Help desk
< June 15	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 17 >

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 16

update school logo

hello,

i am trying to update to update the school logo on Woolooware High School wiki page. please advise what proof you need of permission to use the image i have previously attempted to include on the WHS page

--Nic.purdon (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nic purdon, the mistake that you made was uploading the image at Commons. The image has a copyright and would have to be used here under a claim of Fair Use. Commons is not allowed to have such images. You can upload it here at the English Wikipedia though. See WP:UPLOAD to do that. Dismas|^(talk) 02:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AthAbbr needed template

Hi there, I recently created the {{AthAbbr needed}} template so that any pages that need converting can be tagged and followed up on, as there are thousands which were either created before or without the template. Using AthAbbr allows for better understanding of athletics pages by those not as knowledgeable about the sport. However I feel like I need some help with the template to bring it up to standard and I would be grateful if I could either have some help here, or be pointed in the direction of someone who can. Thanks, JDWFC (talk) 10:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1st Battalion, 320th Field Artillery Regiment

The Picture that they have is not theirs to have posted, I know this because I took the Picture in 2006 near Bagdad, Iraq, the Photo is of 6 soldiers from 1-22 IN Reg. I have the original photo as well. Please remove it from the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.239.119.10 (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming copyright and saying the photo must be deleted everywhere in Wikipedia and our sister sites, or are you just saying it doesn't belong in 1st Battalion, 320th Field Artillery Regiment? According to commons:File:Band of Brothers, 101st in Iraq.jpg#Licensing and [1] the image is in the public domain. According to the latter and also the live version at https://www.army.mil/article/335/101st_Airborne_Soldiers_at_Sunset/, it is "Soldiers from Battery B, 3rd Battalion, 320th Field Artillery Regiment, 101st Airborne Division". That agrees with the caption in 1st Battalion, 320th Field Artillery Regiment#Operation Iraqi Freedom III. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Works by the United States Federal Government may help explain the copyright situation - it is complex, but "Works produced by civilian and military employees of the United States federal government in the scope of their employment are public domain by statute in the United States" - Arjayay (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I've been trying to set-up a Wikipedia page for Carl Cattermole for over a year, and despite loads of high quality press mentions the editors keep declining it.

This guy has written for The Sun, The Daily Mail, Wire, Vice, OpenDemocracy etc. as well as being interviewed for Vice, Channel Four, BBC Broadcasting House, BBC Radio 4 Outsourced Radio, NTS Live.

I find it really hard to accept that he is not "notable". Can anyone help me out? He's an ex-con looking to help people prepare for prison and discuss prison-related issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejgrey (talk • contribs) 11:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Notability, our guideline on determining notability: Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below. The guideline that we use is that to be presumed notable, the topic of the article (Carl Cattermole himeself in this case) must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The notability problem that people are bringing up is probably related to that: no one has written about Cattermole himself. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 13:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ejgrey: For more information, read WP:Your first article. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 13:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ejgrey. It's possible that things will become clearer if you reframe what you are doing. We don't "set up pages for" people at Wikipedia, ever. We "write articles about" them, and those articles should be based close to 100% on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them. --ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't figure out rowspan

Some time ago, I was pointed to the rowspan feature for table sorting, and I easily used it in List of cities in Ohio to account for cities that needed to have multiple entries in the "county" column. I'm trying to do the same thing with List of cities in Illinois (all the work's being done in my sandbox), but due to different table syntax, I'm trying and failing to implement rowspan; the software keeps thinking that the rowspan code is a piece of text that needs to be included in the table. I've done a lot of failed tests in preview, but the current edition of the page includes a failed attempt with the Aurora entry; my goal was to have "Aurora" and the population appear in a double-height row, with the third column having "Multiple" in the first row and "2" in the second. Any clue what's wrong? Do I have to reformat the entire table and follow the syntax from the Ohio list? Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in [2]. You need a pipe between any cell modifier and the cell content. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny; when I tried that a little while ago in preview, the rowspan code ended up in its own cell, creating an entry in the nonexistent fourth column. I wonder what I did wrongly? Thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you either had a double pipe or a newline before the pipe. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming a Template

Hello - how can I rename a template, and could I at the same time replace all occurrences of the old template name with the new template name? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud: Which template? Renaming would be as simple as moving the page. There would be no need to replace the previous occurrences as redirect would point the old name to the new name -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Just move it as you'd move an article; see Help:Move if you're unfamiliar with that, or come back here and ask for assistance if the page isn't helpful enough. Normally, when a page is moved, we don't replace all occurrences of the old name with the new; could you explain why you'd want to do this? Of course, with an article, you'd want to do this if there's an error in the name (e.g. "Goverment of Argentina", you'd want to fix the spelling error), but this isn't important with a template because the template name isn't displayed to the reader. If you're wanting to move a different template to the old name (move A to B, and then move C to A), you'd want to do this, so the first template continues to be displayed instead of the second one. Nyttend (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers. Cheers, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to create a page titled "Udaya Pictures"

Pple, i was trying to create a new page about the oldest film production house in Malayalam Film Industry, which was revamped recently. But, when I submit/save page, its getting redirected to the wiki main page. I have tried several times and this repeats. Can anybody.please help me?

The title of the page which I tried to create was "Udaya Pictures". Itvwas through article wizard that i tried my best. There is no specific link to provide as inwas getting redirected to the common main page of wiki.

Thanks, NaseelVoici NaseelVoici (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about expanding Udaya Studios instead...? --CiaPan (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit or rewrite Wikipedia article? Social Security Act of 1935

Greetings:

I am a professor of history teaching a summer class on the Great Depression. My students have been tasked with rewriting the Wikipedia abstract for the Social Security Act of 1935, using primary source documents like the Congressional Debates, noting historically important people (this can't be written without noting Dr. Frances Townshend, for ex, who has his own Wikipedia page, but is not noted in the Social Security Act of 1935's page) and utilizing secondary sources to evaluate the historical context and long term effect. Because what is in the current abstract is so minimal and more focused on the Supreme Court rather than the act itself, we *think* we're writing a new article. But we may include some stuff from the current document, e.g. current format and some of the discussion of the Supreme Court. So, can you clarify for me whether we are doing an extreme edit or a new article?

Many thanks for your help.

Dr. Kris McCusker Department of History Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, TN. 37132 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristine.mccusker (talk • contribs) 18:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll send you an email. Nyttend (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kristine.mccusker: I suspect Nyttend will show you WP:SUP, but just in case, it is relevant.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page Deleted Asking For Impossible

Our article about the marketers cooperative and its movement on the wikipedia site has been removed and what is being asked of us is a virtual impossibility to ask of any cooperative. For starters, we are told someone completely unrelated to the cooperative must make the article. That within and of itself is impossible. That would be like expecting someone that is not part of the LGBT community to make articles relating to the LGBT movement. Logically they are not going to be part of the movement and therefore they will have no idea about the movement or whats going on with it. Equally this is true when dealing with a cooperative and its cooperative movements. How would someone not involved with our cooperative in any way know about the actual cooperative movement taking place. It would be impossible. Logically if someone cares enough to make a wiki article about a movement of any kind, they are going to be involved with that movement.

Further we read the rules and guidelines before making a wiki article about our cooperative and cooperative movement, specifically noting that section A7 of speedy removal makes exceptions. Specifically it makes exceptions to if "subject is important or significant" and if "any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source" happens. Perhaps we just live on a different planet than the people removing our page, but by definition all cooperatives fall into either "social" or "economic" movements - which would give them some claim to both "important and significant" as well as "a creditable claim not supported by a reliable source". Thus complying with the terms in A7 without the need to "provide reliable sources". Actually our thought after researching was "almost every known cooperative has a wikipedia page so it is very likely these exceptions were made just for situations such as cooperatives and cooperative movements".

I could understand if we were talking some company, business, unregistered group, etc.... but come on... a cooperative?

A cooperative movement is something people NEED to know about. It should not make any difference who is or is not talking about or giving media coverage to such a movement. The cooperative movement as a whole is on the rise right now and anyone who can prove cooperative status with either cooperative bylaws or articles of incorporation should be able to have their movement heard about. In fact out of the countless thousands of cooperative articles on wikipedia, we are the first to be rejected as far as we know. We also know for a fact some of these cooperatives that are listed have never once had media coverage of any kind. So what exactly are we doing wrong that other obscure and unknown cooperatives that get listings are doing right?

Bruce Bates (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Bruce Bates[reply]

Bruce, a person doesn't have to be involved in something to know about it. There are many people here who write articles about topics that they are unrelated to.

As for your repeated use of "Our article", please see WP:OWN. Articles on Wikipedia do not belong to individuals or groups. Furthermore, since you are part of the cooperative, you have a conflict of interest and by your words here do not seem to have the ability to write about it in an objective manner. Please see WP:COI and WP:NPOV for more on that.

It is not impossible for someone unrelated to the cooperative to know about or write about the cooperative since topics covered in Wikipedia should be written about elsewhere first. They should have published reliable sources for the information in them. For instance, I started the article on An Incomplete History of the Art of Funerary Violin. I have never played the violin, read the book, or met the author. I heard about it on NPR though and found enough sources to establish the notability of the book.

Dismas|^(talk) 00:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruce Bates: Arguing that an article should exist based on the existence of other, similar articles isn't going to work. Lots of articles exist that probably shouldn't; and lots don't exist that probably should. If you have specific examples of articles about other co-operatives that you feel aren't notable, I'm sure other editors can review them and nominate them for deletion if your claims have merit.

As mentioned already, your intense emotional reactions show that you are not able to write about this topic with the required neutral point of view. Wikipedia articles are just plainly factual and dispassionate summaries of material previously published by reliable third-parties who have similarly written about the topic from a disinterested point of view. There should be no motivation on the part of the contributing editor to advance a cause. --Drm310 (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this expired or copyrighted?

It says here [3] that media belonging to Charlton Comics is mostly expired. Does this means I can upload pictures from here? Without restriction? [4]

If so, please can someone leave me message as I will be away from Wikipedia. Thanks.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]