Help desk
< September 6	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

September 7

Introducing Advanced Mode?

Hi! Each time I load a page on wikipedia, it asks me to enable advanced mode saying it makes "easier to access Talk pages, History pages, Recent changes, and other editor tools on mobile." But I don't want to enable it and everytime I had to tap "No Thanks" so it says, "You can enable Advanced mode at any time in your Settings." It disturbs a lot, how to disable it permanently? Please can anyone give this feedback, I am unable to use wiki because of this disturbing feature. It is OK to use like it was before, as of now. Thanks! M. Billoo 01:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging AHollender (WMF) and CKoerner (WMF). Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 03:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our apologies for this inconvenience, the drawer is only supposed to show one time upon page load. There are other ways to trigger the drawer (clicking on Talk, History, or navigating to Desktop mode) however even still it should only show a maximum of four times. Is this issue still occurring? AHollender (WMF) (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2 questions

These are a couple of things I've encountered recently that I'd like a couple of extra guidance about, please.

One is whether it's permissible to link to a DAB page when there is useful info on it, e.g. Biennial - or is it better to link to Wiktionary in this case?

The other is about bolding text when there's a redirect to the page. Following the guidance I have read, I have been doing this whenever I create a redirect page from a significant alternative spelling or name, former name, or to a subtopic when there is useful info on the target page. A while ago someone reverted my bolding and challenged me on the example of Realscreen => Brunico Communications. I regard the matter as rather trivial and am not inclined to argue the point there further, but would like to hear another opinion on this type of case. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laterthanyouthink: I agree with reverting [1]. It looks strange to bold some of the terms in a list. MOS:BOLD says "These applications of boldface are done in the majority of articles, but are not a requirement." WP:R#ASTONISH says "It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term ... But insignificant or minor redirects can skip this". MOS:BOLDLEAD does sound like bolding could be required: "This is also done, at the first occurrence in running text, of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that is redirected to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not". But I don't think "also done" necessarily means always done. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, PrimeHunter. Agreed, it looks a bit odd. But the other two mentioned are links, and it might look better with the two redirected terms listed after those ones? Anyway, that's fine, I think it's fairly trivial anyway, as it doesn't affect navigation. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Communication

I want to talk. Please let me communicate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lachlan Cryer 4.0 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lachlan Cryer 4.0. Welcome to Wikipedia. As I expect you know, this is an encyclopaedia, not social media, so it is not designed just for chatting, but if you are interested in helping to edit, then you might like to try WP:The Wikipedia Adventure. Do ask again here if you have further questions. Dbfirs 06:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John d'Henin Hamilton, 3rd Baron Hamilton of Dalzell

Ref number 6 is in red. Please fix thanks175.32.82.245 (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Maproom (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of wedding guests of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank

There are a number of refs that have been vandalised - they are in red stating something about "being in bold". Please fix thanks 175.32.82.245 (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. No vandalism was involved. The references had been given with italic text in the "publisher" field, causing the error message. Maproom (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These error messages started appearing on multiple pages at the same time as the 'website required' messages which were the subject of an earlier discussion. I thought they might be part of the same issue so have not fixed any myself. It's OK to fix these? Eagleash (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Browse history interactively"

I've just noticed a thing saying "browse history interactively" when looking at a diff. What is this? I'm reluctant to click it in case it's one of those improvements that's hard to get rid of once you realise how useless it is. DuncanHill (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: its a chart that allows you to see when content was removed/added to the article. It is collapsible so you can click it and it will go away again so it isn't 'hard to get rid of' but it is pretty useless (in my opinion). Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, thank you. Isn't it sad that I've become so disillusioned by all the "improvements" and new features over the years that I react with instinctive distrust to things like this? DuncanHill (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could try a feature while logged out in a computer or browser you don't use for Wikipedia. Feature choices aren't saved by IP address. How to revert new features or interface changes is a common question. I have thought about creating a help page dedicated to it, both listing which changes cannot be reverted and how to revert the others. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I daren't log out, my IP is sporadically subject to vast and hard to fathom range-blocks that have caused me significant problems in the past. I think your idea of a help page is a very good one. DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing suicides and deaths for protest movements

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. I wanted to ask if there is a standard way to categorize information about "protest suicides" in protest movements. I live in Hong Kong, and am personally supportive of the protest movement here, but am afraid that the suicides are a major threat to Hong Kong people, as a public health and security issue. People who are suicidal may want to use their deaths to strengthen the movement, which will be truly tragic. And it also can lead to copycat suicides. It could also influence future protests elsewhere in a harmful way.

Again, personally, I have really cared about this issue all summer. Two people committed protest suicides near my apartment this summer, and a high-school protester nearly jumped out of a building near my apartment last night. My wife is a social worker, and we went outside to try to talk to him, but fortunately by the time we arrived, he was already talking with other people and was safe.

I want to ask, is this something that Wikipedia already has a policy about? If so, I'd like to read up on it, before I try to do any editing on the 2019 Hong Kong protests page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_protests.

At the moment, the 2019 Hong Kong protests page has a box for "Injuries and arrests", which includes the number of suicides. I looked at articles about other protests, but couldn't find one with the same categorization.

I'm of the opinion that it would be better to expand the article's current section on the suicides, but not include the suicide reference inside the "Injuries and arrests" box.

Josephwoodard (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)josephwoodard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephwoodard (talk • contribs) 11:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Josephwoodard. The page Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests exists as a forum for questions such as yours. I suggest you post there.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tutankhamun File

This file is appallingly written almost throughout and does not appear to have the usual edit facility clearly available. This should be remedied, I think — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.228.157 (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is protected from editing due to vandalism, but if you have specific changes you want to see, you may make a formal edit request on the article talk page, or you can just use the article talk page to discuss your concerns. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies

Hello everybody yeah! lol, just a joke. Now seriously, I don't understand why in the article about the unfortunate and regrettable incident in El Paso, Texas Wikipedia refuses to name Crusius as "perpetrator", and only as "suspect" when he's actually pictured with the AK-47 in his hands. Do you have to wait until conviction? Thank you. --CoryGlee (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we wait. See WP:BLP and specifically WP:BLPCRIME. -Arch dude (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which LTA?

I was looking into the following blocked users:

156.205.136.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Szymborskawislawa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wislawaszymborska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tolstoypushkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They are all blocked as LTA, but I was wondering whether there was an easy way in such cases to tell which LTA when the block log doesn't say?

Of course I could always ask the blocking admin, and in this specific case there is already a comment at User talk:Antandrus#User:Szymborskawislawa that led me to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikinger, but is there a way to tell which LTA without bothering the blocking admin? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask a checkuser or someone else who might know :) For the record I haven't bothered looking these up. The problem with Wikinger and some other LTAs is that they impersonate other LTAs. So sometimes you just have to say "that's a sock". In response to your question what I would suggest is to check the following: global contribs, filter hits, and logs, backlinks to user talk pages, and article histories. A quick look through Sz..'s contribs, combined with article histories and a relevant search, suggests this is George Reeves Person (or an impersonator) (SPI). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]