Help desk
< January 24	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 26 >

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.

January 25

Reliable Sources

Is Genius considered a "reliable source"? I'd like to help in finding citations for Darkness (Eminem song). If not Genius, what are some good places to start? –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 01:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToxiBoi: No Genius is case by case (WP:MREL). See its entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for how to use it, and be careful. -Arch dude (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems

Hi. I’m planning to use some images that are generated by https://www.edrawsoft.com/subway-map.html. May I know if these images will fulfill Wikipedia’s requirements on copyright and free use? Thanks. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) (Report false positive) 05:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Lord of Math: If you created the images yourself using that program, and if you did not copy some other image to do so, then your images are your own creative work, you own the copyright, and you can license them under the CC-BY-SA. This is not free use, it's your copyright, which is better than free use/fair use for our purposes. If you are trying to reproduce somebody else's maps or even if you inadvertently get too close to someone else's maps, things get murky. Copyright protects "creative elements", not information, and if there is only one conventional way to do that for some particular information, then the result is not "creative" as the term is used in copyright law. So: don't try to duplicate someone else's map, don't arrange the map elements (legends, schedules, logos, whatever) in the same way, don't use the same icons and titles. -Arch dude (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me give you the scenario: the Chinese HSR system doesn't have an official map. Someone drew up an unofficial map, but it isn't available for download. In this case what should I do? tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) (Report false positive) 09:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: image is available at https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/29938487, the Chinese analogue of Wikipedia. Can you please help me sort out the issues? tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) (Report false positive) 10:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone else made it, they own the copyright. The only way forward is the murky Territory of "fair use", but I don't think this would apply here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me illustrate myself with an example. Consider the following image as the original:

Now, let's assume I used the program to make this map:

So is this creation okay? tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) (Report false positive) 14:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Lord of Math: Te new map you make will have no creative content from the old map, only information. Therefore, you have not violated the copyright in the old map, and you do own the copyright in the new map and you may upload it to Commons. -Arch dude (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Lord of Math: Now we have a new problem: is this "original research" (WP:OR) that is unacceptable in Wikipedia? I say "no". Your map is intended as a "graph" of a publicly-available data set. It would be preferable to cite the underlying data (i.e., the transit system's lists of stations, etc.) instead of citing the other map. -Arch dude (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Given that the sources are out there, it seems that I may go ahead. Just one last thing: where should I put my citations? tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) (Report false positive) 04:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Lord of Math: When you upload an image to Commons, it results in a file there that has a bunch of data about the image. You can edit that file to add whatever infor you wish. Decdribe your sources there. you may choose to also describe how you created the image from the data (e.g, the program you used and the choices you made.) It's been awhile since I did this. I'll try to find an example.

OK, here is one. Click on the image, then click on the "details" button to see the page at commons.

-Arch dude (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance on WP:CV

Hi all. I made an edit about Boeing New Midsize Airplane. An editor think my edit is borderline WP:CV. My direct quote has only fifteen words, out of a news report of (my estimate) over a thousand words. Is this WP:CV? Thanks. --Now wiki (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Now wiki: When in doubt, paraphrase. In this case I do not think the direct quote benefits the article more than a paraphrase will. It's probably not a copyvio, but we want to err on the side of caution. If there were a compelling reason to quote, I might think differently. -Arch dude (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Now wiki (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference Now wiki WP:CV is not the same as WP:COPYVIO. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: I do not understand the distinction. WP:CV and WP:COPYVIO both redirect to the same article. Try it yourself. -Arch dude (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I was thinking of WP:NOTCV. Ignore me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:External media

Hi All,
Is there anything 'improper' in placing an external link to a photo at a legal source with proper photographer credit in the description? Thanks, --VLu (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@VLu: When another editor reverts one of your edits, please discuss the situation on the article's talk page and arrive at a consensus. See WP:BRD. Only if you cannot reach a consensus, proceed to WP:DISPUTE. Please start by assuming that the other editor is trying to improve Wikipedia, just as you are (WP:AGF). It's a discussion, not an argument, and a friendly discussion will go more quickly than a hostile discussion. -Arch dude (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the policy relevant to your question, VLu is WP:EL. --ColinFine (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overwriting a redirect

Can somebody remind me how to properly overwrite a redirect page? I am wanting to write a new article on Mamhead House. This is currently a redirect to Mamhead Park, a subsection of Mamhead. Do I just overwrite the redirect page, or is there a preferred approach? Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this, [1], I think I edit the Redirect to go to Mamhead House, and then start a new Mamhead House page. Is that right? KJP1 (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't like that - I get a message saying I am going to redirect the redirect to itself?? KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - I think I've done it, hopefully correctly. KJP1 (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How/where do I appeal a (wrong, imo) final warning for vandalism?

I'm a new user, and still very much learning the ropes, so apologies if this is the wrong place for this. Recently I was surprised to find that I had been given an 'only warning' for vandalism, with the threat of being permanently blocked from editing. The edit that apparently triggered this action was not vandalism, nor should it even have been contentious, in my view, being an entirely good-faith and constructive (and indisputably factual) addition. According to a helpful comment from another, uninvolved editor, who was kind enough to drop by on my talk page, the issue was that I had added the word 'gay' to an article, which is automatically flagged as vandalism, despite the fact that the article in question concerned an author who was in fact gay. I would like to know if there is a process whereby I can ask for the warning to be revoked. As it is, this makes me much more nervous about editing, despite the fact that this site tells editors to 'be bold'. It may be of note that the user, CLCStudent, who issued the warning, seems from his talk page to have a history of taking what might be called an overzealous approach to perceived vandalism. Any advice would be appreciated. St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St Judas the Lazarene There is no formal process to ask for a warning to be "revoked"; you are allowed to remove most content from your user talk page. You can request that CLCStudent reassess their opinion of your edit if it was indeed valid(and they will see this discussion). 331dot (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that quite often, the word 'gay' is used to vandalize an article, and as Wikipedia tries to be welcoming to all users regardless of who they are, I can understand taking use of the word very seriously, even if sometimes we get things wrong once in awhile. There is also the matter of the Biographies of Living Persons policy; we must take edits to articles about living people very seriously as well. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template More citations/references needed

...if I see an article with far too few or no sources, which template should I add in the beginning to let the community know "More citations/references needed" ?

This one?

BLP sources|date=January 2020|reason=More Citations Needed

I find this a bit confusing: Template messages

Thank you --F.Blaubiget (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for visiting the Teahouse, F.Blaubiget. Template:BLP sources is used on articles about living people, whereas if the article is not about a living person, you should use Template:More citations needed. Let us know if this is still not clear.--Quisqualis (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@F.Blaubiget: For more references needed, I like {{refimprove|date=January 2020}} (for this month). For no references, substitute the word unreferenced. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quisqualis, hi Timtempleton, many thanks, very clear and helpful information! Take care --F.Blaubiget (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done --F.Blaubiget (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mamhead House

Not as easy as I thought. The page Mamhead House already exists, here, [2]. It's a redirect to a section of the article Mamhead, namely Mamhead#Mamhead Park. I've now created an article for Mamhead House, which is suitable for mainspace and which is sitting here, Draft:Mamhead House. But I can't move it, I suspect because of the existing redirect, nor is the system allowing me to request a move, I suspect because it's a Draft! I would be very grateful for assistance. KJP1 (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike - Hugely grateful. KJP1 (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]