Help desk
< June 9	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 11 >

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 10[edit]

Mount Martha, Victoria[edit]

Ref number 5 on this page is in red - please fix as it looks wrong to me. 111.220.50.129 (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You had used the same ref name twice, for two different references. Corrected in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for Fall of Constantinople[edit]

I recently templated and expanded references, added pageneeded tags where appropriate, and converted an out of order superscripts to a notelist that automatically ordered itself, for this infobox. After doing this the infobox has grown too large, and it will not respond to attempts to resize using bodystyle. Removing the notelist and notes doesn't seem to change this. Something that I did when fixing the references seems to have broken it. I have retraced my steps several times and I cannot get the box to go back to its original size. I wonder if an expert could look at it and tell me what is wrong?--Jpbrenna (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Version Special:Permalink/784024052 shows what it looked like before I began my series of edits.--Jpbrenna (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpbrenna: I've made an edit, adding <wbr /> at various points. At least in Firefox this has reduced the infobox to its original width. I expect there's a better solution. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It works in Chrome, too. There may be a better solution, but if it works, it works. Thank you! --Jpbrenna (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My article on Google[edit]

Hi,

I recently wrote and extensively edited an article titled SM Shetty. I have included 4 references to verify the content included. I tried googling SM Shetty multiple times and the Wikipedia page of my newly created article didn't come up. Given mine is the first under such a title I supposed it would. How do I get my article to appear on Google when you type in the title?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishbachchan (talk • contribs) 02:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Pages shown on Google firsts must be "crawled" by their bots and are usually ranked by their popularity/number of times visited. It appears that the page has not been crawled yet, and due to the relative obscurity of the topic, I would suspect it could take a few days to weeks before it starts showing up in Google searches. Stinger20 (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Harishbachchan: Hello, new pages will not appear on Google searches for 30 days or until they have been reviewed, whichever is the shorter period. Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That "30 days" has changed to 90 days, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T166852 and WP:Controlling search engine indexing#Indexing of articles ("mainspace"). --David Biddulph (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Harishbachchan: your article has now been nominated for deletion. It contains a lot of unreferenced statements and has been deemed to be promotional. You need to find WP: Reliable sources that are independent of the subject and that discuss the subject in detail if you wish to establish WP:Notability. Dbfirs 11:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Britannica[edit]

Hello, I was just trying to figure out how to use this template, but even the description didn't get me any further since I don't see how to find out the website ID of a specific URL. Even if you click on the example in the template, the ID number within the URL dissappears as soon as you enter it. Can somebody please help me out with this? Thanks already! Best--Erdic (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Britannica wrote the ID in the url when the template was made but maybe the template should be recoded now. The ID can be found at topicId in the html source of the Britannica page, e.g. topicId: 440971 for https://www.britannica.com/science/pancreas. In Firefox I can view the html with Ctrl+U Other browsers may have other methods. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PrimeHunter, thank you so much once again! It would have really never occurred to me without you're help. So, I would also strongly support your proposal to recode this template because otherwise this will really stay something for experts only. (But at least I was now able to create the link I wanted – thanks to you!) Please tell me if I can do anything to help you advance your proposal. Best wishes--Erdic (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Erdic: I don't know how stable the current url form is and we have often encountered trouble when websites change their url structure so I have only updated the documentation [1] and not recoded the template. If we started to allow template calls without the ID number then it might become impossible for the template to produce working links in the future. However, there is no guarantee the ID will always be enough. I wish websites would always make redirects when they change url's. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Philippines[edit]

Quick question. ....anyone know why we have articles like History of the Philippines (1972–86) at dates that don't match the topic of the article.....just reading up on the Philippines and noticed all the dates in the titles don't match the content.......article titles have one date .....leads a different date and even a different one in the infoboxs. .. Moxy (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page histories show the pages were moved 35 minutes before your post. I have moved them back to the period they actually cover. The infobox headings are determined by a new constitution in 1973 but politically it seems more meaningful to have the Ferdinand Marcos period 1965–86 in one article than use Constitution of the Philippines#The 1973 Constitution as split. In dictatorships it's the dictator that matters and not some piece of paper the dictator ignores. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Rosenstein[edit]

This person doesn't seem to be deserving of having a Wikipedia article, but I'm not sure. Almost all the references for the article are just a bunch of different IMDB listings, and it looks like the one person who created the article, and made most of the edits, is using his or her account only for this one article. I think whoever reviews articles to see if they're worthy of a Wikipedia article should look at this one. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:44A2:2F56:E172:3C6 (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken a look, I have tagged the article for various targeted issues in this edit. I have not done the work to see if the subject is or is not notable (which is not demonstrated by the article's current content and lack of proper sourcing), and so I have not nominated it at articles for deletion, nor come to a conclusion as to whether it should be, but it certainly needs work.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted contributions[edit]

I cannot understand why my most recent contributions - to 'Enemies of the People' and Calais have been reverted Mabrayne (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)MabrayneMabrayne (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabrayne: You'll need to ask Dr. Blofeld about the edit to Calais as he didn't bother indicating why he reverted your edits. Philip Cross, however, indicated your edit was reverted because it has "Many uses, including the English title of an Henrik Ibsen play." This can be seen by looking at the history of each page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on here for years but I'm inexperienced with actually editing articles, but I know you should either ask your question on those articles' talk pages or ask the editors who reverted you. Good luck. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:44A2:2F56:E172:3C6 (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mabrayne. Generally we do not mention in the body of an article any matter that is not focused directly on the topic of the article. Here, the fact that the title of the article has this other use is not directly relevant to the topic of the Daily Mail newspaper article at the title Enemies of the People.

On the other hand, when we want to address the problem of a title having other uses, and the possibility of people who are looking for a different topic by the same or a confusingly similar name, landing on a page with that title that is not the topic they were looking for, we address this (if at all), through a disambiguation scheme. However, we usually only do so when the other topics sharing the same or similar title already have existing Wikipedia pages, rather than as to titles that don't yet exist.

This is usually addressed through a hatnote, placed at the top of the page (i.e. not in the body) as an aside, directing readers either to see the one or two other pages they might have been looking for when landing there, or by linking to a disambiguation page that lists all such other page titles. The name of a chapter of a book is really not very notable in its own right and so I'm not even sure it would be warranted to list it at a DAB page, were one to be created (especially because the article at The Third Reich Trilogy does not mention that chapter title), so just linking there would not inform). But we would never have a direct mention of this in the body of Enemies of the People, because it is irrelevant to that article's focus. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plagarism[edit]

Hi. I started the Ahmed bin Abdullah Balala page in April and nominated it for DYK. However it is evident that the person had plagarised his biography section in his website [2] from Wikipedia. There are evidences for my claim- in the website the ref no 7 is still there showing that while the admin removed other ref nos, it was overlooked. Similarly, the spelling of injustice is also wrong, which was there in an old version but later corrected by a copyeditor. Since a reviewer has raised this issue, can anyone tell me how to solve this, and make it clear that the website had plagarised from wikipedia? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, his site first showed that text on May 27, a good month after it appeared here. We can certainly tag the article here to reflect the reverse-copy so editors don't tag it for a copyright violation. Regarding his site, all you can really do is email the address given and ask that he comply with the CC-BY-SA license and tag his page accordingly, crediting WP and licensing that text for re-use as the license requires. Crow^Caw 22:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of tags to choose from, which can be placed at the top of the article's talk page. Template:Backwards copy. Also, when you email him – as I hope you will, ( point out that just as his website states 'all rights reserved' – so do we) ask for him to reciprocate and upload a 'free' image of himself on Wikimedia Commons so that we can add it to the article about him. He's organisation need just back it up with an OTRS as it will probably not be himself replying and point out also that the photographer needs to give us his own permission that it is OK for us to use it. His staff may have committed this copyvio out of ignorance to both international copyright laws and our polices. They need informing. Aspro (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Announce: Wikimedia referrer policy[edit]

In February of 2016 the Wikimedia foundation started sending information to all of the websites we link to that allow the owner of the website (or someone who hacks the website, or law enforcement with a search warrant / subpoena) to figure out what Wikipedia page the user was reading when they clicked on the external link.

The WMF is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs, but we can use an advisory-only RfC to decide what information, if any, we want to send to websites we link to and then put in a request to the WMF. I have posted such an advisory-only RfC, which may be found here:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy

Please comment so that we can determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]