Help desk
< July 14	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 16 >

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.

July 15[edit]

Lists in the lead[edit]

As far as I know, lists are to be avoided in the lead; is this correct? See this disagreement Wolfdog and I are having on Nondualism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan MOS:LEAD suggests that the lead section should be no more than about four paragraphs, as an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. In its present state, I don't see how you can spare any of the lead for the bulleted list that's currently there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are compelling reasons why the article states that it is a fuzzy concept.... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Vinamilk (2023).png[edit]

Hello everyone. I'm having a problem with the file "File:Logo Vinamilk (2023).png", can you help me fix the copyright so that the file can't be deleted? Please help me!. DANGGIAO ^{No risk, no life. No malice, no fear} 07:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you expect anyone here to "fix the copyright"? We cannot host copyrighted images, so it will shortly be deleted. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it copyrightable, Shantavira? It doesn't obviously reach the (US) threshold of originality; although I know even less (indeed, nothing) about Vietnamese IP law, and imaginably it's copyrightable there. -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia host lots of copyrighted content (some might say too much) as non-free content; so, We cannot host copyrighted images isn't really a correct statement. Copyright-related matters can be "fixed" if doing so can be done in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but there has to be a valid reason for doing so. File:Logo Vinamilk (2023).png is for one thing uploaded to Commons, which means it's going to need to be resolved over at Commons. The file is being discussed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Vinamilk (2023).png and those who want to can comment on it there. The problem with the file is that it was uploaded under a Creative Commons license which can't be verified; however, as Hoary points out above, the file is most certainly too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law's threshold of originality, but Commons also requires it also be too simple for copyright protection in its country of first publication as well as the US. That's a potential problem because it will also need to be shown that the file is also too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under Vietnamese copyright law, but threshold of originality Vietnamese copyright law follows is unclear. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shantavira I mean the downloader chose the wrong copyright and if it is wrong then hopefully someone knowledgeable can correct the copyright in the article. DANGGIAO ^{No risk, no life. No malice, no fear} 09:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This file is of type typeface. And the typeface is completely copyright-free. You can view the source of that file, the owner does not hold the copyright. The file should not be deleted quickly because its owner does not claim any copyright and because it is a typeface and font file that is freely used. DANGGIAO ^{No risk, no life. No malice, no fear} 09:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DANG GIAO: There's no point in making that argument here because the file wasn't uploaded to Wikipedia and whether it ends up deleted isn't going to be decided here on Wikipedia. You're going to need to make that argument in the Commons discussion linked to above (which you already seem to have done), but you're also going to need to remember that the copyright laws of each country aren't necessarily the same. In some cases, they can be quite different. So, just because this logo wouldn't be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, it could possibly be eligible for copyright protection under Vietnamese copyright law, and that's likely going to be what determines whether Commons ends up keeping the file. Any information you can find out about Vietnamese copyright law (particularly from official government sources or court cases) that shows that simply fonts aren't eligible for copyright protection will make it much easier for a Commons administrator to close the discussion as "Keep". Commons tends to err on the side of caution as explained in c:COM:PCP and files are often deleted just to play it safe when their copyright status is unclear. Finally, even though Commons is a multi-lingual project and people often post comments in languages other than English, you're probably going find the Commons discussion will be easier for others to follow if you try to post in English. I'm not sure how many Commons administrators understand Vietnamese, but those that don't might decide to pass on trying to close the discussion. So, you might find the discussion will be closed more quickly if you and the other person who's commented so far try to use more English. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Marchjuly. I would very much welcome if you became a part of the discussion of the above file as the members in that discussion are from Vietnam. So I think if you join the discussion it will become more diverse.

I can summarize that User:Sửa tào lao là giỏi is trying to prove that the use of typeface files is as free in Vietnam as it is in the United States. And I think so too, as proof that such files in Vietnam when uploaded are in the public domain. I'm not sure if this is an exception or not?.

DANGGIAO ^{No risk, no life. No malice, no fear} 10:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Consensus[edit]

I remember some users are adding content without prior consensus. How could I add one before adding specific content? 2607:FEA8:761F:4600:151A:F3D3:68AE:2879 (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you add content to an article, you are essentially making a proposal, and others may choose to disagree: see WP:BOLD. However, if you feel that a particular addition would benefit by prior discussion, then make your proposal on the article's talk page before adding it to the article. If you are thinking about a new article instead of changes to an existing article, then create your article as a draft: see WP:YFA. The review process there acts to provide at least a first level of consensus in addition to its other functions. -Arch dude (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I report griefing[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk&action=history

I removed a p*rnographic zoophile image here 109.255.76.119 (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to censor the word pornographic; but you need to address issues on Commons, on Commons.

331dot (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation[edit]

A couple days ago I WP:SPLIT content for Hardcore History out of Dan Carlin. Afterward I randomly decided to run a quick copyvio detector and found that there is a 74% match with Dan Carlin's website, a 66% match with Apple Podcasts, and a 47% match with Google Podcasts. It appears that editors have been copying and pasting episode descriptions directly from the website or the syndicating platforms that host the podcast. Descriptions have been copied and pasted into the episode table as far back as November 2008 (The same editor added the first 24 episodes by November 21, 2008). Another editor added more episodes and their descriptions in 2010, in 2011, and again in 2013. Episodes and their copy-pasted descriptions have also been added by various IP editors over the years.

I know that generally when content is copied and pasted it's considered a copyright violation and the edit history ends up being redacted. However, I've never come across a copyright violation that goes back 15 years and now exists across multiple articles because I split it into another article. Should 15 years of edit history be redacted across both articles? Is there a better way to handle this? Is it not a big deal because it's just the episode descriptions? Any assistance would be appreciated. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks causing unwanted Series Infoboxes to appear[edit]

Hello, I just added mention of Plato and a few articles related to him to the main philosophy article. This auto-populated the page with two identical infoboxes claiming that the article is now part of a series on Platonism. How do I get rid of these? In no way do they belong on this page.

Link: Philosophy#General_conception.

Many thanks for your assistance!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They have disappeared. If was someone here who did that, many thanks to you! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PatrickJWelsh: The template name in {{sfn|Plato|...}} was missing.[1] There happens to be a template redirect called {{Plato}} so that was used instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trip[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The OP has been indefinitely blocked so there's really no point in keeping this discussion going. Any further advice can be given to the OP on their user talk page, but it's probably best that they focus on getting unblocked first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your administrators are power tripping. Removing content without good reason. I expect no better assistance here. Surprise me. But this is my attempt at recourse before emailing Jimmy Wales. Already have contacted Larry Sanger. TrueFan2000 (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grievances about admins or any user behavior should be made at WP:ANI. Mr. Wales has given up his advanced permissions. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. I'm sure Mr. Wales still has abundant sway. Whether or not he would listen or do anything is another question entirely. TrueFan2000 (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, if you keep making edits like this, not only are the two persons you mentioned in your OP going to most likely be unwilling to help you (even if they could), but you're also unlikely going to find a sympathetic ear at WP:ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That edit attempt was in response to that person deleting my user page without cause, and then not responding to my objection about it. And automated systems blocked the actual edit. Maybe instead of defending bad behavior, don't? I understand the concept of a boomerang. In some places it is called karma. And time does it's own work. TrueFan2000 (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that edit did go through. The edit that was blocked was on the Meta Wiki for the same user. If the user tends to be busy in real life, no problem, but don't destroy other peoples work, especially of a new user who barely knows how anything works. TrueFan2000 (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe it went through and then reverted. I have no idea. Confusing interface and mechanics for me. TrueFan2000 (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand being upset, but reacting like that isn't going to help. If you just left the message on the talk page, you probably would've gotten a response – they may not have watchlisted your user talk page, or they may not use the watchlist at all (I was that way for a while), and there's no other good way to know you got a response on your user talk page unless you ping them so they get a notification. A message on their talk page, on the other hand, leaves a notification automatically, without anything further having to be done.

As for the deletion itself? I don't know what the actual page looked like. Was it a similar list to your current user page (which I'd say is fine, as a list of useful links)? It was nominated for deletion as unambiguous advertising or promotion, before actually being deleted by an administrator under NOTWEBHOST, which states not to use Wikipedia as a web host. You could always go to the deleting administrator, Fastily, and ask them to restore the page or why it was deleted. I'd guess the main differences between your page and User:Jimbo Wales are that your page had little to no relevant information to Wikipedia itself, and any information that was relevant would have been unlabeled.

"User pages are mainly for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts (see: Sandboxes), and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal content." This is the definition from Wikipedia:User pages on what user pages should be used for. Jimbo's page satisfies this (limited autobiographical/personal content, some thoughts on how Wikipedia works (generally also allowed, I'd say meta-commentary on Wikipedia is also fine), along with a notice that anyone (autoconfirmed) can edit his user page, and info for contacting him under interpersonal discussion). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Duchy of Lancaster or Royal Duchies[edit]

The Duchy of Lancaster is not in 'escheat' nor is it 'bona vacantia'. I am a rightful claimant to the Duchy of Lancaster. Charles Mountbatten is not the possessor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Duchy of Lancaster or Royal Duchies are 'free-hold' and belong to the descendants of the Kings that possessed them before Elizabeth II who was de facto Queen and not of the royal descent that had rights to the Duchies. I made my changes and they were removed. This is a legal matter, and it is not correct that Wikipedia has stated in their article the condition of the 'free-hold' state of this Duchy, then refused to understand the rightful possessors of the Duchy, which is not Charles Mountbatten or any of the Mountbatten's. There are living descendants of these Duchies who have expected the American governing body and the people such as Nicola Sturgeon who proclaimed Elizabeth II to be a World War II war criminal that they would follow through removing Elizabeth II from succession. Also, Elizabeth II and Philip did not receive permission for their marriage, therefore, since their was a hierarchical right to the 'Crown's of Great Britain' and the 'Crown of Scotland' married when Elizabeth II was two years old, Elizabeth II was required to get permission to marry from them, she did not. Her children are not legitimate. This is understood in the public, no one speaks about it. 75.134.148.28 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the forum for you to pursue your claims to a title. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If no one speaks about it as you claim above, then Wikipedia is also not going to be able to speak about it per Wikipedia:Verifiability. I also caution you to be very carefully about anything you post on Wikipedia which might be perceived as a threat of legal action of some type, or which might be considered defamatory about any particular individual. Wikipedia is not the place for you to try and set the record straight; moreover, your time at Wikipedia will likely end up being quite short if you deviate too far from what is generally considered to be acceptable Wikipedia user behavior. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]