Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 April 8

= April 8 =

Publishing Article
✅

I am trying to Move my article from my Sandbox and actually publish it. How do I go about doing that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Djolsen13/sandbox is the article I want to publish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djolsen13 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have moved the same to Estación de cría de fauna autóctona Cerro Pan de Azúcar. Is the title okay for you? Lourdes  06:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Cite error: A list-defined reference has no name (see the help page).
Would I be able to get some help fixing this error at Members of the National Parliament of Papua New Guinea, 2012–2017? It displays exactly as it should apart from the error and I have no idea what's causing it. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you've run into a long-standing bug in the software, T22707. You can use  tags inside efn footnotes, but it all falls apart if you try to define the efn footnotes inside the notelist. I've made an edit at Members of the National Parliament of Papua New Guinea, 2012–2017 - the footnotes are now working, but the tidy coding is lost. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Serbian flag
I noticed that 🇷🇸 does not show the flag (as it should), but just the word 'Serbia'. The flagicon template is too complicated for me. Could someone fix this, please? Vinkje83 (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see the flag here. There is a similar report about the Nigerian flag at Template_talk:Country_data_Nigeria, though, so there may be some technical problem that only affects a subset of readers. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see the Nigerian flag here: 🇳🇬. Vinkje83 (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Both flags are working for me also. There looks to have been previous discussion about flagicons here, which suggest that if you have zoom over 100% on Firefox browser, then there's some issue. Maybe drop a note there asking about it? As it probably needs a technical response. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the problem is affected by the zoom factor in Firefox. Contrary to the above reference however, I can see the Serbian flag allright if I zoom to 110%; but the flag becomes the word again when going back to 100%. Vinkje83 (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It must be the problem in T162035: "Some PNG thumbnails and JPEG originals delivered as [text/html] content-type and hence not rendered in browser". With 100% zoom in Firefox I can currently see Flag of Serbia.svg (22px) and Flag of Serbia.svg (24px) but not Flag of Serbia.svg (23px). I can see the image file by itself at 22px and 24px but 23px gives a Firefox error message. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability guidelines: Jamie Weinand
Hi there,

I am editing a current draft,:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jamie_Weinand

I am confused if perhaps there is some bias originating here. His research has been used as an advocacy tool in numerous national court cases, including Blatt v. Cabela's Retail Inc and Students and Parents for Privacy v. United States Department of Education by the ACLU. I am confused as to why his notability is not considered sufficient by our editors of this page. He is noteworthy in the transgender community. I am concerned there is some bias here and that they are refuting the importance of the first transgender out physicians. -Boston Marathoner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonmarathoner456 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

They have suggested that i use "notable sources" - Jamie Weinand's work is on PubMed, multiple reputable journal articles, and his publicity has been covered in Boston Herald, The Advocate and more. He is a Fulbright Scholar and a Point Foundation scholar, both selective in their own right. I am using notable sources and he is a notable individual. Please help with any assistance you can.
 * Hi . "Notability" on Wikipedia is just shorthand for our guidelines on inclusion criteria in the encyclopedia. It does not always correspond with what is considered noteworthy elsewhere. The things you list; being the first transgender man in family medicine, one of the only living out transgender physicians, research being used in courts, published author of medical articles; are not inclusion criteria listed at our notability guideline for people. None of these directly point toward the inclusion of an article on Jamie Weinand on Wikipedia.


 * "Notable sources" is a bit of misnomer, but you are on the right tracks. Most article on Wikipedia are here because they pass what is called the general notability guideline. Any topic can be included in Wikipedia if it meets the following: Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. This in effect means newspaper stories, books, etc. published about Weinand, but not by him. Locate and cite these sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Bostonmarathoner456 Wow! First of all, congratulations on quite an extensive article sourced with very impressive gathered material within the subject's field of recognition. It may seem with all the work you have accomplished repeatedly over time for re-submission that there may be some "hidden agenda" or "bias" toward the subject in general. I honestly feel, I cannot see that in this specific situation; since if I were able to approve articles, I unfortunately would not have approved this one: not on the subject's work and achievements within his field, but on the sources that are presently offered that back such claims of notability. It may seem frustrating and even confusing when you have offered / gathered 27 references to back each claim within your article; however, these are specific to a certain field of research that WP accepts only for certain areas of citation. To grant notability for inclusion, you would have to steer your collection of references away from "notable research sources" that back the subject's work within the field (which is commonplace and does not merit notability); and provide "notable sources" that spotlight / highlight the subject for the reason you are stating his need for inclusion at WP: "best known for being the first openly Transgender man (female-to-male) in family medicine and one of the few openly transgender Doctor of Medicine physicians." This statement alone is what editors are looking for when they say: "notable sources" and would need to have numerous reference in media outlets covering the subject solely for this recognition; such as national and international newspapers, investigative television reports that do featured stories on said subjects, etc. Try focusing your energy away from the research-in-his-field sources and more on those that support his notability for inclusion at WP. Otherwise, sorry to say, the editors here at WP are going to see him as just another family doctor. Hope this helps. Good luck! Maineartists (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much everyone for your help, are there any volunteers who may be able to help me with the notability to get the article approved for final approval to become an article? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonmarathoner456 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to take a look! Maineartists (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that this article was published by a different editor after the draft was rejected four times. With new accounts popping up to edit and link to the article, something odd is going on here. Funcrunch (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Funcrunch I have already raised this issue with an admin on WP; and on the Talk Page. I'm hoping to get answers soon. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Directing the admin here: Ian.thomson Maineartists (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Could use more eyes on the article talk page discussion regarding the dubious citations for the primary notability claim of this article. Funcrunch (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am just now seeing this and agree that article should stay a draft as it was not approved to be a full article yet. I marked it for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhysicianEdits (talk • contribs) 03:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

"Ethnicity" parameter in the "inbobox person"
Hi. Not sure whether this is the right venue for such a question, but I was wondering whether the "ethnicity" parameter has been completely removed from the "infobox-person" infobox. I remember that we could use it, until at least a year ago. Bests and thanks in advance, - LouisAragon (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ethnicity was removed following a discussion here. Similarly, Religion was removed following a discussion here. Crow  Caw  18:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - LouisAragon (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

is there a way to include an external imge in a wikipedia article?
Hello. I know how to include an image from the commons in an article on wikipedia. I also know how a commercial website includes an image that is not on their site into a page on their site. That html code is (I think) . That html code displays the external image on the webpage in the location specified by other parts of the source code, whereas here the reader has to click on the link. My question is this: is there some wiki code that will display a freely available external image on a wikipedia page? If there is, it would be incredibly useful, especially in science where there are great images freely available but not licensed for commercial use, which makes them ineligible for the commons. I hope there is! Thank you. JeanOhm (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. Sorry. All images that are used here must be uploaded to the Wikimedia servers in some fashion. We don't allow external images to be placed in articles like that. It is to ensure that copyright is being followed. --Majora (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well but wait. You can provide links to copyrighted material (including photos) in the "External links" section, like this: Photo of the Annunciation Monastery for example. As long as 1) the photo (or web page containing photos, or whatever) that you're linking to is not itself a copyright violation (that is, that website owns the rights to the photo or has permission to display it) and 2) it meets the criteria for an external link -- see External links (which in fact encourages using External links to link to "Sites that contain... material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues". Herostratus (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See also Template:External media – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If it is truly an educational image and useful for Wikipedia I would suggest simply asking the owner if they would be willing to release the image under a free license. You'd be surprised how often they say yes. I would much rather do that than use a roundabout way to get around our copyright restrictions. --Majora (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for the replies. I'm at least happy to know that wikipedia encourages external links to relevant material. JeanOhm (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

To edit Right of abode
there's a part which says this

''A woman claiming the right of abode through marriage will cease to qualify if another living wife or widow of the same man:

is (or has been at any time since her marriage) in the UK, unless she entered the UK illegally, as a visitor, or with temporary permission to stay; or   has been given a certificate of entitlement to right of abode or permission to enter the country because of her marriage.

However, this restriction does not apply to a woman who:

entered the UK as a wife before 1 August 1988, even if other wives of the same man are in the UK; or   who has been in the UK at any time since her marriage, and at that time was that man's only wife to have entered the UK or to have been given permission to do so.''

My question is... in order to edit... must that man and that woman need to be British, both of them or at least one?

Thank you .--LLcentury (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, the article you refer to does not contain the statements you mention. You might have wanted to refer to Right of abode (United Kingdom), which mentions the said lines. If you were to notice, the section from which these lines have been taken is intended for Commonwealth citizens or British subjects. Having said that, I would suggest that in case you wish to update any information, try and ensure that you support the same with appropriate citations, per our policy on verifiability. Come back for further assistance. Thanks. Lourdes  03:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)