Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 May 11

= May 11 =

Remove an Image
I am searchin "Quran" in Wikipedia and read the details about Quran. Unfortunately I have seen, there is a picture of Prophet Muhammed. This is against islam. There is no picture for Prophet Muhammed. So, Please delete it from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maidheenp (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia is not censored, and the community will not remove content. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  03:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The page has accompanying FAQ page: Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, if you want more details. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The page Ammarpad points out describes how you can suppress the display of images on your end, so that you or anyone can keep from seeing things that offend them. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

What happened to Structured Discussions?
Structured Discussions was supposed to replace talk pages but it never happened why was it cancelled and is there any plans to make the talk pages easier for new users or to redesign them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abote2 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes that was the initial intention but there was a massive pushback from the community so the project was halted. It was not even fully deployed at the time. There are still efforts underway to improve or revamp talkpage/discussion pages on Wikimedia projects; see the ongoing consultation at Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 research and planning/community review, you can also add your feedback on the talkpage. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

RooH_(single)
Hello Sir, Can you Please let me know why this article deleted? And I provided you more than 10 reference link. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.229.229.66 (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * According to this, the page was written like an advertisment. You need to write in a neutral point of view in Wikipedia and the subject needs to be notable enough for Wikipedia. MadGuy7023 (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Numerical ref names
I just tweaked Brill Publishers so that two citations had the reference names "103" and "108"; these represent the page number in the cited source, which is the same both times. To my surprise, I got a reference error and had to change the names. Why can a reference name not consist of a number? Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref numeric key didn't explain the reasoning. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A reference name is an identifier. In nearly all programming languages, an identifier cannot start with a digit. Identifier mentions it. MediaWiki follows this convention, also for several other types of identifers. I support that. In programming, anything starting with a digit is generally assumed to be a number. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But reference names can begin with digits, as long as they contain other characters too. See this sandbox revision, which uses &lt;ref name="1d" /> twice.  Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right. WP:REFNAME only says "Names must not be purely numeric". My experience with identifiers is mostly in old programming languages. Purely numeric identifiers would have larger risk of being confused with numbers. For example,  in a template would not refer to a named parameter but the 103rd unnamed parameter.   is an allowed parameter name in MediaWiki. Maybe MediaWiki tries to have consistent rules for identifiers (I haven't examined how consistent they are). PrimeHunter (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Linking to specific section on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gear_nomenclature
Linking to specific section, e.g. "Heel", works: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gear_nomenclature#Heel

Linking to specific section with spaces in name, e.g. "Diametral Pitch", doesn't work: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gear_nomenclature#Diametral%20Pitch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gear_nomenclature#Diametral+Pitch Medicine4Goat (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Medicine4Goat, if you click on the title of the section in the table of contents (using a desktop computer) you'll get the correct section link. In this case it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gear_nomenclature#Diametral_Pitch – Þjarkur (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "label with spaces"⇉"label_with_spaces"
 * Thanks, Þjarkur.☺
 * Medicine4Goat (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Text in article re-used from other site but editor says he wrote the text on the other site?
Hi there, unsure whether this is a copyvio. Text on Sawbridgeworth Cricket Club is very similar to this. Editor has removed my copypaste tag with message "I was the author of the original sourced material and confirm that it is not copyrighted material. It is my own material sourced from numerous newspaper articles and club references". Not sure where to go with this one - advice appreciated. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Because that text has been published on the club's web site, we need to confirm that the editor there is the same as here. For privacy reasons, that is done by having the user in question email OTRS after which some discussion will happen off-wiki to determine that the author is able to release the text under a free license, and to ensure they know what that means as far as "their" text being edited by the Wikipedia community beyond their control or expectations. Until that verification is confirmed, it has to be considered a copyright violation here. CrowCaw 22:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Richard Hill is the website manager for the website containing the text. We cannot publish the text on Wikipedia until we know that Tony Marshall actually wrote it and releases it under the appropriate licence.   Dbfirs  22:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've left the user a note explaining they why's and how's of getting that content confirmed for use. Until then it need to be removed, not just tagged for copypaste. <b style="color: black;">Crow</b><i style="color: black">Caw</i> 22:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The alternative to OTRS is for that editor to add a CC_BY_SA license to that material on the club's web site. This is quicker and simpler that OTRS when the editor has control of the source web site. If the editor does not have control of that site, there is some question as to whether the editor owns the copyright in the first place. That editor also has an incomplete understanding of copyright, as shown by the "not copyrighted" statement. Basically, all published material (including material on any public web page) is copyrighted by default, so unless the editor can point to a specific written exception to this law that covers that site, the material is copyrighted. -Arch dude (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * True though that is more for a wholly-owned web site, blog, etc. If the author's contract with a club web page includes copyright assignment to the club, then they would not be able to effect such a release. Given that and the your other comments, I'd prefer to see an OTRS ticket. Meanwhile I've WP:CP'ed the content in question. <b style="color: black;">Crow</b><i style="color: black">Caw</i> 22:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Request to review new article
Hi

I created a new Wikipedia article (Primavera De Filippi), and I would like an experienced editor to review/patrol it.

Thanks!Samer.hc (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, there are over 7,000 new pages currently awaiting review. NP reviewers are volunteers, like any other editor and will review what they can, when they can. Please be patient. Thank you, and happy editing. Eagleash (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, thanks so much Eagleash, I didn't mean to put pressure, and I value a lot your help. I see now you reviewed it and the article was catalogued as a C-class. Would you have any indication for me to improve the article? I've read the assessment guidelines and it's still unclear to me the areas of possible improvement. Thank you.Samer.hc (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Btw, in order to know it for the future, when I move a new article from my sandbox to mainspace, should I just wait for it to be reviewed? Or is there another good practice I should follow? Thank you. Samer.hc (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It was actually reviewed by . I did some minor copy-editing and might have reviewed if it had appeared in my new page patrol list later today. If you go to the article talk page and click on 'show', in the project banners, you should find links to the assessment scale for each project which would give some indication as to how the classes are arrived at. Most new articles start of as 'stub'- or 'start'-class and a 'C' rating is not at all bad for a new page. Often it requires a considerable amount of work to move very much higher in the scales and the higher classes require a pretty in-depth peer review. See WP:ASSESS for more information. When moving to mainspace, you can of course continue to improve the page, and it will be reviewed in due course. There is not much you can do to hasten the process. (Asking for a review is not something that typically happens.) Eagleash (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I initially reviewed your article, and thought you did a good job. If your desire is to improve the article and possibly help promote it to GA status, I recommend the following: visit WP:PR and familiarize yourself with the peer review process, and/or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red and think about becoming a member of that very worthy and active project. Happy editing! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 13:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks so much to both! Very useful explanations, really appreciated. I'll take time to check the links provided, and use it to improve this and other articles. And btw, that WikiProject is awesome :) Samer.hc (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)