Help desk
< March 26	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 28 >

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 27

JSTOR access

How do "approved" editors access JSTOR? I've been using a free 100-article per month account, which more or less serves my purposes, but what's the procedure for logging in under a "Wikipedia account"? Thank you. Allreet (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I learned about this through a notification I received some time ago, so I'm also interested in accessing the page that lists all the sources now available to us. Allreet (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Allreet. I believe you can find out more about this at WP:LIBRARY and here. There's a listing for JSTOR on the latter page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Exactly what I wanted. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allreet, I do some work with Wikipedia library. You should be able to access it if you meet minimum requirements and the access is enabled via EZProxy. Some other resources require different logins but JSTOR is not one of them. Jessamyn (my talk page) 20:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jessamyn, I do meet the requirements and can access the library. Using a link I set up, I'm able to access the JSTOR page that has a Wikipedia login option, but then I'm immediately redirected to JSTOR's standard login page. I have been using a free registered JSTOR account which during Covid allows access to 100 articles per month, generally enough for my purposes, but no download capabilities other than some random pdf's. And so, could you give me some details on what you mean about JSTOR not being "one of them"? And thanks for your work on behalf of Wikipedia's library. Allreet (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allreet, Well there are two (at least) ways to access resources via Wikipedia Library. In one kind, you have your same old account "authorized" to have expanded Wikipedia access. So like Newspapers.com for example. I have my own account there and my login information is sent to Newspapers.com and that account receives additional access because of my Wikipedia Library affiliation. For resources in the bundle, including JSTOR, the EZProxy link should give you access. If you're getting redirected, there is a very good chance it's a cookies issue of some kind. I might try logging out, removing JSTOR cookies (or using a separate browser) and seeing if you can get in via the Wikipedia Library link. If not, head over to the TWL page and ask there and someone who knows more than me can help. Jessamyn (my talk page) 18:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jessamyn, I'll test your recommendations. Great discoveries overall. Thanks for the advice and quick reply. Allreet (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error

Levi Goodrich lists a cite error that should be easy to spot. I have read the help page and stared at the text, but I can't find it. I would be grateful if a fresh pair of eyes could look at the article. Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leschnei - Fixed it. There was an sfn cite inside some ref tags of "<ref></ref>". Shearonink (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: I know it had to be something like that but I couldn't find it! You're a star - thanks. Leschnei (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes in specific categories

Hello,

Is there any way to view recent changes to articles in a specific category and its subcategories? Thank you for your time. Sewageboy (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are the implicit groups?

Two questions related to groups. When I got to a user's group page, such as Special:UserRights/RudolfRed it has "member of" and "implicit member of" lists. First question: why is autoconfirmed an implicit group and extended confirmed a normal group, when both are automatically granted when a certain number of edits/account age is met? Second question, apart from autoconfirmed what other implicit group memberships are there and how are they granted? RudolfRed (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconconfirmed is, to my knowledge the only implicit group. Bare in mind that autoconfirmed is different to Extended Confirmed, as EC can be removed, and you can also get an account WP:confirmed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe another implicit group is 'Users', as seen in one's preferences page, which means 'logged in'. There is another implicit group of '*' which means everyone. I understand 'implicit' means it's automatically added by the software, and cannot be removed by normal admin methods (in fact the edit filter can be set to remove autoconfirmed and re-add). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing B&W images with colorized versions

I have noticed that some historical black and white photos in articles are being replaced by colorized versions: [1]. Is there a WP policy on this? It seems to me that the original version might be preferred as more authentic. I searched Help and the Help desk archives but didn't find anything. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The closest I can find is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Editing images. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When we quote what someone has said, we give their words as reported at the time. We do not "enhance" their reported words. I believe that adding false colour to black and white photographs is equally wrong. Wikipedia is not a work of fiction. Maproom (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I agree with Maproom; I'll probably revert colorized photos I find. --Chetvorno^TALK 14:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that colorized photos are a no-no. They are rarely an improvement and often look like some kid has scribbled over the photo with a box of crayons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ianmacm, I also feel that there's a "no original research" aspect to it. i.e. if someone makes their OWN colorized version of an image and then adds it to an article, that seems not strictly cricket. Jessamyn (my talk page) 17:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there are any formal policies or guidelines in this area; maybe there should be. For example, I have seen some colorized photos of the American Civil War and other wars and thought that they were dreadful. I wouldn't use them in a Wikipedia article under any circumstances. It is important to stick to historical photos as they were actually taken.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are possibly two issues at play here: one related to copyright and one related to context. The copyright status of colorized images appears to be a little fuzzy as explained in c:Commons:Colorization since it's not always clear whether the colorization is considered a WP:Derivative work. So, it's not always safe to assume that a colorized old PD photo is always also going to be PD and the copyright status of the colorized version may need to be properly assessed (separately of the copyright status of the original work) to determine whether it can be used. If the colorized version is deemed to be copyrightable, then it almost certainly won't be able to be uploaded to Commons or Wikipedia without the WP:CONSENT of its copyright holder. In most cases, a colorized version of an image isn't going to be acceptable locally on English Wikipedia as non-free content per WP:FREER or WP:NFC#CS unless the colorized version itself is subject of sourced critical commentary because the original PD black-and-white version is going to be considered a sufficient free equivalent. The other issue has to do with context and that is related to WP:IMAGERELEVANCE and WP:IUP#Adding images to articles. Even if copyright status isn't an issue, the use of the image may end up being disputed and thus be similar to a dispute over textual context. In such cases, the WP:ONUS falls upon those wanting to use the image to establish a consensus in favor of doing so. They most likely can use the image freely in the username space if they want, but any uses in the article space will likely be subject to consensus. Colorization often has led and still leads to controversy as pointed out in Film colorization, and personally I think it's best to use the original work whenever possible unless the colorized version is clearly superior for encyclopedic reasons. I also think that the closer a colorized version is to the date the original was created, the easier it's going to be to use from a contextual and copyright standpoint. Some hand-colored photos may actually be as original of a photo as you're going to be able to find. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been very controversial at Wright Flyer, and has been discussed at great length at Talk:Wright Flyer and its archive. In February 2022, the strongest advocate for a colorized photo was indefinitely blocked. Bishonen may have some comments. Cullen328 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the Wright Flyer really turned into an edit war. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above arguments and oppose colorized historical photos when B&W originals are available. The additional color information added to the photo has no factual basis, it is just some modern editor's guess as to what the original scene looked like. A lot are amateur jobs and look terrible. Another point is that the limitations of the photography process are part of the historical record. A blurry, grainy black and white photo of a historical event from a newspaper shows how people of the time saw the event. The underlying motivation for the use of colorized images is often the ego of the colorizing editor, who wants to show off his work, as seems to have been the case at Wright Flyer. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect citation or wrongly remembered by the poster

In the subarticle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings#Catholic_justification_for_the_divine_rights the commenter second point incorrectly paraphrases that Jesus told Pilate in John 19: 10-11, that Pilate's authority was granted by Heaven. I've searched several different websites on that scripture neither says anything of the kind. The generally most searched website of the verse is here: https://biblia.com/bible/esv/john/19/10-11 MPA (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MPA, feel free to point this out on Talk:Divine right of kings. -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant words seem to be "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above." Since Pilate does demonstrably have power over Jesus, this implies that it has been given to Pilate "from above" which could be interpreted as "from heaven", i.e. "by God." (One could equally interpret it as "from the Emperor.")

In an era when the Church had a vested interest in supporting Monarchy, and in which most of the laity could not read the (Greek-translated-to-Latin) Bible and had to have it interpreted to them, it seems likely that this passage could well have been used at that time and by those authorities to justify the divine right of kings. The argument need not necessarily be logically or factually correct by our interpretations. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.233.48 (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]