Help desk
< April 4	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 6 >

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.

April 5

Ella Morris incorrect photo

Hi all, I'm the media officer for the England women's under-23s. The lead image on Ella Morris' page isn't of her. Could someone advise how we get it changed? Ella Morris (footballer). FAcomms1 (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAcomms1: That was tricky but you're right. Ella Morris (footballer) displays File:Ella Morris 2023.jpg which was cropped from File:Ella Morris Lewes FC Women 1 Southampton Women 4 27 08 2023-687 (53146863975).jpg. It looks like her number is 2 (Ella Morris) but https://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesboyes/53146634054/in/photostream/ shows it's actually 21 (Jemma Purfield). The gap between 2 and 1 is just large enough for 1 to be completely hidden behind her arm. A one-digit number would have been centered above the logo. It also looks like https://www.southamptonfc.com/en/teams/profile/jemma-purfield and not https://www.southamptonfc.com/en/teams/profile/ella-morris. Pinging Victuallers who uploaded the original photo with a very understandable mistake. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the wrong photo from the article but hope Victuallers will do image cleanup at Commons and possibly look for a suitable photo. We respect copyright so it's sometimes difficult. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After renaming we may have a better image for Jemma Purfield. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have requested both original and cropped images for renaming now. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been done re Jemma Purfield image CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Now that somebody's cleaned up the issue with the photo, there are some other important matters to turn to.

First, you need to change your username. Names that suggest that they are role accounts, or imply that they are editing on behalf of an organisation, are not permitted. All accounts should be individual. You don't have to use your real name (I do, but many editors do not), and if you wish a name like "Jane at FA Comms" would be acceptable. Since you have only made two edits, it is easiest just to abandon that account and create a new one, but if you want to hang onto it, see WP:CHU.

Secondly, if you are the media officer and you intend to edit anything remotely connected with the team, you are regarded as a paid editor, and you must make a formal declaration as explained in that link. ColinFine (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAcomms1 The better news is that we welcome anyone who wishes to improve Wikipedia and (as this example shows) editors here will try to help, provided that paid editors (and article subjects) are open about their conflict of interest. For general advice on what you can do and how to do it when you spot errors or want to add information, see this guidance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAcomms1: Further to the good advice you have already been given, one of the best ways for you to help improve this and other articles would be to make images whose copyright you own available under an open licence, so that we (and others) may use them. the process is explained at Wikipedia:A picture of you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. I've made substantial updates on U23 player articles in recent months, and just like the senior team, it's notable that there is only one photographer who is reliabily providing quality CC images, James Boyes, and this is generally when these players play against Lewes domestically, which isn't very often (at least not for WSL players). Ideally FA comms department would arrange for CC images to be supplied for such players. @FAcomms1 on another matter (while you're here), it would be useful to have stats pages for U23 players on englandfootball.com. At present there is only flashscore documenting these and it's often incomplete. The U17/19 stats from soccerway are more reliable than the U23 stats for example. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate all the insight and you updating U23 player articles, it is really helpful. On images, we have a contract with Getty who we use for all of our images across all our England teams. A lot of what you're asking for comes down to time and resource. You'll find our WU23s mirror the set up of the MU21s teams on England Football. Thanks. FAcomms1 (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can upload Getty images with a creative commons license without much extra effort, and they can be used on Wikipedia [1]. Maybe you could check if this would be within the contract? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAcomms1: (written b4 some of above) This is an amazing opportunity FAcomms1 for you, if you can explain this to your bosses. The advantage here is for the game and not the bottom line. Wikipedia would gladly use any photos that, you/the FA, supply of footballers. (Best not to use a paid photographer unless they know how to get rid of their rights to photos). A very very high proportion of all the photos of women footballers are taken by just own enthusiastic photographer who takes photos of Lewes Women FC footballers. See this collection!!. Several similar teams to Lewes have no photos at all that Wikipedia can use.... eg Southampton. The photo of Ella Morris was taken when she was playing Lewes and loaded into Wikimedia by me. Some might say that James Boyes is the best media officer that women's football has in this country. I think/know that. He has been given an award by Wikipedians and thanked by Helen Pankhurst as an amazing role model. I'm guessing you havent heard of him.... we have and hundreds of people see his photos every minute - the FA should give him an award for his real contribution to the game. We could probably get an accurate figure (Andy?) but 100s or 1000s of ppl a minute is my guess of how many ppl see those photos. I'd love to find out what your bosses say. If they looked interested then we could find 100s of ppl who would help. Victuallers (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Weigelt

Hi Folks!! I can't get ref 5 fixed on Johannes Weigelt. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 11:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the year and that solved the issue. The Banner talk 12:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the "online" link returns "Page not found" - the working link [2] contains "sfz" not the "ppn" returned by the template. Mikenorton (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia email

I received an email from "wiki@wikimedia.org" regarding an unsolicited request to change my password. How can I check if this was sent from Wikipedia and is legit? Pondini (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pondini That email address is the correct one from which WP:Notifications about various things are sent: see the linked page for details. However, it would be fairly easy for a bad actor to spoof such an email so if you are super-cautious you wouldn't click on any of the links within the message. If you want to, you could change your password at Special:ChangePassword, just as a precaution. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Mike says, that appears to be a valid address. You don't make clear what the message is. What occurs to me is that somebody else has tried to change the password, and the system has sent you a mail asking if this is you. Is that what the mail is?

If so, you don't need to worry: somebody has tried to steal your account (people are doing this all the time) and the security system has foiled them. ColinFine (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pondini: It's probably legit, meaning somebody entered your username at Special:PasswordReset. Anyone can do that. Just ignore it. The mails are indeed sent from wiki@wikimedia.org but it's possible for others to fake a sender address. The only way to be certain it's real is to test whether the temporary password in the mail works, but I see no reason to do that. If you want to do it anyway then avoid any links in the mail and go to our website https://en.wikipedia.org by other means. If you are worried about the security of your account then pick a strong password which isn't used anywhere else. When you know your existing password, you can change it at Special:Preferences with no need for mails. Your account looks uninteresting to try to hack. Maybe somebody thought they might once have created an account by that name. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like everyone above already said, that is the email that sends password reset emails, but email addresses can be spoofed. The text of the message should read similar to the following:

Someone (probably you, from IP address <an IP address>) requested a reset of your password for Wikipedia (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>). The following user account is associated with this email address:
Username: <your username>
Temporary password: <a random string of characters>
This temporary password will expire in 7 days.
You should log in and choose a new password now. If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your original password, and you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password.
However, if you did not generate this request and want to prevent unsolicited emails, you may want to update your email options at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal-email>. You can require both username and email address to generate password reset emails. This may reduce the number of such incidents.

The first paragraph can change depending on how the reset was requested. If you did not make the request you can safely ignore it, your old password will continue to work. You can find more info at Help:Reset password. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get more involved?

Hi there, I'm trying to get more involved in WIkipedia (asides from just editing articles) and am looking for a role in AFC, CSD, XFD, NPP, or a similar kind of thing. However, everywhere I apply I'm told that I don't have enough experience elsewhere. So where do I start?

Tysm, JacobTheRox (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JacobTheRox: Hi there! According to these edit count statistics, you've made 436 edits to articles. There are many places where you can look for suggestions to improve articles, including Wikipedia:Task center, Wikipedia:Maintenance, and the WikiProject Cleanup Listings, where you can find look for articles related to your interests. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JacobTheRox. If you have familiarized yourself with the various notability guidelines, then your input would be welcomed at current Articles for deletion debates. Read WP:AFD#Contributing to AfD discussions and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Cullen328 (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another option, JacobTheRox, is to dive into Wikipedia:New pages patrol. There has been a HUGE influx to this from old article as of a couple of months ago, kind of a long term cleanup project, I think. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceyockey:, Thanks for the advice. I tried that a couple of months ago here and was told I needed 500 mainspace edits and more experience in the administrative side of Wikipedia. Now I am increasing my edit count while working at AfD. I would like to work at AfC and NPP in the future, as I like building up and helping smaller articles. JacobTheRox (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Vodochody aircraft names

Hi there, I'm not sure if this is exactly the right place for this as I'm a new editor so apologies if this should be somewhere else.

I was going through the suggested edits and ended up on a niche page for an older Czech airplane, and was attempting to find some sources to add. In the process, I noticed that, from this particular manufacturer, from my perspective a number of the Aircraft names are slightly wrong. Many of them on the English Wiki are titled with a dot instead of a dash, when it appears that on the Czech Wiki and the manufacturers naming, the dash is more correct.

Example:

English Wiki: Aero A.29

Czech Wiki: Aero A-29

Note the difference: A.29 vs A-29

In checking this category, I noticed numerous articles with the same issue:

Category:Aero Vodochody aircraft

I would like to fix this, in addition to fixing the issue that a lot of them seem to have with having no citations. My main concern is that if I start changing the titles of a dozen pages that people might think I am vandalizing or something similar, and I wanted to just see if there was a particular way I should go about this, or if it's fine to just start making my way down the list. Thanks! LiterallyDavidBowie (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LiterallyDavidBowie: Hi there! You could create a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft similar to the post you made here, and provide a source that the manufacturer used a dash instead of a dot. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Published scholarly works and original research

If a scholarly work such as a thesis uses original research (which is obviously forbidden here) and that such work has been published, does that make it eligible for being used as a source in an article? e (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The prohibition on original research is only in a Wikipedia article, not in a source. From that respect, it is fine. But you should still consider whether it is reliably published - I don't think a doctoral thesis would count unless it was subsequently published in book form by a reputable publisher. It might count as a self-published source, usable in that respect.

The other question is independence: if the article is about a scientific or scholarly matter, an article by one of those who developed or worked on the subject would be a primary source: an independent study would be better. ColinFine (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that some vanity publishers of theses and the like have the trappings of reputable publishers. But they remain mere vanity publishers. 126.158.136.165 (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We even have a template, {{Cite thesis}}, for that. It is used in over 35,000 articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable person to create a wikipage

Please help me to find out a reliable authenticate person who would be able to help me to create a wikipedia page for me. Thanks. Daichoo (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daichoo.

I'm afraid it really doesn't work like that.

I know you have been a victim of scammers who falsely told you they would "create a page for you", and I'm sorry.

But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a professional directory or social media.

If there has been enough independent material published about you that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then there could be an article. If there hasn't, then, like most of us, you are not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and there cannot be an article about you.

If you meet the criteria for notability, then there can be an article about you, as I said; but it is not very likely that you will find somebody willing to create it. You're welcome to put a request at requested articles, but in honesty, such requests are rarely taken up.

You are discouraged from writing the article yourself, but not forbidden; however, creating an article is a challenging task, and I always advise new editors to spend a few months editing existing articles and learning about how Wikipedia works before they try it.

Please be aware, as well, that if we have an article about you, (whoever writes it) it will not belong to you, you will not control its content, it will not be for your benefit except incidentally, and it may contain material that you would prefer it did not. It should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with you have published about you, not on what you or your associates say or want to say. See an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.

If after all this you want to try it, please study your first article. ColinFine (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]