Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Search the frequently asked questions

Search the help desk archives and other help pages

October 17

Reverted Edit Question

In Finding Dory, there were two pending edits today (10/16) made at 12:59 that I reviewed (at 13:02) and did NOT accept. The history shows that I reverted these two pending edits. Then at 15:30, an IP editor made changes (which were also reverted at 16:15). The history shows that the 15:30 edit reverted my changes (and I received an email notification of the revert), but a comparison of the different versions does not show this - it shows the 15:30 edit left my change intact and made other changes. Can someone explain what accounts for this. MB 01:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ip clicked on the undo button, which by default generates such a notification. At the same time, the undo button allows an editor to make editorial changes before saving the version, which is what the IP did (restoring some of your edits and making other changes). Lourdes 02:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was to just one line and it was still intact after the IP edit. So you are saying that the IP did an 'undo', then manually put back in the change they just undid, and then made all the other changes that show in the diff. That seems very strange. May they have been trying to 'hide' their changes for some reason. At the very least, it was a very misleading edit summary. MB 05:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bot & an editor incorrectly "fix" my intentional cite before full stop.

See Smear campaign#Psychopaths and narcissists. Can I inhibit Yobot from this article ? Also how can I stop editors "fixing" it eg https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smear_campaign&diff=744658530&oldid=744653688 --Penbat (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Penbat: I suspect that an HTML comment between the </ref> and the full stop would prevent bots and AWB users detecting this violation of WP:REFPUNC. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Penbat (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear why you deliberately wish to contravene what the MOS says at MOS:PUNCTREF? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is if you read the sentence in question: "Smear campaigns have been identified as a common weapon of psychopaths^[2][3] and narcissists^[4][5][6]." I'm not saying Penbat is right to ignore the recommendations, just that it's clear why he wants to. Maproom (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Penbat wants to make it clear that the references only apply to the last word. There was no support for this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 160#Full points and footnotes. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance of a reference

Hi,

I was expanding the references on WOTV to add author, publisher, website, archiveurl. When I saved my edit, I noticed that the reference showed up as part of the article body and not in the standard in-line form. Can somebody help me out on this and tell me what I'm doing wrong? The body of the code I typed is as follows: WOTV's studios on West Dickman Road (M-96) in Battle Creek were donated to a city entity, Battle Creek Unlimited, and were later demolished in February, 2014. "Fort Custer HQ Razed". battlecreekenquirer.com. Gannett Company, Inc. February 20, 2014. Archived from the original on October 20, 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

This reference is reference 1. Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with this edit. You had omitted the <ref>...</ref> tags around the reference. Maproom (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-- I'm still learning the cite web tag and I had forgotten about that (out of all things!). Much appreciated. Icebob99 (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The extended unicode

does the 𓋹 (0x132f9) character count as 1 character? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brynda1231 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brynda1231: In which context? Some things like page size and allowed edit summary length are counted in bytes and not characters even though some documentation may inaccurately say characters. It uses several bytes. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) 0x132f9 Is a 4 byte encoded form of a single glyph, which usually is considered to be a single character in the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic writing system that uses logograms to represent a word or phrase. Does that help ? :) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can I remove a category from a page?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/UBLPs by region shows Category:WikiProject Ottawa on the bottom. I am using wp:Hotcat and would like to remove this category from this page, but don’t know how to do it because I get no "-"(minus) sign. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Udpate: I tried it again and this time there was a minus, but I got a 503 HTTP/2.0 503 when I clicked it? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me I tried to add this commnet before but got an edit conflict. The instructions about how to handle such a conflict are too complicated for me to try and figure out right now[reply]

@Ottawahitech: It looks like it's caused by the inclusion of {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottawa/Unreferenced BLPs}} on that page -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: Fixed - I've stuck <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the category in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottawa/Unreferenced BLPs and purged Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/UBLPs by region. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 503 error, see WP:VPT#503 errors/possible Twinkle issues. clpo13_(talk) 18:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major issue with article on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

My name is Jerry Oppenheimer and I'm the author of the biography RFK Jr.: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Dark Side of the Dream, published by St. Martin's Press in 2015 to wide acclaim. However, it's clear from looking at the Wiki article on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that any and all mentions of my book, THE only biography of Mr. Kennedy, have been scrubbed. The evidence is that just one dangling reference, reference #5, remains, only with my name and the page number from my book. This suggests to me that other references were deleted, and this one survived by error. I suspect that Mr. Kennedy or one of his minions deleted the references to my book because he did not like the book, which was critical of him. I demand to know who and why the references to my book about him were deleted, and the references, whatever they were, should be back in place. How can we proceed? Many thanks, Jerry Oppenheimer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry Opp (talk • contribs) 18:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jerry Oppenheimer and welcome to Wikipedia. Discussions about any article and its contents should be undertaken on the talk page of the said article, in your case, at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. At the same time, please do read our conflict of interest guideline, which may apply to you. Our COI guideline strongly discourages COI editing. You are of course welcome to discuss your suggestion with respect to the article at the said talk page. Might I also suggest to you to give a quick read to Wikipedia's editing policy and talk page guidelines, which will make you familiar with how Wikipedia's voluntary editors discuss content issues on the talk pages of articles? Thanks. Lourdes 18:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has removed mention of your book—a single reference to it was added to it in 2014, but other than that it's never been used as a source on that article. ‑ Iridescent 18:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably ought to put "your book" in scare quotes; I'd be willing to bet $25 this isn't actually Jerry Oppenheimer. Also, interestingly enough, that cite was added to the article in January 2014, but the OP above (and Amazon) show it as published in 2015. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may just be me, but I'm having a bit of difficulty in the belief department regarding this complaint. First, for a newcomer to WP, I find it incredible that they would know terms such as: scrubbed. A term I didn't know for quite some time. Furthermore, for a New York best-selling author, who should have a command of the English language, his first edit: Jerry Oppenheimer is the New York Times best-selling author of at least thirteen biographies of major American icons is highly questionable: "of at least"? You either have or you haven't. In addition, if I were the real Jerry Oppenheimer, I would take more issue with my own page, which seems to have non-updated data: His biography of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., RFK Jr. is forthcoming in 2015 and hardly covers any accomplishments in his own field of writing. I sincerely doubt Mr. Oppenheimer has the time or reasoning to make demands on WP regarding RFK when he has at least thirteen other books he should be worried about. Maineartists (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Scrubbed" is a term that has been around far longer than you've probably been alive. In this sense, it's been around since at least the early 1950s, so long before the internet was even fully imagined. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble utilizing sources in bibliography

I'm attempting to sort out the book sources utilized on List of Alien characters, starting with Roz Kaveney's book, but I must be doing something incorrectly, as clicking the reference does not direct me to the mention of her in the bibliography. Could someone point out where I made the error in the referencing of her book? If I have this figured out, I should be able to set straight the other book references in the article. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 21:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DarthBotto:, I have fixed it (see history). I have explicitly activated harvard referencing with "ref=harv" to allow linking between short references and the full bibliographic entry, and also tweaked the author information (see Template:cite book for more information). Also, page information in the full entry is redundant (as various different page ranges are specified via short footnotes). GermanJoe (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: Thank you so much for your assistance- it will prove pivotal, I am sure. May I ask you one more question? There's at least one piece to be added to the bibliography, Alien Woman: The Making of Lt. Ellen Ripley, which has more than one author. How would I attribute multiple authors to a Harvard citation? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 03:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DarthBotto:, for multiple authors add multiple pairs of first1/last1, first2/last2, ..., firstN/lastN parameters to the citation. In Template:sfn usages, you then list the authors' lastnames, separated by "|", in the same sequence (like: {{sfn|last1|last2|...|lastN|year|page(s)}}). You can find some examples of common use cases and more details in the 2 linked template documentations. GermanJoe (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate message added to talk page

I am not sure if I should even dignify this with a response, but I got a bizarre message on my talk page the other day and I am not sure what to make of it

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bellerophon5685&diff=744678459&oldid=740749959

Should I move to have this user blocked?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bellerophon5685: I gave the editor a stern warning and reverted the edit. If they do it again (this is their only edit), they can be blocked for WP:NOTHERE. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me more likely to be a spammer than an intentional disrupter. Time will tell.

Bellerophon5685, in the future, you can remove others' comments from your talk page. See WP:OWNTALK for details. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I could remove it on my own, I just thought it would be best to bring it up here to have a proper block warning from the admins.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

Dark Skin Gadget Use a black background with green text on the Monobook skin is not fully working properly

Hello,

There is an issue with the following gadget: 'Use a black background with green text on the Monobook skin'. The issue is that the page MediaWiki:Gadget-Blackskin.css is not updated to work properly with wikipedia's design.

Basically, the gadget is outdated at this time, causing breakage of appearance. For instance, 1) the sidebar remains blue-text-on-white, 2) the background remains white, and 3) the table of contents remains blue-on-white.

You can test by enabling the gadget yourself, and the issues should appear on any computer. As this gadget provides a high-contrast theme for users, I'd like to request that the gadget be updated to fix these issues. X.A.N.A. the Evil Virus (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To reproduce: the gadget only appear in the list of Gadgets in Special:Preferences if MonoBook is selected as the default skin in Appearance - as per the gadget definition (only available on MonoBook). Changing skins disables the gadget. Additionally some things overlap in the wgLogo area if one has this enabled - in a way that two site logos are shown and you can't click on some sidebar items. CC WP:Village pump (technical) fully described the issue --Arseny1992 (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Making a table of information.

Draft:The Other Love Story

I have created an article for The Other Love Story, a webseries. How do I make a table with a title card and information such as cast and production team on the right side of the article?Theotherlovestory (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Theotherlovestory: Use Template:Infobox podcast. Click on that link for the syntax and supported parameters. —teb728 t c 07:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Theotherlovestory: Actually Template:Infobox web series is the correct one. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Template:Infobox web series is a redirect to Template:Infobox podcast. —teb728 t c 08:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

teb728, FWIW, this user was blocked by another admin under our spam username policy, and an appeal was declined. I'd already deleted the article The Other Love Story as non-notable, but could equally have been for promotion by an obviously COI editor. I've left the draft for now since you have edited it Jimfbleak (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest guidance

Hi Wikipedians

In my professional capacity working for the House of Lords I have been asked to consider editing articles on House of Lords select committees. As a WP:COI issue clearly arises, I have been reviewing that guidance. However, as we are a non-profit institution, and our public domain records are the sole primary source of most committee information, I'm hoping I can make more direct edits than the guidance suggests (rather than constantly making 'suggested changes' on talk pages). My intentions are:

To create a new account, as allowed under WP:VALIDALT, but personal to me (WP:NOSHARE)
To declare the interest on that user page and the talk pages of relevant articles (WP:DISCLOSE)
To make simple edits to existing articles within two classes:
- Making factual, NPOV, referenced edits with where the records of the House are the primary source and are in the public domain (for example, updating membership lists)
- Conducting basic maintenance defined as uncontroversial under WP:COIU

For reassurance, I do not intend:

To edit existing content where it is current and correct
To use Wikipedia as a platform for PR
To create new articles for new committees where no demand exists, as my COI may impact my views on WP:NOTE

Please could those with knowledge of WP:COI give me some feedback on this plan?

Ejgm 11:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejgm (talk • contribs)

My first (minor) comment on this is that I don't believe that the British House of Lords would be considered a "Non profit institution" as Wikipedia defines the term. My second is that your level of preparation for this work is better than almost *anyone* else I've seen in 10 years on Wikipedia. (Bravo!) (I've known people who have been on Wikipedia as solid editors for years who haven't worked through all of those policy articles.) And I'd suggest posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (which appears to be both politics and government) for specific questions. I look forward to your contributions to wikipedia, you've gotten off to a wonderful start!Naraht (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ejgm, you are the perfect example of why direct paid edition is allowed. Most likely, you will only improve the encyclopedia, and having you go through the "requested edits" process would be a pointless loss of time for everyone involved.

You did not quote it, but I think you fall under WP:PAID if the editing is part of your job. As a consequence, disclosure of the conflict of interest is mandatory, not just recommended, and some templates are mandatory (WP:PAID has it all explained).

Since you seem OK with a second account, I suggest you create it with an explicit name (such as User:Ejgm (paid by HoL)), which you should use for all the potentially COI edits (and only those). A side benefit is that you could then use contribution logs for this account to show to your employer should they ask.

Notice also that (per WP:VALIDALT) ~~sockpuppet~~ alternative account notifications must go both ways, i.e. the paid-edit account user page must disclose it is ~~the sockpuppet of~~ linked to the usual account and reciprocally. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ejgm, I'm impressed! Just to clarify, although I understand what Tigraan means, he should have said "alternative account" since "sockpuppet" implies nefarious intent, which is surely not what he intended. I agree that you should use the {{Paid}} template, which is mandatory, as stated by Tigraan. I regularly post such a warning to obviously paid editors, usually after deleting their articles, so you can be ahead of the game on this! Jimfbleak (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to all who have commented - we'll see what happens next. Ejgm (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you didn't get a response to your posting at the wikiproject. As otherwise suggested, I agree that an alternate account as by others is a good idea, I'd create that, connect the accounts and put the paid notice on the user page for the two accounts, make a few edits using it and comment back here and I (and presumably others) will let you know if we see any issue. Does that work as a plan?Naraht (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_frivolity>

You might consider adding a paragraph about " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.168.19 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you intended to suggest, IP user, but the best place to make the suggestion is on the talk page Talk:Tactical frivolity. You could even add whatever it is to the article yourself, preferably with citations to reliable published sources. --ColinFine (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Month

Is there a page set up for 2016 Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the first to ask this, TonyTheTiger: See Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Asian Month#WAM 2016. Unfortunately, I'm not able to answer either of your. --ColinFine (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link you included takes us back to WAM 2015.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger. I linked to the talk page, to the section I meant. I'm puzzled as to what you thought my link was. --ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine Actually, you didn't. I corrected your link based on my guess of what you meant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Apologies, TonyTheTiger. --ColinFine (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

Problem in my page

Sumitraj3 (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)My page is not shown when I search for it in google instead of it only convent of Jesus and Mary page is shown under which my wikipedia page is inserted. What to do to fix this problem[reply]

I presume this is about Convent of Jesus and Mary, Waverley, Mussoorie which is completely unreferenced and contains a lot of promotional and subjective language. And I only read the introduction. That said, we don't control what Google does. †Dismas†|^(talk) 06:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sumitraj3: New articles are not indexed by Google until they are approved by a new page reviewer. The article on Convent of Jesus and Mary, Waverley, Mussoorie has been reviewed by new page reviewers, but they have found serious issues with the article; mostly related to the lack of reliable sources to support the information in the article. Please click the links in the orange box at the top of the article and learn what the problems are and how to resolve them. Once the article is fixed it can be approved and then Google will index it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn: Could you please give us a reference for your statement that "New articles are not indexed by Google until they are approved by a new page reviewer"? By what process is that achieved? I wasn't aware that new articles were NOINDEXded, and I see no sign of a NOINDEX magic word on the first version of Convent of Jesus and Mary, Waverley, Mussoorie, nor on the current version. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: WP:NPP says pages that are still not patrolled are not indexed and cached by Google or other search engines. I am not sure how the software handles this though. I skimmed through [1] but it does not seem to be handled here. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: Unreviewed pages were supposed to be automatically noindexed a long time ago, but it wasn't working. As part of a massive effort to improve the handling of new pages, that has been fixed. See relevant discussions at Wikipedia_talk:The future of NPP and AfC#A little bit of progress, this old version of the to do list, and Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements#8. No Index until patrolled. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Glad to hear that it's a new feature, and that I hadn't misunderstood how things have worked until now. We'll have to be on the lookout for more questions about why a published article isn't visible on Google. Can you please remind me how, when we look at an article, we can tell whether it has been reviewed throgh WP:NPP? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: For now, you can look at the bottom right hand corner of the page. If there is a little blue link that says "[Mark this page as patrolled]" that lets you know it hasn't been patrolled. However, that link will be going away soon for people who are not either admins or new page reviewers (See: Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller qualifications and Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right). What won't be going away is the logs. Checking the page log will let you know if it has been reviewed or not. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For me, I see the "[Mark this page as patrolled]" only briefly, and then it gets replaced by what I guess might be a patrolling toolbar of some sort. I assume that this too will disappear in future for those of us who are new page reviewers? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The patrolling toolbar also should only show up if a page is unpatrolled. Again, if you are not a new page reviewer that toolbar should also go away. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enlarge font in edit window

Surely there's a way to do this. Archive search unsuccessful. To clarify, I mean enlarging it for all edits, not only the current one. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On most windows systems, Control+ will increase the font size, Control- will reduce it, and Control0 will reset to normal size. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That works, but it's far less than what I'm looking for. 1. It enlarges the entire page, not just the wikitext. 2. It enlarges not just the current Firefox tab, but all of them. Unacceptable, as I often need to switch between tabs during an edit. 3. I would have to enlarge and reset for every edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Saw this at VPT and then you reverted it. At Special:MyPage/common.css, add the following rule:

textarea.mw-editfont-default {
  font-size: 133%;
}

I've used 133%, which will increase the size by one-third, but you can of course use any value you like, provided that it's more than 100% - exactly 100% will make no change. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosered64: - Perfect. I am writing this in the larger font. Thanks for following me here! ―Mandruss ☎ 09:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: However it still doesn't prevent all mistakes in the edit window. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 09:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HTTPS: Browser Recommendations

I am direct to HTTPS:_Browser_Recommendations beacuse I have an old brower, but I cannot ask questions about the Browser Recommendations on the talk page. I Wikimedia does not let log in so that may or may not be why.

I don't understand why I should care about "network security terms" for public data on Wikipedia. tahc ^chat 16:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tahc, you could go through WP:HTTPS to understand about this. One line may particularly interest you: "As of 2015, unencrypted access is no longer possible [for logged in users].". Thanks. Lourdes 16:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still able to log in on Wikipedia and edit fine.

It just cannot log in on Wikimedia, and it directs me to that Wikimedia page a couple times a day.

Why does it bother to make me look at the "HTTPS: Browser Recommendations" but not even hint at why it makes those recommendations? tahc ^chat 16:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably worth a question on the computing reference desk. Any computer expert will tell you that all software should be updated to the newest versions ASAP (unless there is a precise and compelling reason not to do so). Attack vectors are routinely found in software, and newer versions patch them (i.e. close the security hole); not updating makes your computer susceptible to common vulnerabilities, be it operating system, browser, plugins etc. There will always be security holes, but zero day exploits are too precious to waste on you - old attack code that is available for free on forums, on the other hand...

Another question could be why HTTPS is much better. Well, our article does a fairly good job of explaining; private network communications should have confidentiality (none can read what is said), integrity (none can change the message on its way), and authenticity (the receiver has a guarantee that the sender is the origin of the message). HTTP has none of those by design, whereas HTTPS is supposed to guarantee all three ("supposed to", of course, but it does a fairly good job at least for the latter two). Many feel that the certificate authority system is broken (e.g. [2]) but it is still better than no security at all. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partly, it is to protect your account login from being compromised. Crow^Caw 16:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references

I am trying to add my first inline info plus source, but I am having a hard time with it. Can someone check my attempt at the Alexandre Luigini article. Thanks, GinnevraDubois (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That works, but: if you only cite one page from the source, you don't need to divide into a "short" and "long" citation. The article does not do this for the rest of the sources.

Also, you should not include an access-date for a print source; their content is the same regardless of when you looked them up. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!! GinnevraDubois (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Wikipedia Page Published

Hello!

I put together a Wikipedia page on DreamWakers in May, and have been waiting for the page to be approved/go live. Am I missing something in this process? How can I know when my page can go live?

Thank you!

Style12345 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)style12345[reply]

@Style12345: You don't appear to have actually submitted your draft; to do so add {{subst:submit}} to the top. Ppp ery 19:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I'm a little new to all of this and I previously was warned about using a streaming site for episode descriptions so I wanted to be 100% sure before I did anything. The Casper's Scare School (tv series) page is missing descriptions for most, if not all, of the season 2 episodes. I recently found that season 2 of the show is available on Netflix and I thought I could use their descriptions to round out the page. Thanks for the help.−ClarinetMinuet (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that would be a copyright violation. All content must be written in your own words. Think of it like you were describing the episode to a friend and use that level of summary in the article. Crow^Caw 20:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aligning text in a table

Hello, folks. I'm hoping you can help me with what I think is a simple question. I'm looking to center-align text in some, but not all, columns in a table. I know that I can do this by adding 'align=center' into each individual cell, but that's a lot of coding. Is there a way to do it in the column declaration?

I will greatly appreciate any help that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Code for a column must be applied to each cell. It's annoying but it's a property of html. Wiki code for tables is just an alternative notation to html. If the table has dozens of rows then a search-and-replace or a regular expression may be able to do it faster than manually. If you want help then specify the table. If the majority of columns are centered then it may be simpler to make centering code for the whole table and add other alignment to the cells in the non-centered columns. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Thanks for the prompt response. I feared that the answer might be the one that you gave, but it's good to know that I wasn't missing an easier way to do things. Fortunately for me, I'm not converting an existing table, but constructing a new one. So I'll just create a blank row that includes the in-cell formatting and then copy/paste that blank row for as many entries as I need before filling in those entries. Thanks again for the response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

Creating a new page

How to create a new page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monojbddotcom (talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Your first article. --Jayron 32 01:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing word in message that appears after clicking on certain redlinked articles

The message that appears is missing the word "search" after "Please" in the 2nd sentence. Example, for Buzz Buchanan:

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please for Buzz Buchanan in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

Note that this message is produced with only some redlinked articles (maybe those alreadt redlinked in mainspace?). Random examples not redlinked in mainspace produce a different page, e.g. Quick brown duck, which (as of right now, as I preview the redlink) results in a page entitled Creating Quick brown duck and a different message.

Thanks to whomever is sufficiently clueful to fix this, and happy editing. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI)

Hello Middle 8, I for one have never experienced this issue (and neither am seeing it right now while clicking on the red link that you mention). As long as it doesn't interfere with your experience of using Wikipedia, I guess it's okay. You can report it at phab if you feel it's something that should addressed. Thanks. Lourdes 15:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I just checked it again, and now the problem is gone! Go figure! Thanks for checking this out and for the phab link. cheers Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 15:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The pages with that message are presumably those that call Template:Wiktionary redirect (assuming that the message goes on to refer to Wiktionary on the next line), but it is not clear why the word "search" would disappear, nor is it obvious why you saw that for Buzz Buchanan, which is a page that has apparently never existed. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Middle 8: A red link like Buzz Buchanan gives me the url https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buzz_Buchanan&action=edit&redlink=1 with a completely different message made by MediaWiki:Newarticletext. If the page did exist then the url would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_Buchanan. This gives me a message with "Please search for", made by MediaWiki:Noarticletext calling {{No article text}}. I looked at the template code and the generated html and see no reason "search" would be missing. I guess it was removed by your browser for some reason. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although the message I was getting said Wikipedia, not Wiktionary, it was (iirc) otherwise identical to Template:Wiktionary redirect. Odd...

And now, unlike before, I'm getting the same result that PrimeHunter described in their first sentence, both for Buzz Buchanan and Quick brown duck. Previously, I was indeed getting a page called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_Buchanan, at first without the word "search" and then with it. Weird, weird, weird, but if there was a problem on WP's end -- which is what I was worried about -- it seems to be gone. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Thanks y'all. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 06:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the icon on the right of image cation boxes

How do I remove the double box link icon to the right of the caption to this image? I want to be able to centre the caption but the icon throws the centering off. Sandbh (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One way... Lourdes 11:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crystals of osmium, a heavy
metal nearly twice as dense as lead.

Thank you, I'll try that. Sandbh (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting eyes to a discussion

Just a quick question: recently I made a contribution that was quickly rv'd by an editor that has a long standing history of rv'ing edits. I started a discussion on the talk page. However, the talk page itself is long outdated with participation (the last few entries being 2011 and 2012). I could wait for eyes to join the discussion, but since there really aren't that many on the page already, I'm worried it will just sit there. I believe strongly in my contribution and the sources to back it up; but I do not want to get into an edit war and simply revert it back. I'd rather support my contribution through discussion - or - if I am wrong, by consensus, remain rv'd. How do I invite more editorial eyes to join in the discussion when there are so few on a page that is rarely seen? Here: [3] Danny Wells "Charlie the Bartender" 1975-1985 Thanks in advanced. Maineartists (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maineartists, you could try out the steps documented in dispute resolution. Thanks. Lourdes 14:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lourdes. I think I may have to since the only set of eyes that has joined the discussion has not offered any enlightening counter-case for removal of material versus that which is already included. It's just not adding up. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maineartists - Give collegial discussion your best shot, but if that proves unfruitful, I'd take it to a noticeboard next. Moderated discussion won't work if one party is unreasonable, and I'd skip WP:3 since more eyes are better than not. Either way, keep a cool head and omit needless words -- on WP, less is more. The less you say, the more people will pay attention, and the more credible you are. For example, you'd want to prune your above remarks by 50%-80% in a WP:DR setting, omitting the "meta" stuff such as why this is important to you: not that that doesn't matter, but WP:DR is not, I repeat not, generally the place for it. (See also WP:IAD and WP:DGAF.) It took me a long time and much hassle to learn this; just trying to spare you the same. :-) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 05:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Middle 8 Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello. I am developer and every day i working at my website JamesPrada.NET / I am developing now some special techniques how A.I. can help us to write love letters. To do that i need to access from a level of my home page to all source of wikipedia becouse i need only a some part of text from your all global database. Can you help me to find a best tool to perform such a operation. I am PHP user. I need to log in from script to you server / connected to you database / perform some operations with fetching some amounts of data and that's it. / Please help me because ongoing experiment will the atomic bomb for understanding how A.I. works and can help us in daily use.

Greetings and thank you very much! James Prada <email redacted>

Hello James Prada, you could go through our database download and use whichever form might be helpful. Lourdes 14:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Populism portal

I have noticed that there is Portal:Right-wing populism, but not Portal:Populism, to cover as well the left-wing (with several noteworthy examples in South America, mainly in Venezuela), or general concepts that apply to both. Should I leave it as it is and create the missing one, or move it to the broader name? My concern is that if we had the 2 portals there would be overlap between both. Cambalachero (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cambalachero, a good place to take this up would be at Portal talk:Right-wing populism, as interested eyes would be watching the page. In my personal opinion, what you say makes sense; however, given the expanse of the subject, perhaps someone might want Portal:Populism to simply link separately to other portals focusing on left wing or right wing populism... As I said, the talk page might be a good place to start this discussion. If you don't get responses, you might consider an Rfc... Thanks. Lourdes 15:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nancy hemenway barton

The University of New England is planning a retrospective show of this prominent woman textile artist in 2017, Ahead of her Time and we would like to have her bio with links to her Washington Post obituary and links to a number of videos on Wikipedia. How do we do this? Best, Rick Barton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.178.155 (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rick. Welcome to Wikipedia. At the outset, I would suggest that you should read our conflict of interest guidelines, which would strongly discourage you from what is termed coi editing, including perhaps trying to create articles where you or your institution may have a personal interest. Having said that, the individual you mention has an interesting legacy. Let me see if I can churn up an article in the coming fortnight... You'll see it at Nancy Hemenway Barton if I am able to do something out of the material available to me. Thanks. Lourdes 15:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Submit a sandbox page for pre-evaluation

I am writing an article on a scientific working group that I would like to have evaluated to see if it meets the publication criteria for an organization. I wish to have it evaluated before I continue any more work on the page so I know what needs to be done to assure it will be published. How can I have an editor review this work-in-progress without having it publicly published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skire913 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a references section, and re-corrected section heading formats (which another editor had corrected previously but you had changed again to be non compliant with the Manual of Style). One thing you need to do is to remove all the misplaced external links from the text, see WP:External links. Other editors will hopefully point out any other relevant points. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to decide what your proposed Wikipedia article is to be about. The opening section of the sandbox is about an association of cardiologists, but most of the rest of its content is about various techniques that cardiologists use. This mix of subjects may be acceptable in some contexts, but not in an encyclopedia article. Maproom (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain

In gathering information for another article, I stumbled across this photo: [4] I am still very new to uploading photos to WP and know the hoops that one needs to jump through to get one uploaded (and keep) on Commons; especially under the status of Public Domain. Could someone please explain to me the steps and procedure this particular editor went through in getting this CBS publicity photo through as PD? I am baffled. Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link you give to that image is in a form I have never come across before, and do not understand. If you use this more standard route to it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Damon_Evans_Berlinda_Tolbert_1976.jpg , you can read "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice". Maproom (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Maproom says, content published in the US between 1923 and 1977 needed to contain a copyright notice or it would end up in the public domain. See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Published_works. However in terms of hoops, process, and proof, it seems to be a little light. I would suggest it would typically require a little more support. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I did read all the descriptions and entries. I guess I really am learning more than I thought, since I never knew this could be a legitimate acceptance for uploading a photo. It seems to be a lot of "assuming" going on. During my first initial uploads, mine were taken down very quickly (but for good reason) - now I know what to do and the proper channels in which to proceed. I never knew a CBS publicity photo being sold on eBay that has a property stamp on the back with dates linked to a national television show could be considered "public domain" simply because it was taken between 1923 and 1977 and lacked copyright notice. Hmm. Good to know. My only question is: just because an uploading contributor says it: does it make it so? Maproom When one clicks on any thumbnail photo within an article, that is the direct form that you are linked to ... from there, you can click on More details which will bring you to the page you listed. Standard. What's not to understand? Maineartists (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it seems to be a little light on evidence. It would require some effort to pursue the truth behind it which, I can't speak for others, I'm not going to bother doing. Regarding the image format, I think most old-school editors probably have the media viewer turned off in our preferences. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to link to a free pdf, e.g. via Springer Sharedit, as part of of journal cite?

The paper [5] is available for free in pdf format at [6] via an "author-access-token" as part of the Springer Nature Sharedit. That is, you can't get to the free pdf via the normal Nature url, but you can get directly to it via the sharedit link, which Springer says can be "posted anywhere". It seems to me we'd like to include both the regular Nature link and the sharedit link as part of a cite, but I don't see any clean way to do that now. Am I missing something, or should we add this somehow to Template:Cite journal? ★NealMcB★ (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally you want to maximize the verifiability of sources. I'm not sure I understand the rationale for also including a link to the version that the vast majority of readers are not going to be able to access. TimothyJosephWood 21:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: did someone check the fine print of that sharedit policy? Reasonable sharing is encouraged for non-commercial, personal use (emphasis added) can certainly not be pleaded on WP. On the other hand, we might slip under the clause of "social media" (like it or not). Probably worth a question at WP:CQ... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@[[User:Tigraan, That would apply only to copying material from the article into a Wikipedia article (beyond fair use limits). WP:ELYES specifically handles this: it says its OK 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".

As to how to handle the link -- you basically want two URLs in a single cite -- I don't think {{Cite journal}} handles that. What I would do is hand-write the ref, something like this:<ref>{{Cite journal|''Nature'' article info blah blah, including the Nature URL}} cited at [http:SHAREDIT_URL Springer Nature Sharedit]<ref> This is pretty kludgy but it's the best I can suggest. Herostratus (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't seem to edit the image description in the Tau_protein info box.

The image shown on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_protein Tau_protein is actually an amalgamation of many protein structures (not just Tau). This created a bit of confusion for me, thus I wanted to add the following label for clarity:"PIN1 WW DOMAIN COMPLEXED WITH HUMAN TAU PHOSPHOTHREONINE PEPTIDE^[1]" so that others wouldn't have to suffer similarly. However, I cannot seem to figure out how to edit the image description for the info box.

References

^ https://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe/entry/pdb/1i8h

Jasonhfuller (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jasonhfuller. Assuming you mean the image in the infobox, I'm not surprised you can't find where to set a caption. If you look at the source, it uses the template {{infobox gene}} with no arguments, which is puzzling. Looking at that template, it says "The data in the infobox is sourced from wikidata"; so if it is possible to place a caption on the image, then it would have to be done by adding a suitable field to the Wikidata item d:Q14865307. But what should the field be called?

Looking at the Lua module which encodes the template, Module:Infobox gene, I notice that above the line p.renderImage(image) there is a line p.renderCaption() which is commented out. It therefore looks as if the module does not support a caption (if I am reading it correctly). I suggest you ask at Module Talk:Infobox gene. --ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information

I am writing to establish how I might add to a " Notable Alumni" section, namely my husband whose service has been recognised in the Queen's Honours List.

What information do I need to provide - and indeed what evidence, and how do I provide it?

Thank you!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenonline (talk • contribs)

Such lists only include people who are so notable that there articles about them in Wikipedia already. While theoretically you could create such an article, your obvious conflict of interest makes this a bad idea. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenonline: What Orangemike said (with links to Wikipedia policies) is basically that (1) your husband would need to be "notable" enough (in Wikipedia's definition of "notable") for an article about him before being included in such a list and (2) your close connection with him will probably cloud your judgement when writing such an article.

This being said, if you think your husband verifies WP:BIO, you can write an article about him via the Articles for Creation process. A veteran reviewer will have a look at your draft once submitted, and possibly reject it if the notability is too thin. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Swinton of Kimmerghame

Ref number 14 is all wrong - I have failed. Please help Srbernadette (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Thanks[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion regarding John Swinton of Kimmerghame. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Ppp ery 23:24, 20 October 2016 (UT

Please help. Ref number 13 is now all good - but I accidently got rid of the "Peerage " ref in the "family" section. Srbernadette (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, "ref name" all goes inside the brackets. :-) Crow^Caw 23:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morgellons Disease

Why does Wikipedia continue to allow the elite government CDC and co-hosts, i.e. Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins and others to post Morgellons as "Delusional" when it is listed on that NIH (National Institute of Health GARD website)? Recently, ILADS, International Lyme and Associated Diseases was added to the Morgellons NIH website. This is factual information and debunks the government's "delusional version" of Morgellons Disease on Wikipedia.

I have tried to add this information but it is has been deleted. My info is sourced from the NIH website. https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/9805/morgellons

Thanks, Jennifer Jordan-Troklus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spectral intricacies (talk • contribs) 01:15, October 21, 2016 (UTC)

You should read WP:FRINGE and our guideline on reliable medial sources. All of which says that Morgellons is a disease of the mind. Not something that actually exists. --Majora (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slight precision: notable psychosomatic diseases, like Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, can have articles, but clearly describing their psychosomatic nature. Which is exactly what there is at Morgellons. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

How to submit a proposal/question to an entire WikiProject

I made an edit removing content from a page that I felt was WP:Out_of_scope. Shortly thereafter, I realized that this same section exists in 182 other pages under a particular WikiProject. All of these edits appear to be made by one specific retired editor. I want to propose to the WikiProject that this sort of content be removed (happy to do it myself) and excluded from future pages. However, when I visited their page I couldn't find any open discussion sections or any other indication of how to make such a proposal. Can somebody give me advice on how to proceed? Thanks in advance! AlexEng (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the talk page of the project and click on the "New section" tab to start a new discussion. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Language links - getting pages to link both ways

I have linked the English page 'ADGB Trade Union School' to its German equivalent 'Bundesschule des Allgemeinen Deutschen Gewerkschaftsbundes'. Under Languages on the English page, 'Deutsch' shows, but on the German page there is still no 'English' link. I linked the pages yesterday so I expected everything to show by now. Can you please help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixkrater (talk • contribs) 10:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Felixkrater: Problem solved. I just had to go to the German-language version of the article and purge the page cache.--My Chemistry romantic (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Purge for how it works. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need access to journal article

I need access to this journal article. Is there any page in wikipedia where wikipedians with access to journals can email me this article? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IEditEncyclopedia: Try your luck at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. Otherwise, if it can wait next Monday, I can probably handle it myself. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IEditEncyclopedia: If you need it to improve a Wikipedia article then RX. If you simply need to read it, just register for a personal account and add the article to your shelf, you'll be able to read the full document online, free of cost. - NQ (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello! Why is the category Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of The Editor of All Things Wikipedia given on the userpage of User:Wikipenguin 8, when this category does not exist? -- Toni Müller (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Toni Müller: The category is added by a template. It's possible to add non-existing categories to pages. I have created the category page. Categories are created like other pages: By saving something on the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

The role of Qutub Begum in the serial Razia Sultan was played by Khalida turi.

The Razia Sultan (TV series) article already states that, and that article does not have any cite errors, although there is no reliable source to allow that information to be verified. - Arjayay (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a famous person to wiki

I would like to add a person who is campaigning as Prime Minister of Canada to wiki - could you please help?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LawrenceLeight (talk • contribs)

Canada already has a PM and the next election is a little ways away, so I'm not sure what they are campaigning for, however, if you have independent reliable sources to support what you are saying, you may visit the Article Wizard to create a page. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As stated at WP:POLITICIAN, which you should read before starting, "an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." - Arjayay (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

would like to occasionally identify authors and affiliations

can this be done?Simeonpollack (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Simeonpollack: It isn't entirely clear what you are asking. Are you asking how to identify the author/editor of a Wikipedia article? Or are you asking something else? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:FAQ#Who writes the articles on Wikipedia? may be of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 22

Sports

I am looking for player rosters for the Hollywood Bears Pacific Coast Professional Football League. 1940-1942, 1945 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4700:fe8d:f0ce:20d8:d92a:5e46 (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2016‎

The Help Desk is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Try asking at the Reference Desk (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment) Rojomoke (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and links

Quick question. If I create a simple template:

[[(((1|}}}|text]]

and call it like this:

{{newtemplate
|some page name
}}

It will not work, because it is the same as creating a link:

[[some page name
|text]]

is there a way to trim the unnecessary line break taken by the template? --84.229.78.129 (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The {{trim}} template removes leading and trailing white space, so [[{{trim|{{{1|}}}}}|text]] should work. I've tested this at User:John of Reading/X3. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --84.229.78.129 (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, possibly invalid citations

The article about the shooting of Trayvon Martin contains the following citation:

{{cite news|author=Nelson, Steven |url=http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/jesse-jackson-says-trayvon-martin-murdered-and-martyred/ |title=Jesse Jackson says Trayvon Martin 'murdered and martyred{{'-}} |work=The Daily Caller |date=March 26, 2012 |accessdate=June 30, 2013}}

Notice the {{'-}} part in the title. Is this valid? If so, what does this mean? Is this documented somewhere? Many thanks. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@StrokeOfMidnight: {{'-}} transcludes Template:'-, which if I understand the documentation correctly gives the decimal code for an apostrophe, which prevents two apostrophes from coming together, which would be interpreted as wikicode for italics. —teb728 t c 04:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template is for kerning. It adjusts the spacing between the single quote mark that ends the source's title and the double quote marks that wrap the title in the rendered citation. Without kerning, the title in the rendered citation looks like this:

"Jesse Jackson says Trayvon Martin 'murdered and martyred'"

Use of this template in cs1|2 citations is discouraged because the template introduces inappropriate css and html markup into the citation's metadata. And, use of this template is not necessary because cs1|2 provides kering for quote marks in all title-holding parameters.

{{cite news|author=Nelson, Steven |url=http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/jesse-jackson-says-trayvon-martin-murdered-and-martyred/ |title=Jesse Jackson says Trayvon Martin 'murdered and martyred' |work=The Daily Caller |date=March 26, 2012 |accessdate=June 30, 2013}}

Nelson, Steven (March 26, 2012). "Jesse Jackson says Trayvon Martin 'murdered and martyred'". The Daily Caller. Retrieved June 30, 2013.

Remove these templates from cs1|2 citation templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying

Is there away to find, say, all articles that contain both Category:X and Category:Y? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: Yes, see Wikipedia:PetScan. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John of Reading, thank you so much! I expect that each year in Reading there is a festival to honour you. And if there isn't one, there should be one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purge this

When I go to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as spam and similar pages, which I frequently do, I get a [message] inviting me to purge the cache. Since the only option is "Yes", this is incredibly annoying. Is there a way to either disable this feature or have a "No" option? Jimfbleak (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: The "Purge" gadget manages to purge a page without asking for confirmation. You can enable this at Special:Preferences, "Gadgets" tab, "Appearance" section, and then you'll find a "Purge" link at the top right underneath the usual "More > Move". I read somewhere that the new behaviour is a deliberate change by the developers to make it more difficult to misuse server resources. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List-defined references

Does anyone know if there is a policy on the order in which the list should be ordered? Alphabetical by ref name, alphabetical by author, or doesn't it matter? Jimfbleak (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No policy, do as you prefer. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jimfbleak, echoing what Dodger67 mentioned, as per List-defined references: "Reference lists may be ordered in any manner (e.g. alphabetical by reference name)...Another overhead of this approach is that the list at the end of the article must be organised so that they can be found easily by an editor—most likely arranged alphabetically in the edit window by refname as this is most likely to retain source integrity and usefulness, even if the sections of the text are changed." Hope that helps. Lourdes 11:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer

References number 2 is incorrectly done. I did not do this citation. Please repair if possible. 101.182.180.24 (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with this edit. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, please, learn to read error messages. The error message said: "External link in |title= (help)". The word "help" was in blue to indicate that it was a wikilink, in this case to Help:CS1 errors#param has ext link. Is there anything unclear in that help message? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the illustrator's name to a book citation

The {{cite book}} template does not seem to have a field specifically for "illustrator", is there a generally accepted way to add an illustrator's name. I have a case where this is essential because the article specifically discusses the illustrations in the book. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the template documentation, you should use the others parameter with a value like "Illustrated by John Smith." —teb728 t c 08:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I somehow missed that when I skimmed through the page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Essays on Wikipedians growing weary?

I have been in the (Finnish) Wikipedia for many years and as an administrator there for over four years. It has been a meaningful hobby, but now I'm feeling a bit tired and weary. In the autumn of my wiki-career, I should say. I would like to read some user essays that deal with my sentiments, but I cannot find them easily among numerous uncategorised essays here. Does anyone have a particularly good essay in mind that they could recommend? --Pxos (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pxos: This one Wikipedia:Leave gracefully Is not exactly on point if I understand your situation, but I link it because it includes several items in the see also section, plus another essay linked in the main text, each of those items also has some additional links in see also sections that may be the type of thing you're looking for.

Note in particular the template at the end of Wikipedia:It's not the End of the World Which contained some possibly relevant articles. If nothing else, and you do manage to find some relevant articles perhaps you could expand that template with a specific section on how to deal with feeling a bit tired and weary. I know I could use one once in a while.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pxos: visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. There are essays linked from the project page. You can also start a discussion on the project talk page about how you feel. I can tell you that in my experience the Finnish and English Wikipedias are quite different in nature. If you want to, you can try out new things here and see if things start to look exciting again. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dab help

I'm trying to sort out a dab issue. (It arose at OTRS ticket:2016100510004536, but that email only observes that the correct name of the hotel is Hotel Sorrento)

We have an article about a hotel:

Sorrento Hotel

And an article about a film

Hotel Sorrento

However, per the official site, It appears that the name of the hotel is "Hotel Sorrento" not "Sorrento Hotel".

Obviously, I cannot simply move "Sorrento Hotel" to "Hotel Sorrento". My next thought was a parenthetical disambiguation but "Hotel Sorrento (hotel)" seems awkward.

I am leaning toward moving the article about the film to "Hotel Sorrento (film)", which would then allow me to correct the title for the hotel. Does anyone have a better solution?--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you already know the relevant guidelines, in particular WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. So, either be bold, or ask on the articles' TP. FWIW I think your last solution (move film to leave place for hotel) sounds good but I have not looked at it in depth. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about primarytopic, but I didn't know enough about either the hotel or the film to have a strong opinion about which qualified as the primary topic. However, I just did a Google search and there are multiple pages with reference to the physical hotel before I find the first reference to the film, so I think I can support my suggestion based upon the guideline. I'm only holding off a bit to see if someone has a different view as making the moves and editing all the hat notes will take a bit of time and I'd hate to have to undo it all and redo it differently.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick hello. I think you might be making a mistake by attempting this move. The hotel is known predominantly as "Sorrento Hotel", irrespective of how the primary source of the hotel addresses itself. Archival search throws up zero results for "Hotel Sorrento" but at least three for "Sorrento Hotel". The Seattle Government's preservation records document calls it "Sorrento Hotel". On news searches, there are significantly more search results for "Sorrento Hotel" than there are for "Hotel Sorrento".[7][8][9][10] And finally, on the Hotel's website itself, there are 200 + pages addressing itself as "Sorrento Hotel". The analogy here could be Radisson Hotels. While the website of Radisson simply addresses itself as "Radisson" (and while the company itself is called Radisson Hotels Resorts Worldwide), the Wikipedia page is titled Radisson Hotels, the predominant usage. Therefore, in my opinion, you'll need to get consensus for this before making the change. Lourdes 17:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I asked, to get additional input.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, while the statement that the hotels website itself has about 200 pages addressing itself as "Sorrento Hotel", upon inspection, the picture is a bit muddier. The first non-advertising entry in that list does use "Sorrento Hotel", but the second and third items in the list have both Hotel Sorrento and Sorrento Hotel in the title with Hotel Sorrento listed first. Quite a number of others in the list use that same structure "Hotel Sorrento - Seattle - Sorrento Hotel" Which includes both options with arguably a slight preference for the first. The picture is sufficiently unclear that I'm going to leave it as is; perhaps a regular editor of the article or someone interested in doing the research can pull together a more definitive study.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting an article in sandbox

I am doing some work on the article, Lebanon Hills Regional Park. Since I expect to mess the article up a good bit before I put it back together, I decided to work on it on a subpage of my user page, User:Leschnei/lebanon-hills. Do I need to put a template or message on the subpage to make sure that anyone searching for the real page doesn't land on the subpage instead? Leschnei (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User space pages do not show in searches unless someone specifically searchers the user namespace. Ruslik_Zero 20:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Leschnei: Userspace pages are by default not indexed by external search engines but there are still ways people may get to them, for example via categories for articles so I removed it from such categories.[11] You can place a template like {{User sandbox}} or {{Userspace draft}} but it's optional. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you both. Leschnei (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Small Arms Company

This article's infobox contains a web address which it should not. www.bsaguns.co.uk is the address of a company anxious to propagate a non-existent link between its air rifle business and BSA.

It is impossible to edit that web address. Why?

Thanks in advance etc. Eddaido (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They claim to be "descended" (so to speak) from the original company. Do you have some evidence that they are not? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Irrefutable

The problem is that the web address cannot be edited. Why? Thanks etc. Eddaido (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it could not be edited is that address was in WikiData (imported from it-wiki). I removed it because it appears to be about another company. I didn't find a way to leave an edit summary to that effect. —teb728 t c 22:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. "They" are very determined people. Eddaido (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I get more and more worried about the amount of stuff that seems to be pulled from Wikidata. When was it decided that this would happen? We know that Wikidata has significant weaknesses (such as its limitation to one-to-one mapping giving an inability to cope with different scope of articles across different Wikipedias), and I'm worried that more Wikidata content is being pulled into the English Wikipedia, particularly as stuff seems to find its way into Wikidata from any of the other language Wikipedias without us seeing what is being changed. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading image PD-PRE1978.

Might someone quickly explain how to upload an image that does not have a copyright using PD-PRE1978 on Wiki Commons? Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons Upload Wizard will walk you through the process, which includes specifying the file's copyright status. If you need assistance with uploading to Commons, see the Commons help pages or ask at the Commons help desk. Your account works on all Wikimedia sites including Commons, so you won't need to register a new account. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Matthews

The section heading "Personal Life is too big - bigger than the other headings on this page. Please fix - I did not do this edit - but I did edit the section. Thanks139.216.210.155 (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done It only needed an additional "=" sign each side of it to move it from a "level 1" (not used within articles) to a "level 2" heading. Eagleash (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe/entry/pdb/1i8h

[1]

v t e Wikipedia help pages
*Visit the Teahouse* or the Help desk for an interactive Q & A forum. FAQs (?) Reference desks (?) Noticeboards (?) Cheatsheet (?) Directories (?)**
About Wikipedia (?)	Administration Purpose Principles Policies and guidelines What Wikipedia is not Disclaimer (parental advice) Making requests Who writes Wikipedia?
Help for readers (?)	FAQ Books Copyright Glossary Mobile access Navigation Other languages Searching Students Viewing media
Contributing to Wikipedia (?)	Advice for young editors Avoiding common mistakes Etiquette Simplified Manual of Style Simplified rule-set "Ignore all rules" "The rules are principles" Style-tips Tip of the day Your first article (article wizard)
Getting started (?)	Why create an account? Introductions by topic Graphics tutorials Picture tutorial IRC (live chat) tutorial VisualEditor user guide
Dos and don'ts (?)	Accessibility Biographies Biographies (living) Categorization Consensus Discussions Disambiguation Images Leads Links Lists References Tables Titles (of articles)
How-to pages and information pages (?)	Appealing blocks Article deletion Categories Citations/references Referencing for beginners Citation Style 1 Cite errors References and page numbers Convert Diff Editing Minor edit toolbar edit conflict Find sources Files Footnotes Image deletion Infoboxes Linking (link color) Logging in Merging Page name Renaming pages Redirect Passwords Email confirmation Reverting Simple vandalism cleanup Talk pages (archiving simple archiving) User contributions WP search protocol
Coding (?)	Wiki markup Barcharts Calculations Characters Columns Elevation Hidden text HTML Lists Magic words Music symbols Sections Sounds Tables Templates Transclusion URL Visual files
Directories (?)	Abbreviations Contents (Encyclopedia proper) Departments Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Guidelines Manual of Style Policies Tasks Tips Tools
Missing Manual Ask for help on your talk page (?)