Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 March 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.

March 1

Berowra FC

As a member of the committee I have tried 2x Now to create Berowra FC on wikipedia. I am not very Tech Savvy and doing my best, wikicommons keeps deleting our logo which we have rights to and permitting Wikipedia to use and Wikipedia keep deleting our page even after referencing links etc.

Why is this such a difficult task to get a page up and can someone help guide me in the right direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wittty (talk • contribs) 00:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wittty: This is the Help desk for the English Wikipedia, and you're asking a question about Commons - presumable about previous attempts to upload commons:File:Berowra FC Official Logo.png. Note that commons:Commons:Licensing states that if you upload the logo there, you're stating that republication, distribution, publication of derivative work, and commercial use of the work must be allowed. Does your club really want anyone to be able to legally be able to use the logo to sell T-shirts and other merchandise? For more info, see commons:Commons:Help desk.

Normally I'd say that you would be better off uploading the image to Wikipedia under a more limited fair use license, except the Berowra FC article was deleted because it did not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability" - specifically the general notability guideline. I know this isn't the answer you're looking for, but I hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

What they said, but also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berowra FC, where the reasons for deletion are discussed. It would've been nice if commenters there had bothered to link the relvant policies instead of just throwing aroundjargon, they refer to WP:GNG, which is a general guideline for all article, and WP:NFOOTY which is a specialized guideline for football players. Generally only fully professional football clubs are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Files

Should free files be uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons? Most pages say Commons. Although I cannot remember the name of this page, I do remember a page that said “Free files may be uploaded to either wiki, though doing so lacks the advantage of Commons.” So, uploading to which site would be appropriate in what circumstances? 54nd60x (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Files should be uploaded to Commons in most cases, it is an image repository after all. The only case where you must upload a file locally to the English Wikipedia is when the file is free in the US, but not in the source country, this may be due to the threshold of originality, freedom of panorama or expiry of its copyright protection. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 10:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

That answers 54nd60x's question specifically, Dylsss, since it was only about free files, but I am concerned that it nevertheless leaves a partial answer here for others to read. The other case where files should be uploaded to Wikipedia rather than to Commons is when they are not free, but their use in a Wikipedia article meets all the strict criteria in NFCC. --ColinFine (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Using Medium.com as a reference

Is it safe to use Medium.com to cite article when it's written by a reputable person/group/company? Ominae (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:SELFPUB. Yes, if the authors are experts in the subject matter, but not if the material regards living people. Urve (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Small edit. Urve (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Just wanted to be sure. Saw an article from the site that's used as a reference here, but the writer/company in charge of the article is known. Ominae (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Multiple images in infoboxes

Do infoboxes (e.g. Template:Infobox military conflict) allow the use of Template:Multiple image instead of a single image? (Under what conditions?) --KnightMove (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps infobox can also display multiple images.--SilverMatsu (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Example conflict
Players are cautioned with a yellow card and sent off with a red card.
Location The help desk

@KnightMove: This should be OK. Template:Infobox military conflict uses Module:Infobox military conflict for all its decisions, which in turn passes the image parameters to Module:InfoboxImage. Line 170 of that module tests for an image beginning with {{ and assumes that the image parameter is a template call that needs no further processing. Here I've adapted one of the examples from {{Multiple image}}, increasing the width a bit and adding |align=center. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Dear editors, I want to include the full discography list of an artist to the article, however, the only sources are Spotify and YouTube. Is it possible to include them or we need other sources for that? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: We don't often see musician's articles with unsourced music, because the lack of coverage suggests the music and by extension the musician him or herself doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. But this might help you find sources Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Resources. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

My DYK nomination

I recently posted a DYK nomination (Template:Did you know nominations/Domus Litonii) at Template talk:Did you know. Did I do this correctly? Is there something I need to do or should I just wait now? JIP | Talk 09:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

JIP It's visible at Template talk:Did you know so I think yep, wait and see, the Good DYK:ers will turn up sooner or later. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Russian Chronos Encyclopedia

Hi Folks!! I posted a RFC up at the reliable sources noticeboard, about a week ago, but nobody has replied. Are there any Russian experts available that can perhaps take a look at it and form a view on it. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 15:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Chronos Encyclopeadia TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Have you considered posting a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia? GoingBatty (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: No, but I do now. I never knew it existed. Thanks. Thanks Tim. scope_creep^Talk 11:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

dead links wikipedia generated

was working on adding a picture to a page and it gave me this:

"We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons."

with 2 links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Licensing and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:First_steps

clicking either of them takes me to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Daggerfella (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do both of those have en.wikipedia.org URLs instead of commons.wikimedia.org ones? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 15:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do both of those have en.wikipedia.org URLs instead of commons.wikimedia.org ones? Thats the exact problem of this question. The should occur either on WP:FUW or Special:Upload when uploading to commons. Obviviously an error message uses internal links (which go to whichever domain they are on) rather than external links. This issue likely needs to be corrected at commons by a commons admin that can edit the error messages by the edit filters. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Those should be interwikilinks [[:Commons:Licensing]] and [[:Commons:First steps]], which display as Commons:Licensing and Commons:First steps respectively, cDaggerfella. But you are using Special:MyLanguage: Help:SpecialPages says of this "When an interwiki Page or an invalid page name is entered after the slash, this page redirects to Main page. So this is documented behaviour, even if it is not really desirable. Are you using some add-on that automatically uses MyLanguage? If so, you need to turn it off to get to those links. I've never heard of Special:MyLanguage before, so I don't know anything more than what I've just read. If you want to pursue this further, WP:VPT is probably the best place. --ColinFine (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

only addons I have is a DuckDuckGo privacy anti tracker, adblocker ultimate and adblocker for youtube (all for security and privacy reasons). seems the adblocker ultimate has a language filter. let me disable it and restart my browser Daggerfella (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

seems to work now, thanks dude :D Daggerfella (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Name Change to Page Title

Hello,

On the Wikipedia Page for Our Lady of Mercy High School (New York), the title of the page is incorrect. In 2012, the name of the school was changed to "Our Lady of Mercy School for Young Women." While it's corrected in the body of the page, we'd like the page name/title to reflect the correct name of the school. What is the best way to request/make this change?

Thanks!

Ktsmith3 (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Request a page move on the article's talk page. Presuming it's not contentious, the move should happen within the week. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 15:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Ktsmith3 (edit conflict) Changing an article title requires a page move; you may request a page move at Requested Moves. Please note that Wikipedia articles are not necessarily titled with the official or legal name of a subject(Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton which is a redirect), but with what independent reliable sources primarily use, if it differs from the official name. See WP:COMMONNAME for more information. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ktsmith3: I've gone ahead and moved it. Hits seem about equally divided between the old and the new, but the best official source I could find has the new title.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of run suggestion from runs in Search page.

From the Search page (not the search in the upper right), I have noticed a change in behavior. Before, if I was searching for a mispelling like "fraernity" (in just mainspace), and there were no hits it would simply return that there were no hits, now, it does a search for a suggestion, so it returns the search for "fraternity" and gives me a google like message of "Showing results for fraternity. No results found for fraernity." and allows me to click on fraerniy to do the search with runsuggestion=0. Is there any want to change my preferences so that this does not occur? I'm not interested in changing what searches do when done in the upper right of all pages.Naraht (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Google makes a suggested search if there are few hits. MediaWiki only does it if there are no hits so there isn't much point in clicking the searched term. See Special:Search/sprell for an example with a single hit. It suggests "spell" but shows the result for "sprell". I don't know a way to omit the suggested search if there are no hits. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

TetraVex

Why was this page deleted? Was there consensus among Microsoft employees to sabotage it? The useful content was not salvaged and entirely disappeared from this site. I wound up on German Wikipedia just to understand how the game works. Totally wrong move. DAVilla (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

See comments at [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, DAVilla. If you can point to several independent reliable sources giving significant coverage to the game, and so establish that it now meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (not somebody else's criteria), then you can open a discussion on Talk:TetraVex to try and persuade other editors that it should be restored. The version you restored had at most one such reference (if the Information Processing Letters paper met those criteria: I haven't read it). In my opinion the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/TetraVex back in 2008 should have been resolved as Delete, because not one of the Keep !votes there adduced a single source to support their assertion that it was notable. As for your absurd claim about Microsoft employees, please always assume good faith. --ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

OK thanks. There might not be much persuasion needed given the AFD discussion, just sources.

On the last point, that was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek. It is instructive tho, that being part of a Microsoft release, a history that for the most part will be rightly ignored and forgotten in coming decades, makes a topic noteworthy in some people's minds, while being a studied mathematical puzzle, which will always exist throughout the millennia, gets passing mention. DAVilla (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have the sources, it won't take much persuasion. If you haven't, then no amount of persuasion will do. "Notable" is in some ways an unfortunate word for Wikipedia to have chosen, because people assume, reasonably, that it means something different from what it means here. It doesn't have anything directly to do with any of: famous, important, popular, significant, influential, ground-breaking, shocking, outstanding, or viral; though often some of those will cause a topic to become Wikipedia-notable. It is almost entirely a matter of, "Has there been enough independent material published to ground an article?" - remembering that unpublished material, and material published in unreliable places, cannot be cited at all, and that Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject or their associates say or want to say. --ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

OK I've done my best on talk. I still contend that there's significance to this being an NP-hard problem rather than just one of several games included in a Microsoft distribution, sans mention of anything else. But I guess the fate of that depends on whether academic papers which may not have been peer reviewed carry as much weight as an official user manual no one will care about anyway when the system is obsolete. DAVilla (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)