Help desk
< June 18	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 20 >

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.

June 19[edit]

Where to get feedback when creating a new article or new content?[edit]

I have been on Wikipedia for a long time (going on 10 years), so I am not a newbie. Here's my question. Let's say that I want to create a brand new article. (Or -- less so, my concern -- I want to make significant changes to a current article.) Is there some forum here where I can ask other Wikipedia editors to take a look at my Sandbox Page and give their input, suggestions, criticisms, etc.? Before I actually go ahead and post the new article. (As to my question above, in italics: I assume the stock answer will be "try the article's Talk Page". But I am asking for forums other than that.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, if you want comments on a brand new article, and are willing to wait, you can always submit it to Articles for Creation. Second, a sandbox isn't really the ideal place for significant changes to an existing article. (For that matter, a sandbox isn't really the ideal place for a new article. Draft space or user space is. AFC reviewers normally move the draft from the sandbox into draft space. But that wasn't the question.) Third, is there a reason why you don't want the comments about an existing article at its talk page? Fourth, is there a WikiProject associated with the article, and how active is the project? Fifth, is there a reason why you don't want the comments about an existing article at its talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. To respond to your five points: (1) OK. I will read about that process. (2) I thought a sandbox was exactly for that? A page where an editor can just "play around" with stuff. No? What is a sandbox for then? (3) Some Talk Pages have no traffic at all. (4) No, my question is just in general. Not a specific article in mind. (5) Same as Number 3. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My own thoughts: (2) I regard a user sandbox as a place the user can make (almost) whatever mess he likes, without interference, and a draft as a place where constructive edits, and comments, are welcome. (3) I used to make comments about drafts in their talk pages, and found that the creator of the draft very rarely took any notice. I now use AFC comments at the top of the draft instead, with slightly more success. I'm sure Joseph A. Spadaro would read both; but other editors may have learned that writing comments in draft talk-pages is generally a waste of time. Maproom (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster is correct that a sandbox is where an editor can do almost anything that they want, short of copyvio, BLP violations, and other blatant offenses. It isn't really a good place to request community attention. Maproom is correct that a draft is a better place for comments. It is true that comments on the talk page of a draft are usually ignored, and that it is usually better to use AFC comments. The original poster asks about proposed changes to an existing article, and wonders where to ask for comments other than the article talk page, because some talk pages are not watched and have little or no traffic. My own recommendation, in such cases, is to edit the article boldly. If other editors disagree, they can then discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: if the talkpage is really that dead, probably no one is particularly fussed about the article and no matter where you propose your changes you aren't going to get much attention. (If the article is a part of an active wikiproject, such as WP:MILHIST, things might be different, and it might be worth posting on that wikiproject's talkpage). I recently did this for our article on archaic Greece: I planned out what I was changing, rolled my changes out section-by-section over the course of about half an hour (diff), and then posted on the relevant wikiproject talkpage (in this case WP:CGR) advising people what I had done. I got positive and useful feedback, and there was a brief flurry of development on the article lasting for about 10 days, followed by slower but still productive changes since then, whereas previously the article had stagnated for years. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: if you must change the title of a heading, please, also change the title in the edit summary (between the /* and the */) so that watchlists, article histories, diffs, etc, link to the proper place.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You made this edit. As part of that edit, you changed the heading. The heading is used to form a link to the conversation so that others can link to it from this history page, from our own watchlists, and from the diff view. When you changed the heading title, the proper link to this conversation became this:

Wikipedia:Help_desk#Where_to_get_feedback_when_creating_a_new_article_or_new_content.3F

Because you did not change the heading title in the edit summary, MediaWiki continued to believe that the correct link to this conversation was:

Wikipedia:Help_desk#Creating a new article or new content

and it is that incorrect link (that points to nowhere) that everyone watching this page got in our watchlists and which still exists in this page's history.

If you go back to the diff view, look under your name in the right column and then click the → in (→‎Creating a new article or new content). That link will not take you that earlier version of this conversation because the heading 'Creating a new article or new content' no longer exists. Perhaps MediaWiki could be smarter about how it handles changes to headings, but for right now, it isn't so smart. As a courtesy to other editors, next time you change a topic heading, also change it in the Edit summary so that MediaWiki can keep up, and the rest of us can get to the topic with a single click instead of having to hunt about to figureout where that topic went and why.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When a person adds an article to their Watch List, you can specify to "watch" only a certain section of that page? I thought you either watch the whole page or nothing at all. No? I can specify to "watch" various Header sections, without actually watching the whole page? Is that what you mean? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that I'm saying that you can specify to "watch" only a certain section of that page? I wrote no such thing. You must watch the whole page.

Here is a mockup of the entry for your edit (where you changed the topic heading) on my watchlist (your watchist format will be slightly different from mine; some links omitted):

(diff | hist) . . Wikipedia:Help desk‎; 16:58 . . (+152)‎ . . ‎Joseph A. Spadaro (talk | contribs | block)‎ (→‎Creating a new article or new content) [rollback]

Click the → in the above mock up and it won't take you the 'Creating a new article or new content' section of this talk page because it no longer exists.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, dude. I asked a question. People do that on this Help Page. I didn't say that "I got the idea that you are saying that you can specify to 'watch' only a certain section of that page". And I didn't say that you "wrote any such thing". Again, I asked a question. Why so defensive, in the context of this conversation? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you asked: I can specify to "watch" various Header sections, without actually watching the whole page? Is that what you mean?, I want to know what it is that I wrote that caused you to ask those questions. So by the asking, you do suggest that I did 'write such a thing'. It is not defensive for me to attempt to understand how, in the answering of your previous questions, I have (if I have) failed communicate.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sometimes, written communication is less than ideal. No worries. I see the point you are making. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo upload error[edit]

I have been tying to upload one of my own photos, however I cannot get it to load, I get the following message :

Unknown error: "{"xhr":{"readyState":0,"status":0,"statusText":"timeout"},"textStatus":"timeout","exception

How do I upload my photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMCCLA (talk • contribs) 03:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no key[edit]

The Spirit of Butts' Farm

I attempted to add additional information to credit the correct team with the first Transatlantic model airplane flight but something went wrong when I tried to add the citation link: http://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/insitu-areosonde-laima Hoping that someone who understands the citation syntax better than myself can correct it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.17.73.72 (talk • contribs)

I've reverted the article to the previous version. The article says that it was the first "model airplane" to cross the Atlantic. You're apparently saying that a model aircraft and an unmanned aircraft are the same thing. I'd bring the distinction up on the talk page before making a change without references to the differences. Dismas|^(talk) 06:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture shows in Section Preview, but not in article.[edit]

For the article South Carolina State University, if I edit either the Student Life section or the Greek Letter Organizations subject of *that*, the image of the NIMC shows up (the one on the grassy field), but the article itself doesn't correctly interpret it. The code that does the picture is [[File:NIMC of SC State University (SCSU).jpg|thumb|255x255px|[[National Interfraternity Music Council|NIMC]] of SCSU - NU Iota Chapter of Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Lambda Xi Chapter of Sigma Alpha Iota, Zeta Eta Chapter of Kappa Kappa Psi, and Epsilon Chi Chapter of Tau Beta Sigma]]. Any idea what the issue is? (Other than the fact that the u in NU iota should be lower cased. :) Naraht (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking. Maybe because your question is phrased with one block of text without separating the code from the prose. That said, I did make this correction. Does that help? Dismas|^(talk) 14:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't understand why the article needs so many images. Dismas|^(talk) 15:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warred into submission[edit]

I know there's a 3RR admin page, but I'm wondering how to deal with the repeated adding of this. The information shouldn't be there because it's not appropriate for that particular article, and I have attempted to explain this to the editor concerned, even directing them to an article where it would be suitable, but to no avail. I've used my three reverts so can do no more. Any advice? This is Paul (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, you have answered your own question in that there is a 3RR admin page, the edit-warring noticeboard, and you don't say why you won't use it. I do see that neither party has tried to discuss at the disambiguation talk page, Talk: Tony Blair (disambiguation). I don't see why you say that the entry isn't appropriate for the disambiguation page, although I do see a glaring problem, and that is that the entry that claims to be for the minor character actually points to the Prime Minister. Discuss at the disambiguation talk page. If discussion fails, you know where to report. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Robert, though I'm never sure when is and when isn't the appropriate time to use that page. Do you alert them if someone goes one revert over (which we can perhaps all be guilty of on occasion) or several (when it's obviously disruptive)? Anyway, I've posted a discussion on the article's talk page, but given that the user appears to write in absolute gibberish then I won't be expecting them to agree to a resolution any time soon. This is Paul (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page has now been protected. Eagleash (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hopefully a moot point, as I've just done an (ultra-short-term) full protection on the dab page; if it continues then I'll start dishing out formal warnings and blocks. Our policy is absolutely clear on this, so this is one of those rare disputes when there genuinely is a "right version" and "wrong version". ‑ Iridescent 17:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the policy link, I knew it was somewhere. I'll keep it in mind if this happens again. This is Paul (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls[edit]

2016 Orlando nightclub shooting is in hidden Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. It's apparently not a cite template, since there are no red errors in the References section. I can find no other error messages anywhere in the article. I'd like to fix the error. More importantly for my ongoing education, how does one go about finding such an error? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When these occur, there is an error message visible at the top of a previewed page. The error is not detectable by the cs1|2 template code. I found this one by simply looking for |first= occurring more than once in a cs1|2 template. There are more sophisticated tools; a list of possible tools is at Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Moral: Follow the cat link, there might be useful information there. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]