Help desk
< October 1	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 3 >

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.

October 2[edit]

How to Semi-protect an article?[edit]

So here's the deal, I'm trying to edit an article by removing a bunch of useless and redundant info, but an anonymous user keeps restoring it within several hours later. This user almost never logs in but if the article in particular was Semi-protected, it could no longer be vandalised. (User:Zucat)

So how can I Semi-protect an article?

Help needed: Categories[edit]

User:Grey Geezer/Gymnasium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings! I plan to publish this article, however, I have difficulties to assign the correct categories. "novel" does not apply, because it is about novels - but not a novel itself. "textbook", really? Anybody here to be of assistance? Thanks! GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 07:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Grey Geezer: Category:Books about literature? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THX, done!

Next ? :-) GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 12:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging 20 articles into a single article[edit]

Hello. I've just managed to merge 20 rather short articles into a single page at Draft:List of successful votes of no confidence in British governments. The draft is a compilation of Template:Motion of no confidence votes in the United Kingdom save three longer articles (1892 vote of no confidence against the government of Lord Salisbury, 1895 vote of no confidence against the government of Lord Rosebery and 1979 vote of no confidence in the government of James Callaghan). I think it's probably unnecessary to submit it for review as this article is not exactly brand new information but rather just a mass merge. I plan to redirect those 20 articles to their merged section in the article, but I don't know whether I should submit it for review or go bold and create the article without waiting for it to be reviewed the former route. Advice on this would be appreciated. Thank-you.--Nevé –selbert 09:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing needs to be reviewed at AFC—if you're confident, just move the article to mainspace. On a purely practical matter, the draft as it stands is a copyright violation as there's no attribution to the authors of the original articles from which you've cut-and-pasted the contents. Given the number of source articles, the recommended method of attributing within edit summaries isn't going to work—I'd suggest either a list of the original contributors on the talkpage, or links to all the original edit histories on the talkpage, with an edit summary when you do take it live directing readers to the relevant talkpage section for the attribution. ‑ Iridescent 09:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Neve-selbert: Yeah, for something like that I would recommend saving the new article one merge at a time, instead of creating it with one huge save, with the mandated attribution edit summary on each. You need to add a {{Merged-from|article|date}} for each merge on the talk page of the new article in the WP:TALKLEAD, and {{Talk page of redirect|merge=yes}} and {{Merged-to|article|date}} on the talk pages of each of the old articles. Murph9000 (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent and Murph9000: Thanks for the replies. I've added attribution at Draft talk:List of successful votes of no confidence in British governments. Do I have to include both {{Copied multi}} and {{Merged from}} at the new article talkpage? On another note, would it be wise to go about creating the article (bit-by-bit) now then?--Nevé –selbert 10:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Neve-selbert: Yeah, {{Copied multi/Merged-from}} for each original article enclosed in a {{Copied multi}} should be fine on the new article. {{Merged-from}} is just the standard simple template for it, there's nothing wrong with using the official multi version instead (and the result should be cleaner, I just forgot about the multi version in my previous message). It's just important to have it in templates in the talk header, so it doesn't easily get archived / lost / hidden at some point in the future, and is at an expected place to find attribution information. I don't think you really need to redo your work on the article, the talk page attribution should be ok, it's just best practice for future reference (and others who might read this). Make your first edit summary after moving it to main space, on a dummy edit, a clear and obvious note that it's a multi-merge and to see the talk page for details. WP:CC BY-SA requires that the attribution must be there, but does give some flexibility about exactly how you record it. Murph9000 (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it, all articles now redirect to List of successful votes of no confidence in British governments. Thanks Murph9000 for assisting me.--Nevé –selbert 12:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to upload photo[edit]

Charudutta Panigrahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please suggest how to upload photos to article Charudutta Panigrahi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hss132hss (talk • contribs) 12:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hss132hss:, you should be able to upload now, try again. Fuortu (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of Riemann Hypothesis[edit]

Riemann Hypothesis has been finally proved by Jyotirmoy Biswas, which you can check on "http://iosrjournals.org/iosr-jm/papers/Vol7-issue4/D0741420.pdf?id=4535" It has been indexed successfully in ANED (American National Engineering Database) Please visit: www.aned.us I request you to verify in your own term by your editorial board and update it on your page. Thanking You.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souvik Sinha (talk • contribs) 14:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning, WoT is showing the link as untrustworthy Jimfbleak (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jimfbleak, what does that mean? I went there before noticing your warning; it's an ordinary-looking PDF, and the main iosrjournals.org likewise appears to be an ordinary HTML page, with no warnings given me by my browser's security features. Nyttend (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Souvik Sinha: The Riemann hypothesis is one of the big unsolved problems in mathematics. A valid solution would be a sensation reported widely not just by mathematics sources but the mainstream media. Millennium Prize Problems offers a $1 million prize for it. There is no way Wikipedia will accept a three years old claim in a little known journal ignored by the mathematical community. Alleged but false solutions of famous problems like this frequently make it into obscure journals, often so obscure that serious mathematicians don't even bother refuting it. WP:EXTRAORDINARY says:

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:

surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;

PrimeHunter (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, PrimeHunter link to WoT analysis Jimfbleak (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 10 minutes of Google searches on this says to me that it's not a credible proof. This would be a very big deal in the maths world. If true, there should be some combination of search hits from maths departments at major well respected old universities, award nominations / prizes, conferences, and journals. In particular, years after the proof was published, there should be papers about it in many good journals. They are just not there for searches including the name of the author of that paper. The person / people responsible for the proof would be celebrities / heroes in the academic maths world. Murph9000 (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please check[edit]

User:Meister und Margarita/Averitt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Here is a first draft for a biography of an American war photographer. I am not fit in American military history (and English is not my mother tongue). I am grateful for having a look at the draft. Could not find a proper link for U.S. Army 92nd Signal Battalion Company A. Maybe you could help. Thanks--Meister und Margarita (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit thin on references. Not sure if that is going to be an issue when it's a live article. Jarkeld (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add link to template[edit]

All of the speedy deletion templates based on {{db-meta}} have a link that, when clicked, takes the clicker to the delete page, complete with a prefilled rationale for deletion. The code is [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|wpReason={{urlencode:{{#ifeq:{{{criterion}}}|NA||[[WP:CSD#{{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}|{{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}]]:}} {{{summary|}}}}}&action=delete}} deletion]. It's a wonderfully convenient feature.

{{AFC submission}} displays the text This draft has not been edited in over six months and qualifies to be deleted per CSD G13 when it's transcluded on such a draft page. I'd like to convert the word "deleted" to a link, comparable to the one in db-meta, but I don't trust myself to write the right code. Could someone else give me the code that would be necessary? The template's so heavily used that I won't add it without leaving a note at talk, and I'd like to have the code ready now (instead of waiting for consensus or non-opposition at talk) in case someone wants to ensure that the link does what it should. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this

[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|wpReason={{urlencode:[[WP:CSD#G13|G13]]: Abandoned [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|AfC]] submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see [[WP:REFUND/G13]]}}&action=delete}} deletion]

would work (example link) would do what you want. (You'd also want to add the reason in a span with id delete-reason, so that the sidebar delete link would preload with the reason). Ppp ery 15:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Of course I get a permission error when I click the link (I'm not a steward, so I don't have bigdelete), but if I change the URL to something else (e.g. replace "Help" with "Reference"), it seems to work fine. Could you explain your parenthetical statement? I don't know what you mean by the "sidebar delete link", and I'm also unclear why I need to add text in a <span></span> when the link's already working fine. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

font size/references[edit]

hi, how do I change the font size to 50% for references I want to add to an article? thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is, you do not.

We have a house style.

Is there some rationale for an exception?--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to do so on my talk page for 6 references I have?[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue if it's 50% or some other size, but you can always encase text in <small></small> tags. Perhaps put the {{Reflist}} template, or the <lt;/references> code, inside the small tags? Note that {{Reflist}} already reduces the size somewhat. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A question about diffs[edit]

Hello, I appear to have lost wikEdDiff, the little green triangle thing that, when clicked, allowed me to see highlighted diffs alongside the regular display. I haven't changed it, so it should still be there. It's quite useful for checking diffs where there are only minor changes, such as adding or removing a comma, etc. Does anyone know what may have happened to it? This is Paul (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see it in Modern? Do you see it at [2] if you log out? What is your browser and skin? Try to disable both wikEdDiff and wikEd at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, save preferences, and then enable wikEdDiff but not wikEd. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see it at Modern, but not in the other link. I'm using Chrome (not sure about the skin), but it's only been happening this evening. I'll try suggestions and see if that fixes it. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can find which skin in the Appearance tab at Special:Preferences. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook. This is Paul (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, still don't have it. This is Paul (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just discovered refreshing the page brings it back, though it seems to be a bit hit and miss and sometimes takes several attempts. Not sure why that is. This is Paul (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Can someone semi-automatically go through User:WikiOriginal-9/sandbox8 and add a colon ":" before the categories for obvious reasons. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was fast. For future reference, how did you do that? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With a regular expression in a text editor: '/\*\[\[Category:/*[[:Category:/gi' -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiOriginal-9, if you need to do this in the future, you don't need regex knowledge. Just copy/paste the affected text into Notepad, and then order a basic Ctrl+H find-and-replace command. It only needs to be told to replace every occurrence of *[[Category: with *[[:Category: in order to do the job in a few seconds. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]