Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 February 11

= February 11 =

Kevin Durant (NBA Player)
Hello, I am from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and would like to notify the Wikipedia team of an error. I love Wikipedia and use it everyday for all sorts of things. However I have recently noticed that the Wikipedia page for the NBA player Kevin Durant is wrong, in the (Quick Facts Portion) of the page. The error says that he is #35 for the Charlotte Hornets, and that is not accurate. Kevin Durant is #35 for the Oklahoma City Thunder NBA team. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and thank you for everything that is Wikipedia. It's the best!!! 👍🏻🏀🏀🏀👍🏻 Sincerely, Sean M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:B600:800:B1CE:BCE5:8DF8:9054 (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the report. The article had been vandalized. It has been fixed with this edit by . In the future you can fis the vandalism yourself or if you find several edits like this by the same person you can report them to WP:AIV MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Are RfCs binding?
This is implied at WP:RfC, but not explicitly stated. If they are, is there some point at which they become outdated or invalid? For example, if the information used in the discussion is later found to be incorrect or incomplete, or if the text in the article that is at issue fundamentally changes?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There are some answers to your question here Consensus. From my own observations I can say that - unless dramatic evidence is discovered - it is bad form to open a new RFC within hours or days of a previous one being closed. Others may have more info that I have left out to share with you. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:MarnetteD. RFCs generally are considered binding.  It is a matter of common sense how long the RFC is binding, that is, when it can reasonably be asked whether consensus has changed.  RFCs are binding in the sense that editing contrary to an issue that was resolved by an RFC is considered to be editing against consensus, which is a form of disruptive editing and may result in a block.  Is there a specific RFC about which you have a question?  Of all of the processes for content dispute resolution, RFC is the only one that is considered binding and non-voluntary.  Third opinion, the dispute resolution noticeboard, and formal mediation are voluntary.  Sometimes one of those processes may be followed by an RFC in order to establish binding consensus for a period of time.  Is there a specific RFC about which you have a question?  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was prompted by a rather bizarre argument that we have been having about the article on Harold Holt, an Australian prime minister who disappeared in the surf in 1967, but I wanted to clarify the situation in general because the policy pages don't give a clear-cut answer. In that case, the RfC was somewhat marred by the fact that the text at issue contained a long-running hoax and one of the key sources was accidentally misquoted. Not to mention that all but one of the participants disagreed with the consensus. I was mulling over what to do to resolve the issue (if anything) and therefore I wanted to know where we stand in relation to Wikipedia policy.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case, the real issue appears to be that you question the closure, not that you think that information has changed. You can ask to have the closure overturned at WP:AN (not WP:ANI).  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there's a number of issues. I was accused of violating the RfC when I edited the text to remove the hoax. (If I did, it was unintentional.) But I think the presence of the hoax material fundamentally affected the context of the text. It is now clear that Marjorie Gillespie (his lover) was the main witness to Holt's disappearance, rather than just someone who happened to be on the beach (along with a list of "friends" who have turned out to be bogus). The closer suggested "omitting it altogether". This would mean either we didn't mention the main witness, or that we pretended she was a bystander. That seems unworkable. Fundamentally, however, no one seems to disagree with the main thrust of the closure, which is that we stick to what the sources say. I guess, with regard to the hypothetical issue, if all editors agreed that the issue had fundamentally changed, then we could move on from the RfC by mutual agreement. In the Holt case, that is far from the case. As I said, I wanted to clarify what the policy is. Perhaps it should be made clearer at WP:RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't researched the disappearance of Harold Holt enough to know whether there was a hoax. I know that his disappearance is still considered a mystery.  If any of the information that has been published was a hoax, then I can still see that a request for Closure Review is better than a new RFC, in view of how recent the RFC was.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The hoax was vandalism of the Wikipedia page, since corrected. However, this is a moot point, as a discussion has already been started at WP:ANI without my knowledge. Thanks for your time.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Village of Kaslo - photo
The photo attached to the article on the Village of Kaslo is dated 1946. In it, the SS Moyie is clearly seen in dry dock, much as it is today. However, further down in the article it is noted that the SS Moyie plied the waters of Kootenay Lake until 1958. A similar article devoted to the SS Moyie confirms this. Therefore, the date on the photo must be in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:76B4:C900:7083:779B:45F7:662E (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This would be considered original research, but if you can provide us with a reliable source for your information, we can change it.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  23:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Who are the specific editors watching a particular Wikipedia article page?
On the statistics page for an article, it states the number of individual "watchers" for that article. Is it possible to see who the actual watchers are? Or are we just privy to see the number without the identities? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, watchlists are private; see Help:Watchlist. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Why does it state a specific number on some articles?  And, on others, it generically states "less than 30 watchers" (or whatever the cutoff number is)?  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here it says that the "less than 30" feature is to stop vandals targeting pages that have no watchers; the software only shows the true figure to admins. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I never thought of that.  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Are there any statistics to identify the rank or popularity of a Wikipedia article?
On the statistics page for an article (or, anywhere, for that matter), is it possible to see the "rank" (or some other metric of relative popularity/usefulness) for an article? When I look at the statistics page for an article, I can see how many views it had had in the past X number of days. But can I see something like "this article is ranked number 763 of all Wikipedia articles"? Or something similar? Something that indicates its relative popularity/usefulness/attraction, relative to other articles. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It may not be quite what you're looking for, but if you take a look at the various options at Statistics then it may help.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will check it out.  For what it's worth, I think that every article should have some statistic associated with it.  To indicate its relative usefulness or popularity, relative to the other articles.  I think that would be helpful.  How would I propose something like this?  And where?   Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Popularity does not equate to usefulness. The software tracks views, # of edits etc but usefulness is subjective. Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you proposed this, I would strongly oppose it, . In my view anything that in the least suggests there might be some sort of competition (especially a popularity contest) between articles would encourage thinking and possibly behaviour that is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, brother. Everyone calm down.  I guess one has to "guard" his exact words when speaking here.  Some metric that measures how much people use each article.  There.  Is that more "pc"?  Also, I am quite sure there are already "Top Ten" types of lists out there.  I just saw one.  And I am reminded of them, every so often.  Do you oppose those, also?  There are many at this link, provided above: Statistics.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There was this for a while, Article Feedback Tool. -- GB fan 18:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Page views is a quantitative measure and is fine. Already the Good Article quest causes nonsense building out articles with excessive minitia detail. Legacypac (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, but ... page views by itself is a meaningless number without any context. Some article gets, let's say, 38,000 page views per month.  Is that a lot?  A little?  Average?  Who knows?  There is no context whatsoever. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in Top_25_Report, which is available for every week.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  02:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, I know that there are lists for the "top top top" articles (the Top 10 or Top 25, etc.).  I'd like to see some metric that gauges readership and usage of the other 5 million articles.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, I know it's not what you asked for: the top 5,000 most viewed over the past week are listed at User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages. One thing I would like to clarify in your request: would you be more interested in the total views the article has received ever, the views in the most recent week/month, or the average per week/month since it was written?--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks.  By focusing on the "Top Ten" or "Top 5,000" (or whatever number), you are missing my point.  I want a sense of the usability, popularity, attractiveness, and usefulness of an "average, regular, everyday" article.  Not the Top Ten stuff.  Obviously, some article like "Donald Trump" or "ISIS" is going to get a lot of page views.  But, let's say that I (or anyone) create an article.  It would be nice to know if people are referring to that article and if it's good/useful.  If I see that "my" article gets 38,000 views per day, I have no context for that number (38,000 views).  Is that a lot?  A little?  Above average?  Below average?  Just about average?  Yeah, I know it's probably not "Top Ten" league material.  But I'd like more info than simply "it's not in the Top Ten".  If that makes sense?  (And I am simply using the number 38,000 as a hypothetical example.)  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Need to create gorgons head story in Hindi
Hi Wikipedia Team,

Please help to create the story of Gorgons Head in Hinidi or Marathi Language.

Regards, Hanumant Pawar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.16.177.52 (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Translate us explains the basic methods, but you might want to ask for help at the Hindi and Marathi help desks, rather than the English help-desk, to see if anyone there is willing to help. - Arjayay (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Cherno Barra Touray
Hi, I only found a few lines about Cherno Barra Touray from Gambia. I know he has a new job. Nothing about his personal life. What role in played in Gambia War. The information had to be changed to english. How do I ask for help to get more info. about this person that was a football star in his country, saw war, and has had many job in the Government. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E7D2:6D00:4CD6:C9F:C027:D91C (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! It looks like German Wikipedia has an article about Touray, so you could try translating that article. Alternatively, if you can find reliable, independent sources about him, you could start an article yourself. Check out Your first article for advice on how to go about doing that. —me_and 12:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Help Desk!

 * I have copied this barnstar to this page's talk page, WT:HD. Since I didn't give it a section heading, I assume it will never be archived and will remain on that page indefinitely. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is very considerate of you :) Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Laird
Ref 14 is not right here - please get the name of the publisher. Thanks 58.108.249.112 (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

✅ Eagleash (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Protest
How do I protest racist and incorrect information on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atonn01 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Without reference to a specific article and therefore in general terms; if you find something that you are certain is incorrect then you can edit the article concerned, yourself. You will have to cite appropriate sources to verify any information you add or change. If you have concerns about a specific biographical page relating to a living person you can raise them here. In other circumstances, issues should be raised on the talk-page of an article. Please sign your posts on any talk-page by typing four tildes ( ~ ). Thanks Eagleash (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As Eagleash said, without knowing specifically which article you're talking about or what concerns you have, it's a bit hard to answer your question. That said, often people who come here saying "Why does article X say Y?" have seen an example of WP:VANDALISM in an article. Vandalism does happen but we make efforts to fix it as quickly as possible. But again, if we don't know what article you're referring to, it's hard to say if what you saw actually was vandalism. Dismas |(talk) 19:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I suspect that this is about White pride - we have seen a rash of emails about it at OTRS.--ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think Ukexpat may well be right; I have seen some posts elsewhere about that page. Eagleash (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What is OTRS? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Response Team Eagleash (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Posting photos for people who can't post photos
Hello,

I am at my wits end, sort of, since I have been on here since 2002 an used to edit things more than I do now, and part of this is because it has become a bureaucratic nightmare. For instance I have, over the years, worked on articles and uploaded pictures for people / on behalf of people who were busy or who did not know how to use a computer or the facebook. They would send me pictures or I would scan pictures for them and then upload with their permission and they would have me list it as the sort of picture that anyone could use as long as they didn't use it for commercial reasons. There were fewer choices back in the day for these copyright sorts of things, but I think it was just gnu creative commons open source free use sort of permissions but since I am not a intellectual property attorney or a pedant I don't know. Anyway, fast forward a few years and I now constantly get these notes about pictures saying that I do not have the right to upload them and they will need to take them off the article. This has happened with pictures I added to the Seth Shostak page and the Sonya Rapoport page, among others. It is very frustrating to try to help someone and to add to the wiki only to have someone say that because the person didn't actually upload it themselves it doesn't count. Yet I see endless pictures on here that I doubt were uploaded by the actual person holding the camera or making the artwork. So what am I doing wrong?  S a u d a d e 7  22:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Greetings, . I'll admit that I am probably partly at fault for this sort of thing. Anyhow, the issue with uploading someone else's work is that it means that uploader cannot easily explain the copyright status, so we need either OTRS or some other permission proof for it to be acceptable under our stringent copyright policies.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks What is OTRS? Does the person need to sign something? What if one of the people [Sonya Rapoport] has since died? Does that mean that all her pictures need to be taken down? (Honestly the problem is also that the rules change so much that what was okay at some point not requires more and more work, and I actually have a life and cannot manage things endlessly. It sort of makes editing the wikipedia sort of pointless.  S a u d a d e 7   22:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I sympathise with Saudade7. I have even had problems when I take an image from Commons, make changes to it as requested at the Graphics Lab, and upload it to Commons as a new image, stating exactly where I found it; and it gets deleted because I have not supplied the right copyright information. I have now stopped taking requests from the Graphics Lab unless the image to be changed is already public domain. But I don't think this is the right place to complain, the problem is at Commons. Maproom (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to complain, I just generally don't know what to do anymore. People asked me to upload the pictures for them and chose the kind of permissions to go with their files. Sonya was like 89 at the time and would have never been able to figure out the difficult uploading process herself. I feel badly because she was so happy to have people see her pictures and now she is dead so cannot give new permission. How are there even pictures on the wikipedia at all given that people are not allowed to write pages about themselves and only the people themselves are allowed to add pictures !?!  S a u d a d e 7  22:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd advise for you to advise them to upload these images themselves, but from your description that is not an option. Otherwise, the main two mechanisms to prove a license is to send an email to WP:OTRS (see also WP:IOWN) or to publish it somewhere else with a suitable license. Also, regarding File:Sonyaforwiki.jpg (I think this is one of the problem images you are concerned about, yes?) it can probably stand as fair use anyway if there is a licensing issue, until the copyright expires.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

One of Saudade7's questions was "What if one of the people [Sonya Rapoport] has since died?" Copyright licenses must be written. Email and web pages are written. But if a person only gives oral permission to copy a work, and then dies, that oral permission doesn't count. That's not a Wikipedia rule, that's the law in the US, where Wikipedia servers are located. The only recourse then would be to find out who inherited the copyright and get a written copyright license from the heir. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A follow up : If you were in contact with Sonya you may be able to find out/contact whoever is/are the copyright holders (or their heirs) and ask/convince them to donate the images under free licences. I've had luck myself with such requests, with a contact it's even more likely.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Maproom and Jo-Jo Eumerus... thank you for writing to me on my talk page and I hope you will see this here since I never know if I am supposed to respond on my talk page or yours or just here. Anyway I like your kindness and advice. All of Sonya Rapoport's works and writings etc. were left to the archives at the Bancroft Library, at the University of California, Berkeley, a public university. I don't know if that helps anything. Otherwise I guess I could ask her daughter to write a note since she is the heir to the rest of the estate. Or else maybe I would need a librarian at the Bancroft to write? Everyone would be happy to help get Sonya's pictures back on her page. They have been slowly done away with over time, alas. Also sorry I am so slow to respond. I am in England and my phone plan doesn't have much data and I am on the road alot. Ciao and thanks again, also to Jc3s5h.  S a u d a d e 7  23:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What matters is who inherited the copyrights in her writings. If it was the library, then you could ask the librarian. But it is possible that she willed the documents themselves to the library, and the copyrights in them to her daughter. Don't worry about speed, "Wikipedia has no deadline". Maproom (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am glad you did respond; whether it happens here or on your talk page; I was afraid you might not but now I realize that I have far more Internet time than most people. Unfortunately, I don't know about the background of Sonya's images's transfer so I can't speak of who would own the copyright. Maybe we'd need two different permissions, one by the daughter (maybe by asking her to reupload the images?) and one by the library (via an email to the image donation email address from their official email) to cover both possibilities. Hope this may work!Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do note: permission given via OTRS can be quite broad: for example, it can designate you as the person to upload on their behalf, without having to specify everything you will upload (although it helps to have at least a general characterization, e.g. "various artwork by my mother Sonya Rapoport"). - Jmabel &#124; Talk 05:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Creating Article
I'm trying to create an article and when I click on Save Page it comes up saying "automated filter has identified this edit as a possible autobiography" and to submit to click Save Page again. When I click Save Page it then takes me to another page where I have to enter a CAPTCHA word. I do that and hit enter or Save Page and it just takes me back to the first automated filter page. It just keeps going in circles. How do I submit my article?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimson delight (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think this running in circles is normal, probably a bug. That aside, I suspect the issue is that you have the same name as the article you are trying to submit. Perhaps you can paste it in User:Crimson delight/sandbox at first?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus. I put it in my sandbox, now what?--CD (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a running-in-circles bug that's been here for years. When you get a Captcha wrong, it gives you another one - fair enough. But when you eventually get one right, it still gives you another one, and it's easy not to notice that you have in fact been accepted. Maproom (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to be what is happening here, for if the save had been accepted, it would appear in the user's contributions. —teb728 t c 00:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The article now seems to be at Crimson Delight (apple). Dismas |(talk) 00:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have just moved it to Crimson Delight as disambiguation is not required.--ukexpat (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Harv applet
@Help desk: I use Sfn/"harv" style referencing for WP:V. How can I install the editing tool that helps automate "harv error" detection? See this conversation, if you need more information. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Instructions at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)