Help desk
< July 16	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 18 >

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.

July 17[edit]

Category:Pages with URL errors[edit]

Hi, I've been working through some of the list on Category:Pages with URL errors (correcting, updating, replacing, adding archive-urls etc as necessary) and I spotted a few problem pages, for example Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2009 and the pages it lists, where, because they are archived it asks for no changes to be made - would it be ok for someone (preferably an experienced user/administrator) to edit out these errors, or, if not, would it be possible to stop these types of pages from appearing in the error list? EdwardUK (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Faithfull[edit]

Ref number 1 is not correct for a journal. Please fix if able. Sorry. 139.216.210.155 (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: More precisely, what do think is wrong? That currently {{cite web}} is used? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page as forum[edit]

I see comments removed from article talk pages when they are just expressions that the user likes or dislikes, or just wants to discuss, the subject of the article, on the grounds that a talk page is not a forum. But what if they start by saying something like "Hooray for the brave inhabitants of the glorious republic of Foo in defeating the wretched traitors," then follow that with a reasonable comment about editing the article. I hesitate to remove part of their post and leave the rest. On the other hand it seems like a way to leave a propagandistic post on a talk page. Does the baby go out with the bathwater? Relevant policies or guidelines? Edison (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, it means you should watch that user's edits to make sure they're not POV-pushers. Turkic countries are one of Wikipedia's problem areas due to POV pushers; it's so bad that anything relating to Armenian-Azeri relations is under ARBCOM sanctions.142.105.159.60 (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In one such instance another editor redacted the propaganda sentence, left a comment he had done so, and left the appropriate comments about improving the page. Is such partial redaction permissible? It seems like a good solution. (Redact the bathwater, leave a comment you have done so, and leave the baby). How would you make it clear what had been done and who had done it? This is a general problem, and not specific to one article or one trouble spot.Edison (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with partial refactoring of off-topic forum-like posts. You can use {{rf}} to denote that you have done so. --Majora (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repinging. First one didn't work @Edison: --Majora (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Refactoring" is one of those neologisms which some Wikipedians love, but which are unknown to the general public. It seems to date back only to 1991, and then in a different usage of changing computer code. The template cited of refactoring discusses moving text from one page to another. In the cases I'm discussing we should be removing entirely from view the inappropriate text. I feel like one should be hesitant to edit another's talk page post, since it might make him look inarticulate or confused, if you removed the inappropriate preamble but left the permissible conclusion, but I hate to see someone allowed to keep inappropriate text by following it in the same post with appropriate text. It is convenient if they allow a clean excision by having some propagandistic statement followed by an only loosely related suggestion for editing. If the parts of the post were inextricably related, I would argue for complete removal, followed by inviting the poster to submit an appropriate comment without the propaganda.Edison (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. So it is. My mistake. Depending on how bad it is you could always use {{inappropriate comment}}. That one seems to be more along the lines of what you want. And it provides different options depending on what you are looking for and how bad it is. Frankly, I don't see the problem with you just removing it without mention. Off-topic posts are distracting to the talk page process of improving the article. --Majora (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, Talk page guidelines allows such redacting, per "It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), test edits, and harmful or prohibited material as described above (in the guidelines)." You can remove the comments that seem absolutely irrelevant (but err on the side of caution, as recommended by the guidelines). Leave a redacted note appropriately. And undo your delete if any established editor objects or consensus deems otherwise on the page. Lourdes 04:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SOMEONE HAS DELETED CONTENT OF MY HISTORY - TOYIN ADEKALE[edit]

Hope you can help me. If I could edit my profile adequately I would, but it seems that someone has deleted extensive history on my Wikipedia page. I was wondering how to get it retrieved and how to add pictures or content. The information that was deleted is not inaccurate, so not sure who or why it was deleted. Can you help? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talithavoices7 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please understand there are no "profiles" on Wikipedia - we have articles, including one on Toyin Adekale, but that is NOT "your" page it is Wikipedia's page about you.
As you have a conflict of interest you should not be editing the page at all, but you can make suggestions, citing reliable references, on the talk page:- Talk:Toyin Adekale
The reasons for the deletions are stated in the page history:- The photos were removed because they were copyright violations, 2694 bytes were removed by one of our most experienced admins who stated "cleanups and removing unreferenced sections. If one has performed before Queens and Presidents, it needs refs" another 1059 bytes were removed by another experienced editor who stated "Rm unsourced, cruft, crappy sourced" Looking at what was removed, all of these look reasonable removals, all of the removed material was totally unsourced and much of it was promotional, so there would be no point in reinstating it.
Additions to every article should be sourced to reliable, independent, sources, but this is particularly true of biographies of living persons. - Arjayay (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds kind of like you're saying you are the subject of the article. If so, the rules are that you really shouldn't be editing the article at all. Read Wikipedia:Autobiography. Sorry, but it's often the case that people have a hard time being impartial and following the policies and guidelines when writing about themselves. Note also that Wikipedia doesn't provide "vanity hosting", or whatever you might call it, for people to put up whatever they want. If you want a webpage that you control, start your own website or create a page on something like Facebook. And an obvious issue is that without some method of authentication we have no way of knowing you're who you say you are. Anyone can call themselves anything online. Again, see the page I linked for more advice on this, and if you have more questions you're welcome to ask them here or in another appropriate forum. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do about a well meaning person who keeps reverting an article back to incorrect?[edit]

I updated an article, with references, and a person keeps reverting it because they prefer the old wording. But the old wording is factually incorrect. They clearly aren't meaning harm. But their profile suggests this is a page they shouldn't even care about anyway. Is there someone I can refer this too sothepage can be updated properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.93.104 (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2016

Hello, Ambic (I'm guessing that's who you are, even though you didn't log in). You and GorgeCustersSabre are engaging in an Edit war, and both of you need to stop, and discuss it on the article's talk page Talk:Massey University. I see that you posted about the closing of the campus on the talk page on 13 July, before this started: but once Sabre reverted your change, you should have engaged with him on the talk page, rather than reapplying your change. If Sabre won't engage, or you can't reach agreement, then you should follow the steps in Dispute resolution, but attempting a discussion is the essential first step. I have pinged both of you here, so you should both see this comment. --ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was trying to avoid an edit war but did not know what I needed to do. I was trying to avoid naming people on this page too.

Oversighting?[edit]

I had been trying to bring Draft:Mir Abdolrez Daryabeigi into an acceptable state (with limited success, I am now hoping to forget about it and leave further work to others). On looking today at its edit history, I see that nine consecutive edits by me followed by five by another editor are shown in struck-through grey. I associate this style with oversighting. But I see no evidence that an admin has become involved, I don't recall any content that could be considered defamatory, and I haven't received any kind of warning. What is the explanation for the struck-through edits? Maproom (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Click "View logs for this page" in the page history to see [1]. Based on a Google search, you copied from [2]. Special:WhatLinksHere/Draft:Mir Abdolrez Daryabeigi links a report at User:EranBot/Copyright/rc/48 which says [3]. That's another url to the same content at that site. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It all makes sense now. Maproom (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Table[edit]

How can I export a wiki table to excel and vise versa?(Of course I mean an easy way)--Freshman404^Talk 12:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Freshman404: You can try one of the tools listed here. Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 14:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying to Excel is easy - just copy, then right-click as paste special. Copying from Excel to Wikipedia used to be very hard, but now easy, as long as you use VE.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Torana:--Freshman404^Talk 08:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussion on AFD sort list[edit]

WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arizona has a entry for a closed PROD from 2013. Should I just remove it manually, or may there be other things elsewhere that also need to be cleaned-up? MB 14:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cite template formatting[edit]

I remember, that there was a userscript for converting cite templates from block to inline version and vice-versa. Of course, I don't remember title of it or where I did see it. Any help? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subgroup in templates[edit]

I wish to make a subgroup within groups in a template; .. | group5 = Main group

 subgroup5 Subgroup

| list5 =

A
B

How is that done? Carystus (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carystus: See Template:Navbox#Child navboxes and Template:Navbox subgroup. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Faithfull[edit]

Please add this link Austrian nobility in the category section at the end of this article. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - But you are an experienced editor and could have done that. Did you really need our help? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]