Help desk
< January 10	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 11

Gilbert Stuart

Can someone help me change the black and white image of William Curtis 1775 on the Portrait Gallery page to a color image of it that I have and that was supplied for this purpose? The image is not online, so it's a problem. I guess it's not possible.

. DEvans2 (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DEvans2, if the image dates from the 18th century then it will be in the public domain and can be used for any purpose. You can upload it to Wikimedia Commons yourself, applying commons:Template:PD-Art-100. Once it's at Commons, you can use it wherever appropriate. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I uploaded it but didn't satisfy the value question. The portrait is 18th century; there should be no problem but it is made too compliicated. Unless there is an easier way, I give up. DEvans2 (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DEvans2, what was this "value question"? -- Hoary (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DEvans2, is this about https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:William_Curtis_1775,_RHS_Lindley_Collections.jpg ? Maproom (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, then it did upload! Many thanks for the instructions. Can someone help me replace the black and white image of it with this at

the wikipedia site, given above, for the artist Gilbert Stuart? It's in the Gallery of Pictures at the end, the only black and white one.

Either please do it or give me further instructions. Thanks again. DEvans2 (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DEvans2, if it is indeed commons:File:William_Curtis_1775,_RHS_Lindley_Collections.jpg, that had a surely well-meant but fictitious copyright waiver (donation to the public domain), which I've changed to something appropriate. But as for its "Summary", I can correct "author" (to Gilbert Stuart) but I don't know "date" or "source". Please edit the summary. -- Hoary (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to change it. The date is 1775 as already cited. The owner or source is the Royal Horticultural Society, London, which gave me permission to post it. I wasn't knowingly doing it wrong. I haven't done this before. DEvans2 (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DEvans2, fixed. I'm sure that you have meant well; and yes, editing Mediawiki can be frustrating at first. Don't give up! -- Hoary (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DEvans2, now also categorized, I hope accurately. -- Hoary (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Do you think you could make the switch - the color mage for the black and white? I'm afraid of getting into a real mess. DEvans2 (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The switch involves the color image of Curtis by Stuart at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:William_Curtis_1775,_RHS_Lindley_Collections.jpg

Can someone add this to the wikipedia page for Stuart, to replace the black and white image of the same portrait of Curtis which is at the end under the gallery of pictures? It's at Gilbert Stuart or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Stuart

I think I'd fail if I tried. I'd be grateful for help. The title below would remain the same. DEvans2 (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've done this - please check. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! You have done it. Many thanks. The Royal Horticultural Society took an iPhone image of it for me and will be pleased. The picture is in conservation. It's a big improvement over black and white. Most grateful. DEvans2 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No drama. Because I encourage information over just getting people to do things. You simply change where the current image name is, and replace it with the new one. This was done with this edit Special:Diff/1195471044. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing me. You just have to know what line it is. Seems easy. DEvans2 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Font size in infoboxes

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style we should "specify font sizes relatively (for example with font-size: 85%) rather than absolutely (like font-size: 8pt). The resulting font size of any text should not drop below 85% of the page's default font size." According to MOS:FONTSIZE we should "avoid using smaller font sizes within page elements that already use a smaller font size, such as most text within infoboxes, navboxes, and references sections." Does in mean the text in the templates below 85% of the of the page's default font size violates this rule? For example {{goal}}, {{yellowcard}} in {{Football box}}. Font size is much smaller than it should be? Example:

2006 FIFA World Cup

9 July 2006

20:00 CEST

Final

Italy	1–1 (a.e.t.)	France
Zambrotta 5' Materazzi 19'	Report	Sagnol 12' Makélélé 76' Zidane 7' (pen.) 110' Malouda 111'

Olympiastadion, Berlin

Attendance: 69,000

Referee: Horacio Elizondo (Argentina)

Look at the font size of the minutes (5', 19' etc.) --Corwin of Amber (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that violates MOS:FONTSIZE. I can't see what the reason is behind presenting that information with a smaller font-size. Bazza (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass edit?

I noticed that there are a ton of pages tagged for needing verification from August 2022. All of the location ones really just need the first of the two notes citations (the one just going to census.gov) removed. Is there a way for someone to mass-fix this?

--- The note, as it is, is always in the Demographics section as:

"Note: the US Census treats Hispanic/Latino as an ethnic category. This table excludes Latinos from the racial categories and assigns them to a separate category. Hispanics/Latinos can be of any race.<ref>http://www.census.gov {{nonspecific|date=August 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=About the Hispanic Population and its Origin |url=https://www.census.gov/topics/population/hispanic-origin/about.html |website=www.census.gov |access-date=18 May 2022}}</ref>"

It is the first of the two that needs to go, because the second has it covered. Edenaviv5 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edenaviv5: You can ask at WP:BOTREQ if this task is suitable for a bot. If it is not, then you may be able to use WP:AWB to make the edits more efficiently. RudolfRed (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Edenaviv5 (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help?

The creator of "File:1. Luftgeschaeft.jpg" told me he wants to delete it because he has already created this photo in a different name. Can someone delete this? ארז האורז (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done – looks like they were close, there were just a couple nowiki tags making the deletion template display as text rather than a tag. Tollens (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mining plans

Can you put me in touch with someone who has old mining plans for English collieries in an overlay fashion. I am specifically looking for Bolsover Colliery and Shirebrook Colliery plans. I worked at both of these are mines and I want to show our grandchildren where I worked. 90.241.9.189 (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about anyone in particular to contact, but poking around I found this website – https://www.oldminer.co.uk – which appears to have a significant amount of information and images related to both. I'll keep looking for a little bit and see if I can find anything more. Tollens (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've referenced "Notts ex-miner" in the past, but I think he only puts up plans of disasters, not collieries generally. I've also checked the Durham Mining Museum but neither colliery has a plan, in part because both collieries avoided a major disaster. I had a quick scan of Coal magazine, courtesy of National coal Mine online without luck. There is a potted history of Bolsover here and one for Shirebrook here along with some surface photos. But I'm afraid I can't locate any plans. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try the National Library of Scotland's OS map archive. You can use the "Choose an historic map overlay" menus to pick different scales and time periods. Bazza (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Northern Mine Research Society may have something. ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The National Library of Scotland is the place to find UK maps https://maps.nls.uk/. The site takes a bit of getting used to. It is designed to be interactive. I found Bolsover Colliery on an Ordnance Survey 25 inch Sheet Derbyshire XXVI.5 published 1916 (just north of the Brickworks).

(while I was doing this I see someone else has suggested nls site) BlueWren0123 (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NLS site only gives the above ground locations, the OP was asking for plans. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are correct. BlueWren0123 (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn't appreciated that "plans" referred to subsurface only. Bazza (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not only underground plans as and I want to show our grandchildren where I worked and in an overlay fashion. Above ground may be acceptable? BlueWren0123 (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The National Archives at Kew list various documents for Bolsover Colliery including some rolled up "Maps and Plans". Would need a trip to Kew. When I visited many years ago, I ordered the items the day before to avoid disappointment or a long wait. BlueWren0123 (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

My edits on medical subjects have been edited without proper explanations, in fact the "explanations" are as bizzare they could be I question the sincerity of wiki in ensuring who can make the edits and which edit stays. The person doesn't appear to be of a medical background and more importantly DOES NOT back his claims but just goes on a reversion rant.

everything is in titles read if you want cause I'm off this site anyway probably for the good I stopped using it the last time. FlaminMongrel (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear this. Please understand that expertise in a topic area is not required to edit about it, as Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. Have you attempted to discuss your concerns with the other editor? 331dot (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have been discussing this on talk pages but FlaminMongrel is not satisfied with the result there. This is canvassing. Their comments above are a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I have provided sources to back my comments many times over the years. They are right there on the talk page where we have been discussing. BTW, not that it is a requirement, I am educated as a Physician assistant and Physiotherapist (the latter not in the U.S.), so I have the creds and knowledge to edit medical topics.

There also seems to be some language difficulty here, as the constant and years-long conflict over the classification of Physiotherapy as an Allied health profession (AHP) is largely from Indian/Pakistani/Arabic IPs and editors. Interestingly, India's National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions includes Physiotherapy, so even there we have an official classification of Physiotherapy in India as an AHP. (This is also the wrong venue for this discussion.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using different computers

I inherited my mom's very old desktop Mac (Apple) computer that is a minimum of fifteen years old. I'm using my almost one year old Mac (Apple) laptop to type this message. I'm encountering problems with logging in on this laptop with my proper credentials that I'm using for the desktop. Why the problem other than the desktop computer being very old. Also, wikipedia's certificates expire, rendering this website useless (it does not allow pictures)(?)on the desktop computer. Please help, thanks. 2601:145:500:FC10:F816:CDF0:E709:AB96 (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you're having these problems. Please provide details on the steps you're performing and the results you're seeing, so we can try to troubleshoot your issues. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try to update the browser if it's possible. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to fix incorrect redirects

I found an incorrect redirect and am wondering how to fix it. I haven't yet seen a way to do this. The.rob.wolfe (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The.rob.wolfe: Hello! Please post a link to the redirect. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To edit a Redirect page itself, one way is to enter it in the search bar, and then when the software takes you to the target, there will be a "Redirected from ..." link at the top. If you pick that, it will take you to the redirect page, which you can edit in the usual way. ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But you are too new to evaluate our use of redirects. Please post the link so we can see the circumstances. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent vandalism at Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln

This page is being targeted a couple of times a day currently, with people removing the word "falsely" from the phrase "falsely attributed to Jews" and similar. This is vile and also time wasting. Would it be possible to semi-protect the page? Jim Killock (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JimKillock: Hi there! You can submit your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. GoingBatty (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! Jim Killock (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

question re current events portal

i'm trying to figure out how the portal:current events portal works. do editors simply add items to the portal itself? could someone please assist?

sorry for this basic and somewhat oblivious question. i did look at Wikipedia:How the Current events page works but it doesn't seem to explain how items are simply added to that page. i appreciate any help., thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sm8900, there are a lot of instructions to be followed, but the headlines come from Portal:Current events/Headlines and each day has its own page, which can be edited by clicking edit on that day's section of the portal. TSventon (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certificates

On a very old computer (Mac-Apple desktop fifteen years old)I'm noticing this websites certificates expire at a certain time period, then it stops working. Why is this? And, why don't the certificates renew when the time comes for renewal? 2601:145:500:FC10:4DF:F594:BE35:FBDB (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer, but my guess would be that the certificates use features which were invented after that software was issued. ColinFine (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may get a better answer at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Cullen328 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

Is there any way to cite the different pages of the same book other than using {{sfn}}? Imperial ^[AFCND] 15:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado: Hello! See Template:R#Inline_invocation. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It helps a lot. Imperial ^[AFCND] 15:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bold

I would like to point out that in the Montepulciano (grape) and Verdicchio pages I removed the bold text from some wines because only some were written in bold while all the others were not; it didn't make sense. Paragraphs: Montepulciano (grape)#Wine regions; Verdicchio#Wine regions. JackkBrown (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention to this sort of detail, Jack. It is good that there is somebody looking at this. What I don't get is why you keep coming here to tell us about it. Be BOLD. ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: reason: I'm always afraid of not being 1000‰ perfect. JackkBrown (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! You're human, like the rest of us!

I suggest you read WP:BOLD again. ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: I did a browser page search (Ctrl+f in Windows browsers) for "bold". Montepulciano (grape)#DOCs and DOCGs says: "The wines of which Montepulciano must account for a majority of the blend are in bold." Verdicchio#DOC regions says: "The wines for which Verdicchio must account for a majority of the blend are in bold." I'm not qualified to judge whether this bolding is appropriate and correct but if the bolding is removed then the explanation must also be removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that per MOS:BOLD, it is not appropriate to use boldface for this purpose. However, the distinction between required wines and non-required wines should not be lost in the process of removing the boldface. Perhaps an asterisk, superscript or other similar indicator could be used to replace it. CodeTalker (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"majority of the blend are in bold" finds one more hit at Fiano (grape)#Other DOC wines if somebody wants to work on this. It doesn't actually have any bold but one was removed in 2014.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do we do? JackkBrown (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, what do you think? Do you see now why others have held back from trying to impose absolute consistency across all articles? Sometimes different 'rules' can come into conflict with each other and/or with practicality and common sense: this is why the fifth of Wikipedia's foundational Five pillars is "Wikipedia has no firm rules." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: As others have said above, be bold. Do you remember the last ANI discussion that was opened on you, by any chance? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: obviously, but I didn't write anything about italics or other things that have already been covered extensively. JackkBrown (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are picking at straws with what the general concern users had about your behaviour. We trust you to be competent, more than you do of yourself. If someone has an issue with what you've done they'll either revert it or start a discussion with you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: you're 100% right, I should trust my abilities more and be braver. JackkBrown (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steffan Aquarone

The subject of the Wikipedia article (Steffan Aquarone) is standing for public office as a Parliakmentary Candidate for North Norfolk. His article is unbalanced, and bears little relationship to the truth of his business career. All my changes are factual, a matter of public record. My comments seek to re-balance the article. Aquarone has sought to suppress the truth in a different media outlet. I don’t understand why you have chosen to delete my comments. 2A02:C7C:6BB9:2600:354D:96D:F0C2:CEAE (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The reverted edits were unsourced. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If your changes are supported by "the public record", then it should be easy for you to add the references we require. If you have any problems with the formatting of the references, then put your proposed changes on the article's talk page along with some pointers of any sort to the appropriate parts of the "public record", and ask for help in formatting the references. We insist on references because we are all volunteers and do not have a paid staff of researchers and fact checkers. -Arch dude (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected Steffan Aquarone for two weeks due to persistent addition of unreferenced negative content in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Cullen328 (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once you start a merge request do you have to wait at least a week?

Because I just realized after starting a merge discussion that no one's posted on either talk page for four years, and I somewhat doubt anyone will respond. Further than that, are there any good guidelines for what constitutes an "uncontroversial merge"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia:Be bold might be the nearest guideline. Would suggest giving it at least the weekend now that you've opened the discussion. Have you notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California? You might attract participants there. Folly Mox (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donations

I want to start donating Jimhpool (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimhpool: Go to https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give Should you have any problems donating, or other questions, please email donate@wikimedia.org. RudolfRed (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Peter Schreiner (Byzantinist)

Reference help requested. Need help with Peter Schreiner (Byzantinist). Any help is welcome. ShockedSkater (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Thanks, ShockedSkater (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ShockedSkater The main problem with the article is a lack of inline citations. It is important to find citations for the text before translating a foreign language article as it may not be possible to find them later. de Wikipedia in particular does not require as many inline citations as en Wikipedia.

The error messages are caused by the DNB template, e.g. {{DNB|963445073}}, which is a template for the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek in de Wikipedia, but becomes an incomplete template for the Dictionary of National Biography in en Wikipedia. TSventon (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{DNB}} at en.wiki is not a template for the German Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (de:Vorlage:DNB) but rather it is a template for the English Dictionary of National Biography (Template:DNB). Most likely the template that you are looking for at en.wiki is {{DNB-IDN}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motsetta

On this page the pronunciation isn't formatted, I'm not very familiar with these things. JackkBrown (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, please see Template:IPA/doc. -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I fixed it, but I don't know if the pronunciation (Italian: [mɔtseta]) is correct. JackkBrown (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's obviously regional, so perhaps not familiar to you. Next time you go to an Italian restaurant, ask the staff – they should know. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]