Help desk
< October 23	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 25 >

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.

October 24[edit]

Need to rename a page[edit]

Hi I just made a Wikipedia page about a movie that was released recently and I need to change the name of the page. I tried to google the solution, but I don't have a "move" tab available when I'm in the editing screen. What do I do?

Thank you, Kara — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaraWickstrom (talk • contribs) 03:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to 33 & Beyond: The Royal Art of Freemasonry; but it may not survive, for all the reasons noted. What is your connection to "Johnny Royal" and/or Freemasonry? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have many friends that are in Freemasonry. Johnny Royal is one of those friends.

Photos I upload keep getting deleted[edit]

An editor deleted an image I uploaded and I am at a loss to understand the reason. A stern message states: "Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing." This would be quite upsetting to be blocked, after I keep trying unsuccessfully to upload the same image, because I have the subect's permission to use his image in the InfoBox and elsewhere, and the photographer's permission to use the image.

The photographer sent the email below to [email protected]

"I hereby affirm that I, (photographer's name is here), am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work attached to this eMail.

"I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.

"I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

"I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

"I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

"I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project."

(Photographer's name is here)

2017-09-13

The following text is placed in the Tag box at upload time:

Author: (photographer's name)

Source: (photographer's name)

URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: (filename)

Fair use rationale: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

{ { cc - by - sa - 4.0 } } (I added spaces so you can see the text, however there are no spaces when I add this)

I am at my wit's end, having watched hours of YouTube videos on how to upload the image, read pages and pages of instructions, and it's so complicated I would hugely appreciate it if someone could tell me in as few as possible reproducible steps how to get the image to stick, as there are going to be more images, and this process has taken an enormous amount of my time, and thus prevented me from completing the article.

Chrisdevelop (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is an incredibly minor part of an article. I would VERY STRONGLY advise you to let the photo slide, and instead concentrate on clearing out 90-96% of the present draft article, which is a giant pile of promotional piffle (to use a polite word), which appears to be a collaboration between his mother and his press agent (if they are not one and the same). An article in Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial, not fawningly laudatory. The present version, in addition to this problem, is horribly padded with trivia and scrapbook scrapings that I suspect nobody could possibly care about but the subject and the aforementioned mum/press-agent. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. "fawningly laudatory" - strong words! The subject's mother is deceased, and I don't believe he has a press agent, but point taken anyway. I did study many other Wikipedia articles to try and get the right level of detail, but it's obviously pointless to keep going if it's all going to get the shove. Can you please advise if there are offensive parts of the opening paragraph (aside from the family farm and school education stuff, which I can accept is of minimal interest and have accordingly deleted), and whether the list of accredited works would be likely to survive? Aside from "trivia", the body of the Bio and the list of works currently also includes links to articles elsewhere on Wikipedia, with links to verifiable primary sources. The Australia and Scotland segments are very much in draft form currently, as there are links to add, and following your advice, perhaps more to delete.

I've done some thinning out already, and will keep an eye out for your response after a bit of sleep!

Thanks Chrisdevelop (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of a biographical Wikipedia article should explain, briefly, why the subject is notable. In your sandbox article, it doesn't do that, it does however give his grandmother's maiden name. If you're ever going to get it accepted as an article, you're going to need to delete most of the current content. Maproom (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Maproom. I had delayed doing the intro paragraph until I'd completed all the manual labour of entering the text. But I have drafted one just now, and I'd appreciate your comments on whether this better addresses the notability criterion. I have also removed more of the superfluous information from the first paragraph of Early Life. Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisdevelop: I've no view on notability. The draft has 78 references, some of them including the first three misformatted. Which of them do you believe establish that he's notable? The draft is still much too long. No-one cares that he's descended from Leofric Earl of Mercia (I probably am too, statistically), and the claim is unreferenced. The entire "Scotland 2006 to present" is unreferenced. The lists that follow it should be severely trimmed. Maproom (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful, thank you Maproom (talk). I'll study Wikipedia formatting requirements more thoroughly to find out what's wrong with the references, by which I'm assuming you are alluding to the weblinks and links to other Wikipedia articles, rather than the (at present) 72 citations. There is more to my subject's notability than is presently in the article, and I base it on his being widely reported as a musician at a senior level on notable works, founder of a notable music school, and as an activist builder of movements. My subject's intimate connection to other notable subjects does not diminish my estimation that he himself is notable. I did read up on Wikipedia:Citation overkill as a possible contra-indicator to notability, and will bear that in mind when pruning my already substantial links and lists as you suggest. As a guide to notability, I looked at other subjects known to me, such as Julian Wagstaff, as well as all those linked to my subject, who are themselves notable, since they're referenced on Wikipedia. The reason that two thirds of the article (especially Scotland 2006 to present) is at present unreferenced is that I started out by copying the subject's own bio from his website, and started pruning from there. Following your suggestion, I added the introductory paragraphs with key highlights, and made the opening sentence introduce chief claims to notability. As I reconstructed the opening paragraphs, I became aware that this was creating duplication, and I will deal with this once the draft itself is complete. Leofric is a bit of a red herring, but that was only to connect the subject to Lady Godiva, which I thought fascinating. I'll delete Leofric, and leave Godiva for the time being, and obtain referencing to establish the connection. The article is very much a work in progress, so it'll be a while before I can see it as a whole, whereupon I'll get out the scissors. Chrisdevelop (talk)

references[edit]

Dear people, sometimes artists participate in groupshows, but there is no single site, where i can find all the participants (like the announcement of a gallery or a museum on a show) - but searching the internet i can well find participants as they name having taken part in the show on their website. Question is - should i give a reference then for every participant i found, it might look awkward if after every name there is a reference? --Gyanda (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gyanda. I'm not quite sure what you are asking about; but I think the answer is that if you can't find a reference for a fact, then don't put that fact in an article ( and while it is not required to provide the reference for every single fact, I can't see any good reason not to). But also not that an exhaustive list of every artist who contributed to a show is not necessarily encyclopaedic. Be guided by the reliable independent sources. What do the independent sources (reviews etc) say about the show? Did they write about a few of the artists? Then Wikipedia should record that those artists were in the show. Did all of them ignore other artists in their reviews? Then possibly Wikipedia need not mention those artists in respect of the show. It's always a judgment call, but not every verifiable fact about an event is necessarily encyclopaedic. --ColinFine (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your ideas on it. I'll keep that in mind! Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stefflon Don[edit]

I'm sure that this is a very common issue but it's not one that I've had experience of in my 10 or so years. Stefflon Don must have been non-notable at one point but clearly meets WP:NMUSICIAN now. A draft has been created (see Draft:Stefflon Don) but, sadly, the article has been salted and I'm not sure what process I need to go through to get it unsalted. Many thanks in advance. Spiderone 12:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SALT. I have unsalted it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't been submitted yet...Naraht (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actual "true" size of Wikipedia including Edit History -- in PETABYTES or EXABYTES disk space[edit]

I am high school student and have a class project to give facts and figures about Wikipedia. I already know the size of Wikipedia in terms of the number of articles. But this not good enough ...

I need to know how big Wikipedia is, including all past edits (that includes edit history, updates, even vandalism). For example, I need to approximate the sum of all bytes of edit history of all articles. I know this is has to be more than 999 terabytes of data; I assume it is in the PETABYTEs or EXABYTEs of disk space. I think WP uses MySQL to store somethings too, so I want this to be factored in too. Maybe you use ZIP to archive edit history, I don't mind if you provide the sum of ZIP byte size, if that is easier. I don't need all languages. Just en.wiki is fine.

--Sierra havana india tango (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not quite as large as some people imagine. See Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia For more information but my quick scan suggests that it's 100 GB compressed or 10 TB uncompressed. That's a little bit dated.

You did ask about English Wikipedia. That's actually tiny relative to Commons where images and video take up a lot more room. That added up to 23 TB in 2014 so is substantially more than that now.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hello, Sierra havana india tango. Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia#Size_of_the_English_Wikipedia_database says As of June 2015, the dump of all pages with complete edit history in XML format at enwiki dump progress on 20150602 is about 100 GB compressed using 7-Zip, and 10 TB uncompressed. Keep in mind that this does not take into account images (it does take into account the links to the images, but those are a few dozens of characters, many less bytes than the image itself).

If you know the correct answer must be over a petabyte, I would be interested to know how. From [1] and [2], I estimate that the above 10TB would represent approximately 8.6 millions books. Now, an average length of edit volume per user account does not mean much because the distribution is extremely skewed, but looking at the numbers at Wikipedia:Wikipedians#Number_of_editors I get the feeling these numbers are rather high than low (though one must take into account bots and unregistered editors).

On a side note, if you intend to stay long here, I advise you to give a look at Wikipedia:Username_policy#Disruptive_or_offensive_usernames - not everyone is ignorant of the radio alphabet. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that according to the article on the radio alphabet that Sierra and Havana were never used in the same alphabet at the same time, I'm not sure that the name qualifies as a problem. sierra *hotel* india tango or santiago havana italia tripoli would be, but he didn't choose one of them.Naraht (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page unreviewed[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpita_Mukherjee_(Singer) this article is patrolled and reviewed, now showing unreviewed. Please help.

Hmm. It looks like Atlantic306 reviewed it and then immediately unreviewed it also. Maybe they can give us more insight. Perhaps a misclick? GMG ^talk 16:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have had another look and raised an issue on the editor's talkpage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

corrected the problem. Atlantic306,please check it.

What to do when somebody is using a talk page as advertisement[edit]

Somebody threw up a self-advert on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Entrepreneurship . Is the best thing to just simply delete their comment and replace it with "wikipedia is not..." ?

Popcrate (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Popcrate. The short answer is yes, which is exactly what I've taken the liberty of doing. Although it's doubtful they'll actually receive the warning after so long, I have gone ahead and left one anyway just in case. Thanks for spotting it. GMG ^talk 19:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]