Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 December 23

= December 23 =

Help with scripts
I am trying to set up a user script to help me fix some errors in articles. I do not understand how this works, and it isn't working for me. How do I get the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ohconfucius/script/formatgeneral script to work? I entered it into my User:Tess Hawk/common.js, but it still does not do anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tess Hawk (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Tess Hawk: What happens when you try what it says in the documentation here (what do you see)? The documentation also says to refresh per the instructions at the top of User:Tess Hawk/common.js. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I did this, refreshed. Nothing happens. I just see it written out on the script page. No access to the script. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tess Hawk (talk • contribs) 03:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Tess Hawk: Did you see the "Actions" section in the first link of my previous post? By "edit mode" it means that you have clicked an edit button to edit a page. It says to look for General formatting in the toolbox ("tools") shown on the left-hand side of each page. Obviously you would need a browser with scripting enabled, but the problem may simply be that you need to click "General formatting". If there is a problem, please briefly describe what you see. Also, please sign your comments by adding a space then four tilde characters to the end of the last line of your comment (see WP:TP). Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I do see the 'general formatting', but clicking it does nothing. Tess Hawk (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not working for me either. I just installed it and have tried it on two different browsers. Chrome, which is my default browser and Firefox which I generally don't use for WP. So, no caching issues on FF for sure. I'm seeing the same thing you are. When I click on the words "General formatting", nothing happens. Dismas |(talk) 03:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So, you could try asking the author. Dismas |(talk) 03:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I have never used the script so I'm not able to say anything useful. However, the documentation says clicking general formatting executes the script. Perhaps when you edited a page and clicked, the script did run but found no "general formatting" was needed, and so did nothing? Someone with more experience may see this and post more later. You could try editing Naegleria fowleri and clicking. I picked that page because it has an incorrect spelling and formatting of degrees Celsius. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, all. I do not know why, but the script has started to work. There are too many articles that need sweeping! Tess Hawk (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please carefully check the diff of the edit made by the script before saving! Scripts like that are just simple tools that can sometimes do bad things, and the person using it needs to remain alert. Also, please fix that article I linked to. Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hiring a Wikipedian
With all due respect to Wikipedia's instructions is it possible to hire an "Wikipedian" and make some suggestions/corrections. Thanks, Mike Flint — Preceding unsigned comment added by MFlint007 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you just ask them kindly right here, they might do it for FREE. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 09:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians who frequent here probably don't want a reputation for paid editing, which is frowned on. —teb728 t c 09:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * as above, how about you let us know your suggestions/corrections and I'm certain one of these lovely bunch will help you out for free :) -- samtar whisper 10:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The original poster hasn't made any other edits than this question in several months, so that the question about what article is being discussed is very relevant. Sometimes inexperienced editors think in good faith that much of the work in Wikipedia is done by paid editors.  None of the constructive work in Wikipedia is done by paid editors.  Paid editors are one of our biggest problems.  Ask for volunteer help.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

== U-85   specifically, reference to the enigma machine : "The Enigma machine was recovered from the wreck by private divers (Jim Bunch, Roger & Rich Hunting) and in 2003 the German government agreed to allow the machine to be displayed at the Graveyard of  ==

"The Enigma machine was recovered from the wreck by private divers (Jim Bunch, Roger & Rich Hunting) and in 2003 the German government agreed to allow the machine to be displayed at the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum, in Hatteras, North Carolina.[7]" You cite Mr, Hadley at the Naval Historical center. I wish to point out that the German Government did not "...allow the machine to be displayed..." Through an act of Parliament, the German government donated the Enigma Machine to the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum and the artifact belongs to the state of North Carolina. The Museum has documentation to this effect.

Joseph K. Schwarzer, II Director North Carolina Maritime Museums — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.135.144 (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Joseph. It would have been helpful if you had indicated which of our five million articles you were referring to: I presume it is German submarine U-85 (1941). The source referenced there (US Navy, I believe: it is no longer on-line, but I found it in the Wayback machine at https://web.archive.org/web/20120229165806/http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=6660 ) says quite clearly "While keeping title to the machine, the German government will allow it to be on indefinite exhibit at the Atlantic Graveyard Museum, in Hatteras, N.C.". If that is not the case, or no longer the case, please provide a published source for the correction (unpublished documents are never acceptable as sources in Wikipedia), and the article can be corrected. --ColinFine (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Trying to be more helpful: if the information is already posted at a webpage of the North Carolina Maritime Museums, or if Joseph K. Schwarzer could arrange for it be posted (at least for a while, so that it will become permanently documented in the WayBack machine), that will suffice as a source, right?  I personally believe so.  We can use official webpages of organizations as sources of non-controversial information about the organizations, unless there is some reason to question its accuracy (which would be no problem here).  Looking at http://ncmaritimemuseums.com/graveyard-of-the-atlantic/, I don't see the info mentioned there.  Oh, there is a "Pressroom" at http://ncmaritimemuseums.com/museums-about/press-room/ , which reminds me:  "publishing" can be by a press release.  If the info was covered in a previous press release, then cite that specifically.  Or put it into a new press release just to get this information out in citable form.  (, isn't what I am saying all correct?  I believe it is.)  Hope this helps!  sincerely, -- do  ncr  am  15:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. By the way, "publishing" by making a new press release does make the information more credible than if it is only stated by the museums director here, even if it is the same person saying exactly the same thing.  Because it is in a press release of the organization, it is verified that it is information from the museum (no hoaxing going on).  Because it is in an official press release, it is reasonable for us all to believe that the information provider has taken more care to ensure it is entirely accurate and complete and not misleading in any way, because they realize they are putting the organization's name and credibility behind it.  And if it is available as a press release at the organization at least for some period, we can all reasonably expect that any slight misstatements would be corrected:  any staffperson or board member or other associated person who happened to know the facts differently probably would see the information and probably would speak up, and probably the information would be corrected promptly.  For example if I had any reason to suspect there was any potential disagreement between the museums and the German government about the ownership, I would be happier to know that the organization was on the line in terms of publicly asserting their ownership, while I could have a nagging doubt about its accuracy if I only had heard it privately from the director.  So for Wikipedia editors to say "we want to see this in a publication" is reasonable, it is not that we doubt you, it really does improve the quality of verification of the information. -- do  ncr  am  15:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, can you point us to the German documentation of their Act of Parliament?   D b f i r s   19:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Cropping images using code
Hi

Is it possible to crop images without having to have a border (when using Template:Annotated image) or uploading cropped version of files to Commons?

Many thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Uploading cropped images to Commons probably isn't a good idea (unless there's a copyright issue) – why not upload the whole image, and let editors use whatever parts they want? Cropping images should not introduce a border. For an example of how to use a cropped image in an article, see e.g. Nusrat Faria Mazhar. Maproom (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Kharosthi
I was reading the article on Kharosthi, and in the section Kharosthi, there is a table. In the table, the Kharosthi script characters appear as boxes. I asked User:Florian Blaschke if he knew how to get the characters, and he provided a link. (See User talk:Florian Blaschke.) I also read Help desk/Archives/2012 October 29, which seemed to be about a similar problem, but I don't completely understand it. Any help would be appreciated. Corinne (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is often a problem that people run into with lesser known alphabets. In order for the characters to display, your computer needs a font that has those letters in the fonts that are on your system. By showing you boxes, your browser is basically saying "I know there are supposed to be letters here but I don't have any font that knows what those letters should look like. So, here's a box." So, you need to download and install a font with those characters in it. I saw where you said you downloaded a font but I didn't see any mention of you installing it. Finding a font for the more obscure alphabets of the world can be tricky.
 * And if you're wondering, no, I can't see the letters in that table either. Dismas |(talk) 18:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see the characters either. The archive link should be Help desk/Archives/2012 October 9. Rare fonts is a general computer problem and not Wikipedia specific so you could try posting your browser version and operating system at Reference desk/Computing. If you just want to see a few characters once then consider http://r12a.github.io/apps/conversion/. It can display characters as images with no need for font support in your browser. Copy-paste the text with boxes to the "Characters" field and click "View in Uniview". For Kharosthi with spaces removed and Latin letters kept for comparison it gives . PrimeHunter (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you both, Dismas and PrimeHunter for your thoughts and the links. When I looked again at the article, I saw another fairly large table at the end of the article. That table is also full of little boxes, but at the top of the table is a link to a PDF. When I clicked on that, I found that more useful than the other links. I had to zoom in to see the alphabet and equivalents clearly, but that's really all I wanted to see. Thanks again. Corinne (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Plot summaries and copyright
I'm looking for a page (probably in WP: or HELP:) that talked about restrictions on the length of plot summaries in Wikipedia. The idea was that, even if a summary was totally paraphrased from the original work, it could by itself be a copyright violation. This was because its mere publication in WP could be commercially detrimental to the original author; that is, by reading the summary, certain people would not bother to pay to see the book or film or play or whatever. I seem to remember something about keeping plot summaries under 200 to 300 words. Apparently, many paid book and film critics follow that rule. You can't take, say, The Da Vinci Code, paraphrase it and sell it as your own.

Can anybody help? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi MOS:PLOT says "The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections. Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary." It also suggests 400-700 words for film plot summaries. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * RoyGoldsmith, your concern that Wikipedia provision of plot info is "worse" seems valid to me for two reasons:
 * Under the 4th criteria of Fair use, Fair use, the fact that our usage may detract from the value of the copyrighted materials matters. So Wikipedia plot summaries for a movie of a given size could be a violation (it could push over some vague legal limit, increasing likelihood that a legal case against us would win, and increasing likelihood that reasonable people will judge that we are morally wrong) where the same length of Wikipedia summarizing of an instructional video would not be a violation.  Our  summaries of plots should be shorter than our summaries of other material.
 * And, further your allusion to general practice (what paid book and film critics do) matters too. See Fair use:  if Wikipedia gives out more plot summary material than others do, that is a legitimate factor raising concern.
 * By both arguments, litigation against Wikipedia would be more likely to win, and ethically Wikipedia is morally "wronger", if we use relatively large amounts of plot summary material. Can a size limit in words be determined?  As a practical matter for our self-regulating, it may be convenient to make up some number of words, for general guidance about plot summaries.  But also the limit should vary on a case-by-case basis:  if most/all movie reviewers are avoiding disclosure of some key plot point in a particular film, then we should avoid that too, IMO. -- do  ncr  am  03:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Worth noting also that plot summaries can generally be written without copying from someone else. At least from looking at the Featured Article process, it seems like writing a summary based on what you've read in the work, so as long as you stick to not interpreting anything from the work - see MOS:PLOT as cited before and WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY for the relevant policies.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your arguments do not make sense: that because something is commercially detrimental to the author does not mean that it is a copyright violation. After all a lot of critics is detrimental to the commercial interests of authors. In addition, the copyright protect only original expression of ideas not ideas themselve. Ruslik_ Zero 15:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)