Help desk
< February 7	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 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.

February 8

Someone keeps replacing fantastic planet image with Lovers and Other Strangers in Wikipedia. ( can someone fix it once and all !!! )

File:Fantastic Planet film poster.jpg

File:Lovers and Other Strangers (1970) M.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.222.164 (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to look at this, but I cannot figure out what you want fixed. One of your image links is broken. What article? Please explain in more detail. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the article Fantastic Planet. The OP tried adding "File:Fantastic Planet film poster.jpg" at the top of the article, inside "gallery" tags which were opened twice and closed three times (and probably not the appropriate tag anyway), and with "Fantstic" mis-spelled. Another user then reverted the edit. As the article already contained that image in its infobox anyway, I am unclear what the OP's intention was. Maproom (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone clean up an article I I edited

Please fix the edit I did in the early life of the Mischa_Barton article. Thank you. Venustar84 (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done With most of the work done by User:Flinders Petrie. -Thibbs (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cox (cricketer)

Can anyone figure out why adding the {{SouthAfrica-cricket-bio-stub}} tag to this article isn't actually placing the article in Category:South African cricket biography stubs? I checked the wiki markup and I didn't see anything out of the ordinary. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no stub categories seem to show up any more on articles. Is that a glitch? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erpert: There has been a recent edit to Module:Asbox. I've posted at its talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Real date, but an error "Check date values in: |date= (help)"

Just added a reference in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKVToolNix#Applications The date of the journal is Christmas 2012, and not December 2012 and not the 25th of December 2012... Linux Format always has an issue dated Christmas YEAR. I am not sure why Christmas, and Easter (and some other well-known dates) are not being recognized. I have personally seen many official documents signed Easter Sunday AD YEAR, or Christmas Day AD YEAR. Absolwent (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Should I take a photo of the paper copy of this journal issue? This particular issues has also a web page, where without any payment one can see Christmas 2012 http://www.linuxformat.com/archives?issue=165

See: Template:Cite journal — Instead of date parameter, how about year and/or edition (or issue or volume)? E.g.: |edition=Christmas|year=2012 —71.20.250.51 (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes, it can be faked in many ways. In this case, the simplest that keeps the format intact would be to assign author1 to be Mike Saunders (Christmas 2012)... However, the issue is with the date check... Life is life, what about The Good Friday Agreement? Absolwent (talk) 07:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

|issue=Christmas 2012 would be proper. -- Gadget850^talk 10:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: Gregorian vs. Julian Easter + Whitsun dates might be fun for you. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the community decide that we should accept Christmas and Easter as valid dates, something not currently addresses at WP:DATESNO, then I suspect that there is relatively little challenge regarding date checking in either calendar because these dates would amount to no more than |date=Easter 1435 or |date=Christmas 1914, right?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

|issue=Christmas 2012 cannot be used, since this is already |issue=165 . Each year, Linux Format publishes thirteen issues dated January-December and one dated Christmas. Going back to my original intent (I admit poorly conveyed), yes, allowing constructs |date=Easter 1435 or |date=Christmas 1914 is all it takes to make life easier, and Wikipedia closer to real life™ :-) Taking into the account the Good Friday Agreement, |date=Good Friday 1998 could be made valid too (and possibly other years...). Absolwent (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that dating the Northern Ireland Agreement, though colloquially known as Good Friday Agreement, with |date=Good Friday 1998 is appropriate since the term 'Good Friday' is not used in the agreement. Instead the specific date 10 April 1998 is used so, when citing that document, |date=10 April 1998 is the correct form.

The place to raise the issue of defining dates like Christmas YYYY or Easter YYYY would seem to me to be at WT:MOSDATE. If such dates are found to be acceptable there, then CS1/CS2 will be adapted to accommodate these specific dates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the publisher uses as the date is the date. If the date is Christmas 2012, then the MOS can quibble over whether Christmas should be capitalized or it should read "Christmas of 2012", but it would be wrong to change it to a different date, such as 25 December 2012, because to do so would leave the reader wondering if he had found the correct issue in the library, because the citation date would look different from the date printed in the publication. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same, UK based, publisher publishes thirteen issues dated January-December and one dated Christmas also for at least 3D World, ImagineFX, and PC Gamer.

I have looked at WT:MOSDATE. Thank you for the pointer. However, I have realised that I would need to have dozens of times more edits in my account to enter there... Absolwent (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need pointer to guideline/policy that describes that asking celebrities on social media as original research

In the strange world in which I gnome, I sometimes find overzealous fans resorting to asking notable people questions on Twitter, like "Did you play the voice of X in anime series Y?" and then using the response as a reliable source. I'm pretty sure this constitutes WP:OR, but I'm hoping for a pointer to some specific guideline. Thanks, and I would appreciate a ping if you can spare one since my Watchlist fills up rather quickly. Danke, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Dear Cyphoidbomb, you are probably looking for WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS. I hope this answers your question. Let me know if there is anything else I can help with. All the best, Taketa (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's it! Thanks @Taketa:. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In your example, I would think that the anime itself (or more specifically, the credits shown on screen at the beginning/end) would serve as the reference. Dismas|^(talk) 08:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dismas, typically, yes a primary source is suitable, but there are occasions when the actor isn't credited, (sometimes for English dubs), or when editors find the info somewhere like IMDb, and don't have access to the primary source to verify. (Because IMDb is not a RS...) Danke, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Watkins

Someone keeps re-editing the Jim Watkins entry to the point of gross inaccuracy. jamesbondfan seems to eb the culprit every single time. The fact that he so consistenlty is troubhling.

Everything NewsFan60 has re-entered is factually accurate and verifiable. Yet it is scrubbed every 8 hours.

Please have jamesbondfan refrain from making the re-edits.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsIndustryFan60 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced info and copyright violations to this biography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute. Content disputes should first be discussed on article talk pages, in this case, at Talk: Jim Watkins. There has been no discussion on the talk page. Please do not escalate content disputes without first trying to discuss on the talk page. I do notice that two posts by the original poster (OP) have been redacted by an administrator. The OP should take that as an indication that those posts evidently violate the policy on biographies of living persons or copyright or both to the point where they had to be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any further questions, ask User:Tiptoety, who has already advised you that your post was a copyright violation (and who is probably the admin who redacted it). It appears that you also think that another editor is posting incorrect information. Discuss that on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NewsIndustryFan60: Can you please specify what exactly is inaccurate? I would be happy to correct the inaccuracies if you can point to a source to support your claim. Tiptoety ^talk 16:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol-relative URLs

http://www.nytimes.com

https://www.nytimes.com

Both of the above links work, i.e. they both produce the NY Times home page, although it appears the Times converts the latter to HTTP since Firefox doesn't show a URI in either case.

May I take this to mean that any links to the Times can (and should) be protocol-relative? If so, would that apply to any site that behaves the same way? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nytimes.com/ doesn't redirect for me and displays https in Firefox, but the layout of the whole site is broken (or very poor) in https for me, and the internal links are to http and not protocol relative. In addition, it only took a couple of random clicks to find a page http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/london-theater-journal-crawling-inside-a-family-saga-and-a-jacobean-noir/?_r=0 which fails with https: https://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/london-theater-journal-crawling-inside-a-family-saga-and-a-jacobean-noir/?_r=0. The example was not at www.nytimes.com but it was at nytimes.com and linked from the front page. It looks like the site makes no serious attempt to give good support for https and I would certainly prefer http, but see Wikipedia:Protocol-relative URL. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I was aware of that page, although I haven't read all of all of the old discussions. The page mentions only archive.org, but isn't PRURL recommended for YouTube? Any others that we know of? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed discussions about recommendations for sites. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move image to Commons?

First image under "Fair use" - click here to compare (changed to Wiki-link GermanJoe (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I don't understand why the first image has a fair use license and this second image can be in Commons and used in all Wikipedias as they represent the same institution and they are used both officially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digmin3 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first is an image produced by someone working for the organization so the copyright is held by one of those two persons. The second image is designed by a Wikipedian based on a official description and the image created has licensed its under Wikipedia and Commons rules. The coat of arms may not look identical to one used by the organization but is one correct way to render the description. Rmhermen (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. --Digmin3 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

alfhild trying to add a music review reference to Andy McKee page

Hi! I am trying to add a reference for a review by John Kelman from All About Jazz on the recording Trio Mundo: Rides Again published on Sept. 2, 2004 ad I got the Cite error message. I thought I was doing the right thing: putting cursor where I want reference to go; clicking on the ref/ref link at the bottom of the page; choosing the cite news from the template menu and fill in in the info and then typing insert. Is that right? Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfhild-anthro (talk • contribs)

The "cite news" and similar templates automatically insert the <ref></ref> tags, so no need to insert them separately. Is that all it was?: Noyster (talk), 11:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on UK Gov/BBC image

I'd like to add the image that is on this UK Government web page to an article, but I'm unsure on its copyright. All content on that page is supposed to be released under Open Government Licence v3.0, but seeing as it is a screenshot of a BBC game, and that they have a copyright notice on the game's page, I'm unsure of how to proceed. ^{I almost feel like the UK Government may have inadvertently violated the BBC's copyright on this... Which would be pretty funny considering they're essentially the same entity...} Discant X 22:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^{I recognise the incompetence of my country's government, but I do not find it funny. Maproom (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

I'm ignorant of the nature of the relationship between BBC and the UK Government, but perhaps it's worth noting that depending on how you wish to use the image, it may be available under a claim of Fair Use even if it's a copyrighted work. Wikipedia's image usage rules are stricter than Fair Use, but if you wanted to use the image within the article on the The Doctor and the Dalek video game, for example, then a single low-resolution screenshot would almost certainly be acceptable. The acceptability of fair use images on Wikipedia basically draw from their value for commentary. If you are using an image to comment on some aspect of the game instead of as simple decoration then it's fine. -Thibbs (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to use it in Digital 5#Events because it was used in one of their major events, so I'm not sure it would fall under fair use, as it isn't directly related with the article subject. Discant X 13:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that might be a bit of a stretch for Fair Use at Wikipedia... The gov.uk usage would almost certainly constitute fair use because the article is entirely about the game, but I agree with you that it's not clear that they own the copyright to the image. It would probably be a good idea to post this question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions in the hopes that someone there is familiar with the exact relationship between BBC and the government with respect to copyrights. -Thibbs (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]