Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 March 20

= March 20 =

Reference help needed
I am attempting to cite a reference using a template, thus: -- which renders as below:

The link does not function as intended, and the error message doesn't provide me with any solution -- help! —2606:A000:1126:28D:3873:46A8:372F:FD65 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello IP user, the problem here appears to be the pipe character  after '9300' which is causing the template to interpret the rest of the URL as a separate parameter. The solution is to replace the character with the workaround template   like so:   – Teratix ₵ 01:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That works. —2606:A000:1126:28D:3873:46A8:372F:FD65 (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

tablet: how to separate 'population total figure's year' by 'the base year of population' and 'the base year of population density'?
I want to know how to add it to a tablet when the base year of population and population density is different. Can I separate the 'population total figure's year' by 'the base year of population' and 'the base year of population density'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dina Park (talk • contribs) 07:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For other editors, the question appears to be spurred by Jeju City, which doesn’t seem to have year parameters. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  13:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I just played around with the parameters and tried to add years in parenthesis after the population numbers but it introduced a template error. I will try later when I’m not on my phone to see if adding citations works better. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  14:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The total population field can be sourced with a citation indicating the year, but if you try to add a source after the population_density_km2 infobox value, it disappears. Odd. I'll have to add a note at the infobox template talk page.  I'm not sure I answered your question though. Can you rephrase and provide more detail? TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posed question at Village Pump instead. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  00:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

biography infobox alignment
I have noticed that most biography pages have their infobox aligned, so that it looks neater. I applied this to another biography article, but had my edit undone because the user claims that the alignment is unnecessary. I wanted to know if they are right or not. Thanks. --SacredDragonX (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To avoid people having to guess what you are talking about, see and this discussion. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They are right in what they say in that inserting spaces in the infobox markup makes absolutely no difference to how the information renders on the page and is basically a bit of a waste of effort. Where no spaces are left at all, (I.e. ) it can be less easy to read. Template:Infobox person does show all the parameters aligned but many infoboxes have been in place for quite some time and editing existing i/bxs to reflect this would really seem to be a matter of personal preference. It is not all that useful in the grand scheme of things. In some infoboxes you can find a parameter which is too long to fit an alignment which if 'amended' looks odd in the markup. Eagleash (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * hmm, so if it comes down to personal preference, I should just leave it, then? Also any infoboxes I encounter in the future I should just leave, even if they're not aligned? --SacredDragonX (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The earlier part of Template:Infobox person shows the parameters aligned, but the later part of the same page, Template:Infobox person, shows single spaces, not aligned. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , there are so many other gnomish edits that would be so much more helpful! If you use your editing time and effort moving from page to page to check infoboxes for their alignment, your contributions will likely be seen, at best, as being of little worth. Someone with your clear willingness and ability to make this kind of change can be so much more useful than that! There are literally hundreds of similar types of edits that would actually be useful to the project. --valereee (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , I agree with the WP:WIKIGNOME suggestion. If you want to make small, helpful edits, that's the way to go.
 * Back to the infobox question for a moment though, an infobox could actually have all the fields and data on one continuous line and it would still render the same on the "published" page for the reader to see. So, just having one parameter/information entry per line is already enough clarity. I would be confident in guessing that most editors who want to update an infobox are comfortable with just scanning down the left side of the edit window to find the field they want to edit and the number of spaces before or after the equal sign doesn't make much of a difference to them at all. Hope this helps, † dismas †|(talk) 13:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed edit
My edits are being removed and apparently tagged as vandalism when it is not. I am simply trying to correct information that is wrong on a page — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelCoulbyArmy (talk • contribs) 15:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please review the user's edit history--persistent removal of content from infoboxes that's supported by the article content, as well as numerous sources. Without sources to support these deletions, this seems to be an "I don't agree with it" defense. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , On some of the reverts, the user who reverted the edits says it is supported by literature, and requests you start a discussion on the talk page of the article. If you think you are right, I would encourage you to start said discussion, as you are currently straying into edit war territory. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you point me to what the discussion talk page of the article is please? I don’t want to make a mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelCoulbyArmy (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Go to the article and click on the 'talk' tab at the top of the page: towards the left next to the article tab. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes . Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Question about protection lock icon
I have a question about the lock icons on protected pages. I have found the page that explains protection and what the different lock icons mean (a lock with an arrow means upload protection, a lock with an “O” means office protection, etc.)

But the icon I’m seeing is not included in that list of icons. It is a dark grey lock with a solid white circle. I don’t mean the black “office protection” icon with the letter “O” on it — this is a solid white circle.

An example is on the “Black Hole” page here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

When I click on the icon, a pop-up tells me “This page is protected to prevent vandalism”. But because the icon does not appear in the list of icons on the “Protection” page, I can’t get any more information about who protected it, why, and how to send an edit request.

I am a confirmed editor, and I am logged in — I can edit unprotected pages.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Thistlebottom (talk • contribs) 15:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not a confirmed editor, as you have not made enough edits (you need 10). Therefore you cannot edit Black Hole, which is semi-protected. Black Kite (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a semi protection lock. Locks look different on mobile but I couldn't find a list of them. Rmhermen (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is present at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi . It has a circle and a white area underneath to represent a person. It is the Silver colored lock.Naraht (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Question about licensing
Every page I create on Wikipedia (example: WP:1AM) has the following at the bottom:


 * Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

However, I choose not to release my contributions under CC BY-SA 3.0 but instead under the Creative Commons CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license. See https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en and Creative Commons license for details.

While many places on Wikipedia incorrectly claim that agreeing to CC BY-SA 3.0 is required, the actual rule is CC BY-SA 3.0 or compatible, which CC0 is. Example: at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:500_x_500_SMPTE_Color_Bars.png I released an image under CC0, not CC BY-SA 3.0. (Note the difference in the notice at the bottom of commons).

Is there is any way to get the proper license on my English Wikipedia contributions the way that it is on my Wikimedia commons contributions? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Whenever I edit a page, there is this message: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license". Can you explain why you think you can choose a different license?  When you upload an image, there may be more than one license you can choose from.  I don't think that applies to text contributions.  RudolfRed (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between files and texts. A file usually has one author or owner who determines the license. Text is written to wiki pages which can have many authors. CC BY-SA 3.0 applies to text contributions at both Wikipedia and Commons (called "unstructured texts" in commons:MediaWiki:Wikimedia-commons-copyright). Per User pages you can specify a wider license for your text contributions but not a narrower. CC0 is wider than CC BY-SA 3.0 so that is OK. People who want to reuse your text contributions can check your user page and edits. If something was written solely by you then they don't have to follow the CC BY-SA 3.0 terms. If they do follow the CC BY-SA 3.0 terms then it's safe no matter what you or others say on your user page because you agree to CC BY-SA 3.0 every time you save an edit (this assumes the edits didn't violate the copyrights of others). There is no way to say in the interface that everything on a given page is CC0 or another wider license than CC BY-SA 3.0. The bottom of any wiki page displays MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You own the copyright to your contributions, so you are free to license it to anyone under any license. However, when you create or add to a page on Wikipedia, you are working in collaboration with others, and the collaborative work must be available to anyone under CC BY-SA. So, you have the legal right to state (e.g., on your user page) that all of your work is released under CC0, but this does not make practical sense and it will lead to confusion, because it does NOT apply to any other editor's edits on pages that you contribute to, and you cannot prevent others from contributing to those pages. If you really want to make your work available under CC0, as opposed to merely wikilawyering, then you will need to put it up on a web site that is under your exclusive control. -Arch dude (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly willing to delete any contributions to WP:1AM where the editor does not agree to a CC0 license, and as the page in in my userspace I am free to do that. So why can't I have the notice on the bottom of the page reflect this? And why can't the edit window say that by editing this page you agree to release your work under CC0? Shouldn't that be my choice to make as long as the WMF says that the CC0 license is compatible with CC BY-SA and allowable on all WMF projects? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You can use CC-0 Release on your user page to make it easier to spot. It also adds you to Category:Wikipedians with public domain text contributions. I don't know a template which can be added to a text page to claim a different license for the page. It would be problematic since the page may have or get edits from users who have not agreed. It's also common to copy text from other Wikipedia pages. I suspect the Wikimedia legal counsel would oppose any method to change MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright on some pages. Editors expect the license to be the same on all their text edits. It could be considered a trap if some pages suddenly state another license in the edit window, and it could deter editors from contributing anywhere if they have to read the fine print on every edit to know their rights. Ownership of content says: "Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. Nevertheless, they are not personal homepages, and are not owned by the user." WP:USERESSAY says: "The author of a personal essay located in his or her user space has the prerogative to revert any changes made to it by any other user, within reason." PrimeHunter (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Technical question regarding an editing problem
I have been working extensively on the New Albion article, and I am experiencing difficulty with simply spacing correctly between the first and second paragraphs in the section titled: Twentieth-century identification. I have rewritten it numerous times and still the incorrect results. Might someone be able to advise me or correct the problem?Hu Nhu (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hu Nhu, I started the text on a different line from the image, seems to work in Firefox for me? <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  19:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ - that solved the problem. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

photos with Wikipedia entries:
How does one upload a photo? I would like to put a photo on my late husband's entry (Charles Goodwin). Marjorie Goodwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marjoriegoodwin (talk • contribs) 22:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You can upload the picture to Wikimedia Commons, so it can be used on all Wikimedia projects (including this wiki) by clicking here and following the instructions there. Thank you! MrClog (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)