Help desk
< June 10	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 12 >

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.

June 11[edit]

Superman (1940s animated film series)[edit]

All I was trying to do is add this compilation of animated shorts for Superman to the page titled List of television series based on DC Comics publications. I literally pasted the exact Wikipedia links in my entry. Why isn't the system simply able to recognize I'm referencing a source that has already been verified? Is it not possible for the system to recognize its own hyperlinks? AlexJWBrown (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexJWBrown: The link Superman in your edit [1] is working so I'm not sure what you are asking about. Note however that they were released in theaters and are listed individually at List of films based on DC Comics publications#Short films. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image use on articles of historical personalities[edit]

Hello, does anyone know the specific rules/policies/guidelines of image use on articles of historical individuals? I read MOS:IMAGES and did not see anything answering the following questions I have:

1. How is an image determined to be used? Are more contemporary works from the person's lifetime or as close to it as available more preferred? Would a contemporary 16th century painting of someone, for example, who lived and died in the 16th century be preferred over a later 19th century painting of the person? Can one simply argue that since it is more historical, it should be used instead of the latter depiction?

2. Is there any existing specific rule/policy/guideline that I can refer to that covers this issue and subject in detail?

Thank you, ThethPunjabi (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ThethPunjabi. Images of people who died before the invention of photography are always potentially controversial, but in general terms, we should prefer contemporary portraits or in certain cases, portraits by more talented artists closely based on contemporary portrayals. If an academic expert describe a portrait as very likely to be accurate, then that is a powerful endorsement. There is no policy or guideline that I am aware of that addresses this matter in depth, because it falls under the general expectation of good editorial judgment. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 Thank you so much for your helpful reply! ThethPunjabi (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ThethPunjabi Good question. Sometimes it's a simple WP:BOLD decision, if I find an image or an image I think "better", I can simply edit and see that happens. In other cases, it becomes a WP:CONSENSUS thing, depending on context Wikipedians can strongly disagree on what makes a certain pic "the best." A few fairly recent examples:

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you for your detailed response! ThethPunjabi (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of uploads to the Internet Archive[edit]

A question on the Teahouse yesterday (2023/06/10) was asking how to construct a citation when the only online copy of the newspaper appears to be a scan of the page that somebody uploaded to the Internet Archive. The problem was that {{cite news}} won't accept archive-url if there isn't a url parameter. I and others replied that a link is not an essential part of the citation, but a convenience for the reader, and may be omitted; and that that link was not what we usually mean by an archived copy, and so it was OK to use url rather than archive-url for it.

But this got me thinking about copyright and the IA. In WP:Copyrights I found The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to Internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time, which covers the normal case with archived websites. But it seems to me that this is a different case, and the scan is a copyright violation, and Wikipedia should never link to it. Am I right?

(I was wondering if there was a better place to ask this question, but neither WT:Copyrights nor WP:MCQ seem to be the right place.) ColinFine (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right: an online scan of copyrighted material is a copyright violation (and subject to Photoshopping or other falsification, as well). Remember, there is never an obligation to provide a link to an online version of a reference. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine and Orangemike: However, "Internet Archive" (a.k.a. Archive.org) is a specific Internet archive, not just a generic Internet archive. Archive.org runs the Wayback Machine, but it also has a very large collection of copyrighted material, mostly books, that it hosts in cooperation with libraries. When you look at this material you are essentially checking it out from the associated library. The copyright status may or may not be clear to us here at the help desk or to Wikipedia, but it is being defended by the lawyers at Archive.org. This material is in the same general category other big library scanning efforts like Google Books and Hathi trust, and I feel that it is acceptable to link to them. This is very different than some random scan at some random site on the internet. When you link to this material, it is the URL, not the archive-url. -Arch dude (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Arch dude, for making that clear. ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional words?[edit]

I since a few weeks have an orange banner with promotional words under every article. To me it gives the impression like as if every article has a mistake. Is this a test or was this discussed. And if, where is the relevant discussion about the inclusion of such a banner? How about a redirect for WP:PROMOTIONALWORDS to the discussion? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradise Chronicle: Please link an example article. You edited 28th Parliament of Turkey today. Do you see it there? I don't. Do you see it in safemode or if you log out? What is your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering and your language at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In almost every article I see it, sorry. Even in FAs like Armenian Genocide, where "leading" is a promotional word. It is used for a "leading" member of the CUP, which is described as Talaat Pasha; well he was a leading member of the CUP, and I strongly doubt any historian would doubt that, so why is it marked as promotional? In the 28th now I do not see promotional word, but in the 25th Parliament of Turkey the promotional word is 100%, of course it is 100% if all the percentages are counted. In the 27th Parliament of Turkey Innovation is a word, well, "Innovation" Party is the name of a political party. In Republican People's Party again there are the 100%, yet 100% doesn't even appear. I see it when I am logged in in Vector 2022, and there all is written in English. I do not see it when I am logged out. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like PrimeHunter, I don't see that, so I don't know what it is or why it is there. ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradise Chronicle: In User:Paradise Chronicle/common.js you are loading the script User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/DetectPromo.js which is designed to add the label "Promotional words:" to a long list of words that may signal promotional content. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ah ok. Thanks, I'll remove that script then Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the script added more words 26 May.[2] That's why you have seen it more for a few weeks. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I upload my personal correspondence to Wikimedia Commons can I then cite it?[edit]

Hello,

I know that (unlike some journals) we cannot cite a fact to personal correspondence. I requested infomation from a government department and they have replied that they will not give it to me because the information is secret. So can I upload their letter to Wikimedia Commons and (because that presumably counts as publishing it) cite it in support of a statement that the information is secret? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, because correspondence with you is not publicly available for verification.

Why do you want to cite that something is secret? If information is not available, it shouldn't be mentioned in an article at all. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the information is not in fact secret. They just don’t want to give it to me because it would take them an hour to find it and they would have to admit they made a mistake on their website and correct it. I am hoping to embarrass them into correcting their website so I can cite it. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wait, you say the information is not secret, but you wish to say that it is secret? lettherebedarklight 晚安 18:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may be getting too obsessed about this and yes it is an annoying niggle rather than a great wrong. It would just be nice to know officially that the number 53 mentioned below is correct or indeed out by one or two. However I am sure that it is not wrong by 14. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah verification yes I see now thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1 you may want to avoid stating the status of the information. Simply leave it out. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS may be of interest as well. If you want more specific advice please link the article you want to edit so everyone knows what you are talking about. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 18:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the second sentence of Coal power in Turkey I have written that there are 53 active coal-fired power stations whereas https://enerji.gov.tr/infobank-energy-electricity says there are 67 coal-fired power stations (does not say if active). So I sent a freedom of information request asking for a list of the names and generating licence numbers (names can be confusingly similar) of all the active coal-fired power stations (hoping that would be 53 as I am not interested in any that have closed down) and have received a reply that this information is secret. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the number on the ministry website was less than 53 I would suspect them of greenwashing. Whereas it is a bit silly for their public relations if they are including disused plants or more likely have made the total too big by a typo. At first I wondered if they were totalling units rather than plants but the units don’t total to 67 either. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the status of the information is best left out. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider WP:COPYVIO. Just because they sent the letter to you it does not mean that you have acquired the copyright in the letter. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, Chidgk1, a document uploaded by you to Wikimedia or anywhere else is not a reliable source. We have no way of knowing whether it is genuinely what it purports to be. --ColinFine (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox page deletion[edit]

I made a sandbox page under my user but it got deleted for "advertisement". All I was doing was testing out all the different tools (which is what sandbox is for) that's there for me to use and to try. I don't understand why it could've been deleted due to advertising because all I was doing was testing out headers and tables. Joshieknight2 (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it looked like the kind of article about totally obscure people with which Wikipedia is constantly plagued, and thus was deleted as such. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I needed to use information within the tools I wish to use. I can't use the tools without adding information in them. (I was using the info box feature and more which needs information in it or it won't look right). Also, if I don't write any information and leave everything blank, I cannot test anything or see how it looks. Joshieknight2 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Joshieknight2: Although there is some leeway given on sandboxes, there are still restrictions on what may be placed there. See Wikipedia:Misuse_of_the_sandbox for more information on that. If you want to practice editing, avoid using promotional material to do so. RudolfRed (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzino[edit]

Good evening, could someone please italicise the title of this page? JackkBrown (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You can do it your self next time by using {{Italic title}} RudolfRed (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Sergio Leone; paragraph: "Career"[edit]

How do I merge the reference to the quote I added on 27 May, without the comma? JackkBrown (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this set of edits, JackkBrown, you added a quotation and you added a comma. By 'paragraph: "Career"', I guess that you mean 'section "career"'. Now, what is it that you want to do? (I've read your question several times but still fail to understand.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I meant here: "— Ruggero Deodato, [14]". JackkBrown (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use the template in that way, JackkBrown. Its prefacing of what's pretty obviously an Italian-language quotation with "Italian:" insults the reader's intelligence. (Without this, how many readers would risk mistaking it for a quotation from Polish or Hausa?) The use of templates in this article needs work. Example, not website=theguardian.com (let alone website=thequardian.com) but instead website=The Guardian. -- Hoary (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, JackkBrown, the Wikipedia article ascribes this to Ruggero Deodato. Why does it do so, when the article is about Leone, and the link is to a page titled "Frase di Sergio Leone"? Moreover, the latter page (i) doesn't bother to say where or when Leone (or Deodato) said or wrote this and (ii) is as full as "Mail Online" is of links to mildly titillating junk. -- Hoary (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary:, Template:Lang is probably useful as it helps screen readers to use an appropriate pronunciation. However I am not sure that the Italian text is needed in the body of the article, perhaps it could be included as quote= in the reference. TSventon (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: it's absolutely not true that the quotation is attributed to Ruggero Deodato; if you look closer (and I hope you do) you will realise that in my latest edits I corrected the error and published the Sergio Leone quotation. JackkBrown (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TSventon: yes, that's a good point about screen readers. I should have thought of that. But now that I do think of it, I think that use of Template:Lang would be neater. JackkBrown, I quote the current version: |author=Ruggero Deodato |source=<ref>{{cite web|access-date=2022-08-12|language=it|title=Sergio Leone|url=https://aforismi.meglio.it/aforisma.htm?id=31d1|website=aforismi.meglio.it So Deodato is still specified as the author, and the link is still to this crappy-looking page (which doesn't say where/when Leone wrote or said this, and has links to "Weird Girls Of Japan: Unusual Fashion Trends", "Celebrities After Failed Plastic Surgery", etc). -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: you are absolutely right, I have now checked better. I removed the reference (not useful at all), and changed the name; I also added the "quote without source" notice. JackkBrown (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]