Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 December 9

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.

December 9

Maps

I have a simple question that I can't find the answer to anywhere. I need a detailed terrain map of Europe without a texts, but with the Urals, rivers and coordinates like many in Wikipedia, but only parts of the continent, like the one below are available. How to get it or create it? Krystof Woroniecki https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Geographic_map_of_Carpathian_mountains-es.svg 46.170.112.116 (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The folks at WP:GL/MAP can help you with that. Mathglot (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Beach Township Beach Patrol listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 3?

Why is "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Beach Township Beach Patrol" listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 3? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: I've removed it from the log. An admin deleted the AfD but apparently neglected to edit the log. Deor (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Reply - Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Removing comments from talk pages

Re: revision removing my comment and associated vote https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Glorification_of_martyrdom_in_Palestinian_society&oldid=1189061614

I am really confused by how I’m supposed to understand why my comment was removed. From the revision log the comment seems to have attracted a very large number of negatives (all other revisions have a green number, for some reason mine has a red number). I don’t know what those negatives are. Do people get to upvote/downvote votes?

Can a scholarly editor without bias about Israel/Palestine conflict help me understand what has happened here please? EthicalAugur (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@EthicalAugur: Firstly, those numbers just count how much the page grew or shrunk by, it's not a score. The reason your comment was removed was linked in the edit summary: WP:ARBPIA. To clarify that a bit more, that is an arbitration case that adopted that editors who don't have 500 edits and a 30-day old account cannot edit about the Palestine–Israel conflict, except to post edit requests. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I have had another look and understand that now. The arbitration page is really messy. Was this arbitration something I was supposed to know about? Did it exist before my comment or did an administrator decide after my comment? I’m obviously missing something because I can’t see reference to the removal of my comment at all, just a very long record of ‘statements’ and a list of dates at the top that don’t mean anything to me. EthicalAugur (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

No, that's an old case that involved many problems in the topic area. The remedy was then decided upon to limit future problems by making sure only somewhat experienced people would edit affected articles. Actually the person who reverted you linked the wrong case; ARBPIA was the first case about this topic area, but the relevant one is the newest one, WP:ARBPIA4. The section relevant to this conversation is WP:ARBPIA4#ARBPIA General Sanctions. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks.

You commented that “ that is an arbitration case that adopted that editors who don't have 500 edits and a 30-day old account cannot edit about the Palestine–Israel conflict, except to post edit requests”

In the past where there has been an arbitration case with this ruling I have not been able to edit.

In this case I was able to edit, but my edit was then deleted.

Was the arbitration decision made as a response to my comment? EthicalAugur (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Many articles where there are problems with many new editors editing against the rules are protected so that you only can edit it if you are extended-confirmed, which correspond to the arbitration remedy's restriction. But not all pages that contain affected content are protected, and talk pages in particular are generally not because edit requests still are allowed. So while protection is a way to enforce the remedy, the lack of protection on a page does not mean the remedy does not apply. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.Are you saying that the page I edited on already had this restriction before my comment was made? If so can you tell me how I can see this when it happens please? EthicalAugur (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I’m not unclear about the arbitration concept. I’m unclear about how I determine on what basis the decision was made. I don’t believe the page was protected when I made the comment but I may be wrong about this. Knowing either way will help me understand whether or not there was a problem with the actual comment that I made. That’s important to me because that’s how my brain works. If something has been thrown away without discussion I’d like to know why. EthicalAugur (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The restriction was indeed already in place, though it does not deal with individual pages, but a specific topic. This means that sometimes you may have a page where some of the content is subject to a restriction and other content is not. For articles with restrictions based on this or other arbitration decisions, there will usually be a prominent banner on the talk page, and another that shows up when you go to edit the page. Other pages, like this AfD discussion, may have no clear indication that they fall under one of these "contentious topics" designations, and you have to do your best to remember which topic areas are subject to different rules. If it helps, you cannot be subject to any sanctions regarding any contentious topic before you have been made aware that said topic is designated as contentious. As for how you know on what basis the decision was made, the user who removed your comment did link WP:ARBPIA in their edit summary, though I do think they should have been clearer about it, and they probably made a mistake in linking to that instead of WP:ARBPIA4. I'll also send you a standard template message meant to serve as an introduction to these things. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

how can I remove a photo?

I am trying to edit a page that has a photo on it that is not meant to be there - how can I remove it? rpic 17:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raypic (talk • contribs)

Hello, Raypic. Which article are you talking about and why do you think the photo is "not meant to be there"? Cullen328 (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Looking at their contributions, it seems to be Rachel Pickup. It looks like Raypic added (on Commons) an image that is a copyright violation, was tagged so, and removed as such. (As I write this, they added a different image that I am unsure of the copyright of.) ayakanaa ( t · c ) 19:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

A really awful BLP, though it may possibly meet WP:N anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ayakanaa If you mean the one with the strawberry it's from [1]. No hint it's under a license we or Commons can use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Yes, that was the one I was unsure of. Thanks for letting me know. Do you find these using reverse search? And if so on which app? ayakanaa ( t · c ) 20:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ayakanaa No, it was a coincidence: I looked at the article, looked for an EL to add, and just happened to see the pic there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Raypic if you want to remove File:Rachel Pickup.jpg, it is housed at Wikimedia Commons, so you need to contact them and explain the problem. The user who uploaded the file is now blocked on all Wikimedia sites and their Commons talk page shows two other files they uploaded have been deleted as copyright violations. If the image is a copyright violation you can email commons-copyvio@wikimedia.org (the email is on Commons:Commons:Contact us/Problems). TSventon (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a bit unexpected since they apparently got VRT-permission for that pic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I saw the VRT-permission, I don't know how often that is given wrongly.

Raypic, I see you have uploaded several pictures to Commons and been warned they will be deleted. We would welcome another image but need authorisation from the copyright holder. If you hold the copyright you need to contact the Volunteer Response Team as explained here. TSventon (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Nick Van Til

Is Nick Van Til notable. MagicalPrince863 (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

MagicalPrince863 That depends on who he is, if independent reliable sources have given him significant coverage, and if it shows that he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

(Note: appears to be associated with Strack & Van Til) ayakanaa ( t · c ) 20:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Results of searching for a redirect

Background: I came to Wikipedia to find out about Sunday gravy. When I entered “Sunday Gravy,” I was offered the article about tomato sauce. This wasn’t too surprising. But when I accepted the offer, I was taken to the top of that article, where there was no further info to help in my puzzle, not even a “redirected from” link.

I had to type in “Sunday gravy” again, and this time accept Wikipedia’s offer to search pages for the string. This got me to the redirect page, where I learned I should go back to “tomato sauce” and look at a subsection titled “Tomato gravy.” A lame (because opaque) redirection.

I have since created a subsection called “Sunday gravy” and tweaked the redirect page to point there.

But it is still the case that if I accept Wikipedia’s suggestion of the tomato sauce article in response to a search for “Sunday gravy,” it doesn’t show me the redirect link.

Question(s): Does someone think that this is desirable behavior? Users should have to hit “Enter” instead of accepting the proposed article?

I am a big proponent of not only the letter of WP:RASTONISH, but also its spirit. If, for instance, Wikipedia suggests that some article may be relevant to what I’ve typed, then it would be nice if, upon taking it up on its putatively relevant article, I were given some immediate indication of what that relevance is. Instead, I must know to forge ahead with the “Enter” key, upon which I am informed, “There’s a Wikipedia page with that title.” The now-astonished user would be excused for wondering, “Well, if that’s the case, then why didn’t you just take me there??” PaulTanenbaum (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@PaulTanenbaum: Your edits are on the desktop site but did you make the search on the mobile site? If I write sunday gravy in desktop then I'm only offered sunday gravy which uses the redirect sunday gravy to take me straight to the section Tomato sauce#Sunday gravy. If I write sunday gravy in mobile then it looks like you say. I agree this is problematic. I rarely use mobile and don't know whether it's normal or a bug that you may have to press Enter to use a redirect. If a search doesn't have an exact match to a page name or you choose to search within pages then you end up at Special:Search where the large search box has advanced search options but never goes directly to a match. This is normal. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

As a mobile editor, I can confirm that it's standard for the search interface that you have to type the name of the redirect and hit Enter in order to use the redirect. Tapping the article suggested will always take you to the top of the article rather than any redirect anchor. Folly Mox (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

So, yeah. Is this somehow a feature, rather than a bug? I mean, does it have some advantage?—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@PaulTanenbaum: Search suggestions in mobile show a description of the article. If I type sunday then I get a list of 15 articles where 14 have a Wikipedia:Short description which is hand-written for the whole article (Sunday Times Fast Track 100 doesn't have it). Sections don't have such descriptions. Maybe a mobile designer thought it would be confusing to mix the list of article descriptions with a section redirect. When you type sunday gravy there is only one article left in the list but the layout is designed for multiple articles. The desktop site doesn't show descriptions in search suggestions. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Fix the Infobox for Lightweight Boxing 2008

Boxing at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Lightweight. History theorist the user has make a mistake. I was going to experiment the Infobox to make Boxing at the 2008 Summer Olympics in Men's Lightweight with Boxing venues in Beijing that took place in 2008. After Athens 2004 and before London 2012. I was going to experiment on it. I go with the Olympedia. 108.21.67.83 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

This paragraph makes no sense to me. What are you asking? ColinFine (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Acceptable formats and tools for scientific images?

Hello, today I contributed to a relatively obscure cell biology page, kinocilium. There was no image in the article, and other images I could find were copyrighted or inadequate, so I drew the structure myself on paper, photographed the drawing, annotated it, and uploaded it.

I think it does the job, but I've not seen other scientific articles use images like this. Is this image acceptable? And, regardless, are there any good programs or tools for creating digital scientific representations of something like this? Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Just-a-can-of-beans: It's a whole lot better than no image at all. You can use any drawing program (e.g., Microsoft paint} to do the same. I do think you should add one or more citations on the image description page to actual images in the literature. You are not violating the copyright of a picture when you use it as the basis for a drawing. -21:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I have added the citation. Glad to know that although it may not be typical, my drawing is still useful :) Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Just-a-can-of-beans:, there is a group of volunteers here whose sole task is to help users like you create illustrations. Please contact the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop, let them know what you want, include the illustration you've done already, and go ahead and link (not copy, just link to) outside illustrations that are under copyright (like maybe, this, or this?) if you think they will give the GL/I folks who are likely non-expert in your field a better idea of what you're driving at. (By the way, your drawing already comes up #2 at Google Image search for 'kinocilium' .) Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Post by Neonzeus

FYI

 – Added header ayakanaa ( t · c ) 23:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I screwed up an article and am totally out of my element on how to fix it. I was counsel for a company in the early 1980s. when it was located in New York before it moved to Tennessee. I was offering some additional very well-known projects that this company performed (The National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., the Palace Hotel in New York, New York, the Warner Bros. Office Building in Los Angeles, and the Vista Hotel -- that was attached to the World Trade Center in New York, New York). I also corrected the city of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, since it's in Cleveland OH not Cincinnati, OH. I made these additions to the article about "Flour City Architectural Metals" and hit enter. The article now has an error note and the formatting looks awful. So sorry!!!! Is this something that I can figure out how to fix easily? (Not tech savvy for anything beyond Win95 LOL) Neonzeus (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Neonzeus: Your edits to Flour City Ornamental Iron Works Company contained some stray <ref> tags without references, which led to the error message and which I've removed. When adding entries to a list like that, one must be sure to reproduce the formatting used in the other entries, so I also added the asterisks (bullets) that you omitted. There's a greater problem in that your edit summary says "Source: Employee of the company in early 1980s". What someone told you is not an acceptable source, per WP:OR. The entire list is, in fact, unsourced, and I think any entries for which sources can't be found should be removed. Deor (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!! It was a great company to work for with fun stories about projects that are now extremely well known in cities all over the country - just another tiny part of history that is being lost. Sigh. But I now understand that oral histories aren’t enough. Again - thank you!!! Your help and this info was very much appreciated. 66.61.66.163 (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The web is a big place. There are lots of places you can go to record this oral history, such as a blog. You can even easily publish a book. Wikipedia is not the place for you because we are a crowdsourced encyclopedia with no way to validate content except by using reliable published sources. -Arch dude (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)