I would like to add extra columns to two template lists, Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire and Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire. These would be Reference columns, (Ref), at the far right, to mirror the style seen here, Grade I listed buildings in South Somerset. Unfortunately, I've no idea how to do it. Can anyone advise. Many thanks in anticipation. KJP1 (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that is not trivial. The Monmouthshire buildings use the CADW templates ({{Cadw listed building header}}) which doesn't has the ref column functionality. The Somersetshire one uses English Heritage's version ({{English Heritage listed building header}}) which does support a number of optional columns. To include a ref column in the CADW system you would need to expand both the header and the row templates. Not trivial if you've not edited templates before, but it is unlocked and there is a sandbox for testing. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin of Sheffield - Many thanks. That's very helpful. I shall go and have a look but I may well be back for further advice. Presumably, I can't change it just for the Monmouthshire lists, changes would also impact on the other Welsh counties lists? KJP1 (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (unless some Welsh counties do not use the CADW headers). That is why you must use the sandbox (and tests if provided). Probably worth getting a second pair of eyes to check what you've done before going live. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can make the ref column optional like with show_ref in {{English Heritage listed building header}} and {{English Heritage listed building row}}. If implemented correctly, this will not change the rendering of existing uses without references. If the ref column is always added then existing uses will get empty cells there. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter - Many thanks again. I did notice the optionality of the HE template. I'm a little reluctant to try my hand at amending a widely-used template and have asked the author (a) if they are content for the change to be made and (b) whether they would consider making it. I see there is actually at least one Welsh version that does have the Ref Column, Listed buildings in Cardiff#Grade II* listed buildings. If the author's happy for the change to be made, but can't undertake it themselves, is there Templates Helpdesk where I could ask for the amendment to be done? KJP1 (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to my work list, but it might be a fortnight or so before I'm well enough to undertake the changes, so if anyone beats me to it I wish them well. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be much appreciated and by then I should have heard back from KTC, the template's creator. Don't rush at all, I can quite happily continue to add refs to the HB column and move them subsequently. I wish you a speedy recovery. KJP1 (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

nurse practitioners[edit]

the second sentence under this heading states nurse practitioners are considered mid level providers. this is incorrect and antiquated. the correct term: nurse practitioners are considered advance practice providers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctsbishop (talk • contribs) 12:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ctsbishop: I think you are best raising your concerns on the talk page(s) of the Nurse practitioner article, having also checked Advanced practice nurse, and borne in mind that this article has a world-wide coverage, and that terms might be defined differently in different regions. The content of the lead paragraph should always reflect what appears in the main body of the article, and be supported by references to allow statements to be confirmed by any user. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Valley Texas[edit]

FYI: Oak Valley has disincorporated years ago. No longer exists FYI Jim Compton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.50.16.34 (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jim. Thanks for that. But as just said to the previous poster, you are best raising your concerns directly on the Talk page of Oak Valley, Texas, offering a source to support it. It will be much appreciated there, and someone may modify the article based on what you say there. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help with move[edit]

I very un-cleverly moved American League Park to American League Park (Washington). I have now moved American League Park to American League Park (disambiguation). I need to move American League Park (Washington) back to just plain American League Park, over top of the redirect. Can someone help with that? Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, CSD the redirect under G6, that will make room for move. WelpThatWorked (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done GMG ^talk 14:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I've pushed up two bits on your userrights without your consent :) Lourdes 03:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I shall try not to abuse or overuse them. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Homeopathy is Tantamount to Religious persecution of the Bahai Faith[edit]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

It’s time to talk about World and National Health Organizations perpetuating Religious persecution. I write this, solely, as an individual, not in any official representation, on behalf of my Faith. Yet my individual consciousness is stirred to defend the scientific writings, which are part of the authorized, Holy Writ of the Baha’i Faith. Unlike other Honoured and Recognized World Religions, the Baha’i Faith is distinguished that the Writings that compose its Holy Writ, were penned by, authored by the Prophet Founder, whom we refer to as the Divine Manifestation of God, The Glory of God, the Word of God, for the Faith. As such, Baha’is are forbidden to alter or interpret, or change the laws and guidance laid down by Baha’u’llah, or those whom Bahaullah appointed to lead after his ascension, of which there were only two, His son Abdul- Baha and after Abdul-Baha, Baha’u’llah’s grandson, Shoghi Effendi, (The Guardian). Not even the Highest Administrative body of the Baha’i Faith, The Universal House of Justice, can alter that expressly dictated in the Holy Writ or Writings given to us by the aforementioned authors. It must be understood that the guidance, scientific writings and explanations given and thereby considered as dictated to the entire Baha’i Community, as the Holy Word of God, that must be followed, must be seen as Divine Counsel, that no Baha’i can go against, that Abdul-Baha as directed and taught by Bahaullah, has decreed in specific writings, that Homeopathy, as well as other honoured respected medical sciences, is to used by Baha’is. In that context, World and National Health Organizations, must realize, that therefore, their persecution of Homeopathy, and thereby, the ensuing challenge it causes to Baha’is, whom must abide to the laws of their faith, becomes tantamount, as no less than a form of Religious Persecution, to all Baha’is of the world. Baha’u’llah himself has said Religion and Science must agree, and has as The Glory of God, Gods Holy Mouthpiece, The Divine Representation of God on earth for this age, decreed that Homeopathy, is a biomedicine, scientific and blessed by His Holy personage. I beg of the World and National Health Organizations and Governments, as they have so admirably on the World Platforms, promoted religious tolerance, to desist in this specific religious persecution to Baha’is, by desisting in persecuting Homeopathy.

Sincerely Michelle Bell Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:B100:30D:B20:94ED:8F5D:B7FA:F47B (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2605:B100:30D:B20:94ED:8F5D:B7FA:F47B, I think you got the wrong website. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Hi, are there any guidelines for Infobox sections such as "Influences" and "Influenced"? For example, the "Influenced" section of the Infobox for the Friedrich Nietzsche article includes Jim Morrison. Is Morrison notable enough to be included in the "Influenced" list of a major philosopher? There are some pretty sketchy links in both Influences and Influenced. Nietzsche influenced many people, how do we determine who is notable enough for inclusion in the Infobox? We can't include everyone he influenced, so what are the important factors to take into account? - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epinoia, I believe the "influenced" would be the people who apply whatever the "influencer" was known for. Morrison's article states that Nietzsche was a literary influence, so I'm not sure if he is or isn't WelpThatWorked (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: That's a deep philosophical question. we have an objective threshold for notability, and Jim Morrison meets it. I don't think we can impose another level threshold or scale for "notable enough". It might be possible to assess the notability of the influence itself: if the influence passes the threshold (i.e., has been noted in multiple independent reliable sources) then the influence is notable. There is currently no such guideline. Also, remember that relative notability is a personal assessment: there are probably more people in the world that would say "who is Nietzsche?" than "who is Morrison?". This leaves open the question of who should be included in the "influences" section for Jesus... -Arch dude (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see this simply as a WP:DUE issue. There are probably heaps of more sources discussing Nietzsche's influence on Sartre than, say, Morrison. If in light of these sources it looks ridiculous to put Morrison on par with Sartre, then the former should be removed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: I agree completely. Due weight is an important consideration and should guide editorial judgement in this case. But this is a consideration of the relative "notability" of the influence, not "notability" of the influenced individual. -Arch dude (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]