Miscellaneous desk
< January 25	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference 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 reference desk pages.

January 26

Land of Linkin'

I would like to be able to link from one page to a specific line in a table on another page. I tried using the "anchor" template, but it positions at the top of the table rather than where I had put the "anchor". Does anyone have experience with this kind of tinkering? Thank you, all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the overwhelming lack of response, I suspect that you're out of luck. If {{anchor}} doesn't work, then (probably) nothing will. However, you get bonus points for creative header titles. ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this in Wikipedia or HTML? For WP, you could try adding <a name="target" />. You could always look at the generated HTML to see what's going on. CS Miller (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked wp:HTML#a, and it isn't supported, but your can use any named element as the target in HTML2.0. CS Miller (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question is how to post an "anchor" within a table and have it jump to that line instead of jumping to the top of the table. I'm thinking there's something about the nature of the table itself that prevents it from working. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the problem arises because everything between {| • • • |} is considered a single line of code. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So an apparent 2-D table would actually be a single line of code. That makes sense. Thank you all for trying! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: this link, Fort Simpson/(Great Slave No. 1) Heliport, will do what you want. It takes you from here to the particular line in the table at List of heliports in Canada. It looks like this [[List of heliports in Canada#304|Fort Simpson/(Great Slave No. 1) Heliport]] and the target is |<div id="304"></div>Fort Simpson/(Great Slave)||. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Trying to find where I picked that up from and I came across Help:Table#Section link or map link to a row anchor which does the same thing but a little bit differently. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I'll look into those techniques. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. Questions like that might get a quicker answer at Wikipedia:Help desk. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mōri Motonari

This image is very interesting, for what reason the image can not be imported? The image is very old, is public domain. Bruno Ishiai (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "can not be imported" but I think you mean that you can't use it on this English Wikipedia when you try to put its file name into an article. That is because it is on the Ukrainian Wikipedia and images cannot be used from one Wikipedia to another like that. In order for an image to be used on multiple Wikipedias, they must be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. It is from there that they can be used across several Wikipedias.

And it likely can't be uploaded to Commons since it appears (I don't read Ukrainian) to be copyrighted. Images on Commons must be licensed under a free license.

Also, questions about how to edit Wikipedia go on the Help Desk. This page, the Reference Desk is for general knowledge questions about things outside of Wikipedia. Dismas|^(talk) 19:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem: "can't be uploaded to Commons since it appears to be copyrighted", the image is old, in other words, public domain. Thanks. Bruno Ishiai (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for assistance from someone at WikiProject Ukraine. Perhaps they can read the license info and help out. Dismas|^(talk) 19:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Ukrainian page, the image is copyrighted. It probably is not copyrighted under US law (where faithful photographic reproductions of public domain images are PD, too), but may be copyrighted under Ukrainian law. IIRC, commons requires images to be PD in the US (because "that's where the servers are") and in the country of origin. That means that the image probably can be uploaded to en.wikipedia, but not to commons. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, partly as a result of National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, the Wikimedia Foundation has made it clear [1] they believe we should ignore claims of copyright on such reproductions of PD 2D artwork in other countries. So even in the Wikimedia Commons such cases are an exception to the general requirement that content be of a suitable licence in the country of origin and the US, Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag.

So it may be okay to upload this image to the wikimedia commons.

That said, you will still have to comply with commons requirements. I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure some info on the sourcing of this image would be needed. It's all very well to say an image or artwork is old, but except in a case where the image can't be anything but old (e.g. a photo of a person who died in 1830) it's difficult to tell without knowing more about the image whether it's old or just recent contribution, perhaps designed to look like something from another time. Going by the Google translate, I think the source is listed as a book possibly [2]. Although from Google Image search, the image itself may have been taken from [3] (which seems to have the same dimensions etc, but maybe they took it from the Ukranian wiki or they both took it from another place) and similar images also appears in other places [4] [5] all of which suggest it may very well be an old image but you should ask someone more familiar perhaps at Commons:Village pump/Copyright for what they require. It may be simply affirmation from the book listed as a source that it's an old image.

You should however bear in mind that as in all cases, our concern relates to protecting wikimedia. If you live in a country where such reproductions may be protected or heck even if you live in the US but don't want to have to deal with possible legal cases elsewhere, if it's believed copyright over this reproduction may be claimed by someone who may wish to enforce their copyright, you may want to pass over dealing with this to someone else.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image is pd in the world. The image seems to be copied from this book. The book is copyrighted, but not the images of two-dimentional pd works. I once asked about it to an expert and she said "Even if the book was published yesterday the two-dimentional pd images in it are free to use". As for the painting, it is called "毛利元就座備図". Our version might be #17 on this list. Another version can be seen at here and the page says the painting belongs to this museum. If the image at uk:WP is copyrighted, I'd like to know who is the copyright holder. Oda Mari (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, what do you mean by ...which suggest it may very well be an old image...? I think those images were recently taken. But photographers of 2D pd like maps do not have copyright as there is no artistic originality can be found in two-dimensional photos. That is why pd 2D photos are free to use. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. In short, a simple reproductive photograph of a two-dimensional artwork does not give rise to a new copyright on the photograph. The owner of the kakemono is definitely [6] as the writer of the link #16 is Naoki Shibahara, a deputy director of the museum/毛利博物館館長代理柴原直樹. If it's difficult to upload the uk:WP image to Commons, you can upload the image from the link #16. You can have bigger image by clicking the image. Oda Mari (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I caused some confusion by failing to always clearly differentiate between the reproduction of the artwork and the artwork itself. What I meant is that without knowing more details such as origins of the artwork/kakemomo we can't know if it's really an old artwork or a new artwork that some people incorrectly identify as an old artwork. An expert artist could likely replicate the style of an old artwork, so you can't go by the fact it's an old painting style. Nor that it features historic stuff as there's a good chance anyone producing such historic looking artwork in the modern day would choose historic stuff to depict. The sheer number of different places this artwork appears and in different version suggests the artwork is really an old artwork but I wouldn't use such an argument on WP commons. The details you have provided are much better evidence.

I'm well aware of Bridgeman, I discussed it a fair bit a few days ago and it's also mentioned a fair bit in the articles and pages I linked to. However it's a US case and has limited applicability to other countries particularly those with substantially different copyright laws. As the articles and pages also say, it's entirely unclear whether the same precedent will hold in other countries as there have been few test cases (even in the US, despite the importance of Bridgeman it's actually only NY case and never went further). But there are definitely legal experts who claim there may be copyright in some other countries.

If an expert told you any PD 2D artwork reproduction is PD in the world without qualification, I wouldn't trust that expert since as the the pages and articles say, this is fairly disputed. As I already mentioned, this doesn't matter for commons because we take the stance it we don't care partially based on the foundations view that such an idea is fundamentally wrong. (But note that even the foundation don't say they believe there's no possibility of a copyright claim in any country under their current law simply that they think it's wrong. Not particularly relevant but I believe they are far less convinced of the possibility of a valid claim under UK law than some other commentators, which is one of the big area this has came up.)

Linked in commons page I liked above is Commons:Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs which gives a decent overview of the applicable laws (although I'm not sure if this is a scan or photo or what). It sounds like the situation is clear cut in Japan as well so maybe this is what you were referring to when you mentioned an expert (or perhaps US law). This would suggest the reproduction would be fine on commons even without the exception, although it's worth remembering there's still a possibility someone could claim copyright in a country where it may be valid.

As to who will be the copyright holder presuming their is a possible copyright claim in any country, it would of course be whoever made the reproduction or whoever commissioned it if it was a work for hire in the first instance (the copyright could of course later have been transferred to someone else). Remember that as with a photo of a PD 3D artwork, only the photo or reproduction itself is copyrighted. The artwork is still PD. Someone will always be free to make another reproduction assuming they can get the necessary access.

Of course because of the limited possibilities involved, it may in some cases be difficult to prove the origins of the reproduction if the person denies and leaves no evidence, compared to a 3D artwork. There are also other unanswered questions like what happens if someone paints a copy of the artwork from the copyrighted photo (but I'm not sure if this is solved for 3D artworks either) which will likely lead to fundamental questions depending on the answer (like what happens if someone substantially digitally processes the image). As I said in my first reply and repeated above none of this matters to commons but since you asked I thought I'd offer some clarification.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The artwork was painted in Edo period. It was written in the #16 link and the pdf link I provided above. If you are unsure, upload this image. It's another version of Mōri 座備図. Oda Mari (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the wiki-en, ok, but equal this page? Or other license? Bruno Ishiai (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this response here where it was originally. It is confusing to have it above because I did not see this response when reply due to an EC and more importantly I was clearly replying to StS not BI. But because of the indentation level of BI's post, it looks like I'm replying to them. This of course would also be the correct WP:indentation style even if I had seen BI's post. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minerals by ranked by value of what is produced annually

Out of curiosity this would be something interesting to see. I know iron is the most important mineral and about 300 billion dollars of it is produced every year. While cobalt is just about 4 billion dollars a year. But I can't find any sort of ranking on this anywhere. Anyone know of another resource? Gullabile (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, you seem to be talking about chemical elements, rather than minerals. Second, since most of the economic value is from items composed of multiple elements, how would you propose to split up the value among them ? By weight ?

If, on the other hand, you mean just to count those which are sold as pure, single elements, then maybe carbon would top the list, in the form of diamonds, or perhaps a precious metal like gold (although gold is often alloyed with other elements). StuRat (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've often seen the term minerals or mineral resources to mean the products of mining like iron, copper, gold, etc. I don't think there are methodology problems because customs keeps track of the type of minerals imported or exported. So the total value of iron ore produced in a year is known as is the number for other minerals but I just haven't seen a ranking of the top 20 or so minerals stacked up to each other. Gullabile (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Minerals" would include things like bauxite, which contains aluminum, but isn't just aluminum. StuRat (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, indeed. There's usually a decent amount of aluminium in there as well. Not to mention trace amounts of platinium, molybdenium, lantanium and tantalium. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bail in provisions for banks

Greetings: Could you provide a list of the countries which currently have enacted bail in provisions for their banks. I cannot locate this information in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wango89 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean bailouts ? StuRat (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. A bail-in is the financial restructuring of a distressed bank by mandatory conversion of bond issues to equity, essentially turning bond holders into shareholders - see this definition from the FT. The US has enacted bail-in provisions through the Dodd-Frank act. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]