Help desk
< June 2	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 4 >

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 3[edit]

Editing font[edit]

The font seems to have changed when I edit. I want it to be the same as when I read the article. How do I change it? Also, how do I find out what my "reading" font is currently? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Change in font in edit window. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added the recommended line to my common.css, but that hasn't made any difference. Any other suggestions? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The line is not recommended but just shows css syntax with an example. I wrote: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing has a setting "Edit area font style" where you can choose between different types of fonts but the specific font for each type is determined by your browser unless you make personal CSS like above. You can try selecting "Sans-serif font" there if you want it to be similar to reading. Remove your css so it doesn't override the preference. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the other font styles made things worse. Thanks anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worse how? Not the font style from reading, not the same size, or what? I get the same font style as reading with "Sans-serif font". It's bigger but form#editform textarea { font-size: 100%; } in Special:MyPage/common.css fixes that for me. But I prefer a monospaced font for editing. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this math rendering problem specific to me or is it general with Microsoft Edge?[edit]

{\begin{pmatrix}x'\\y'\\\end{pmatrix}}={\begin{pmatrix}\cos \theta &-\sin \theta \\\sin \theta &\cos \theta \\\end{pmatrix}}{\begin{pmatrix}x\\y\\\end{pmatrix}}

.

{\begin{pmatrix}ct'\\x'\end{pmatrix}}={\begin{pmatrix}\cosh w&\sinh w\\\sinh w&\cosh w\end{pmatrix}}{\begin{pmatrix}ct\\x\end{pmatrix}}

.

{\begin{pmatrix}x'\\y'\\\end{pmatrix}}={\begin{pmatrix}\cos \theta &-\sin \theta \\\sin \theta &\cos \theta \\\end{pmatrix}}{\begin{pmatrix}x\\y\\\end{pmatrix}}

.

{\begin{pmatrix}ct'\\x'\end{pmatrix}}={\begin{pmatrix}\cosh w&\sinh w\\\sinh w&\cosh w\end{pmatrix}}{\begin{pmatrix}ct\\x\end{pmatrix}}

.

On most browsers, I can use <small></small> to get smaller rendering of math markup. On Microsoft Edge, however, the rendering is not smaller, but is chopped to the side and below. Is this specific to my machine, or do other people see it? Is this a Microsoft Edge issue, or is it a Wikimedia issue? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I confirm this is a problem of Edge. Ruslik_Zero 10:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll report it to Microsoft.

BTW, Safari on iPhone (which I'm using now) does not render as smaller, but there is no problem with truncation. Lesson is to always check on multiple browsers, and don't forget the 44% of mobile users. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the html tag <small>...</small> is only intended for text. It's passed on to your browser. Your math tags produce images. I see the same problem as you in Edge while it works in Firefox. I wouldn't use small on images. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use for concert video recordings?[edit]

It seems pretty clear per c:Commons:Video#Videos and copyright that if one films part of a concert, the audio that may be copyrighted needs to be removed from the video in order for the rest of the video to be uploaded to Commons. But suppose I wanted to upload a short video of about 30 or less seconds as an indication of what a certain concert or festival is/was like, would it be ok to upload it here on English Wikipedia under a fair use licence? Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at WP:NFCCP and decide whether all 10 criteria are satisfied. Ruslik_Zero 10:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I also found some additional rules about audio samples at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples. I think I know which remix of the song is audible, so I can credit the artists, and although I don't know the full length of this track, I've found compilations online featuring it for more than 2 minutes, so a 11 seconds video (below the 10% mark) should be ok. Here I go. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem is going to be WP:NFCC#8. If all you have is a few people playing music onstage and the crowd cheering, it is pretty much what every concert is made of and I doubt you can squeeze it through "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the concert includes some nontrivial choregraphy, it could be copyrighted as well (not just the audio). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laird[edit]

There are two funny brackets after the number (reference) 4 on this page. Why? 101.182.69.169 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of anyone who might read this and wonder why the question was not answered, the problem was fixed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica[edit]

Have all articles from Britannica been incorporated into wikipedia? Is there any bot etc that tracks article incorporation? I need this information for a project. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeatlastChitchat: Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition from 1911 is the most recent edition which is out of copyright and allowed to copy in Wikipedia. Our article says it had 40,000 articles. Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica has 12,278 pages. The category is generally added by placing {{EB1911}} in the page. It is used in See more at Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There would be many topics found at EB1911 that are already covered in Wikipedia were there is no point copying in info that is 100 years out of date. That idea might help your project. An article on Airplanes or Germany in 1911 would look very differant in 1911. Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac and PrimeHunter, ty for the info. I was actually trying to find a comparative list between the current version of Britannica, rather any post 9/11 one and wikipedia. As in a list or something which says "Britannica 2001 has articles on topic "A", "B", and "C", out of these, topic "A" and "B" are covered in wikipedia while topic "C" is not covered. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I'm not sure how you find that given EB has had about 500,000 topics (according to the WP page on EB) and English wikipedia has a lot more (was it 5 million+?) I'd be shocked if there is a single topic in EB not covered here already but I'm not going to check all the pages. Interesting research project. Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a family of projects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles) that try to make sure we have an article on each subject that is occurs in other encyclopedic works. Two of the subprojects are relevant: Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification and Wikipedia:List of 2007 Macropædia articles. One big problem: how do you decide if we have "incorporated" an article when we have elected to split the information up differently than in some other encyclopedic work? -Arch dude (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

WELCOME TO THE FUTURE cite error — Preceding unsigned comment added by BashAli41 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BashAli41: You created WELCOME TO THE FUTURE which has been deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on published reliable sources, not a place to publish your own experiences and thoughts, or promote a book if that's what you were doing. See more at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need help for creating a new article.[edit]

Hey, good evening. I am Zahid from Bangladesh. I am a sailor of Bangladesh Navy.I want to create an article for my Commanding Officer. How can I create it? Would you please help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.38.243 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOLDIER for guidance on the notability of military personnel. My gut feeling is that your CO won't be notable enough to have a stand alone article. However, ships of the Bangladesh Navy are likely to be notable enough to have articles. What about writing about them instead and helping fill a gap? Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Zahid, if you are contemplating the difficult task of creating new articles, I urge you to study Your first article. One thing that recommends is spending some time learning about Wikipedia by improving existing articles first. --ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a category link[edit]

I am trying to add category links to the page for Robert E. Bourdeau - e.g. NASA People but I can't figure out how to do it. Everything I've tried ends up with a red link. Can anybody take a look and tell me how to do this correctly. I've tried searching for help but am now in overload... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickieB (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there are editors that do a lot of categorizing. It is a special skill set you need to develop. Try broader terms rather then very narrow ones to find appropriate categories. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MickieB: You have to find existing categories, for example in similar articles or with the search function. See Help:Category#How to find articles for a category. Then you have to add the exact name. In [1] you wrote Category:NASA People instead of Category:NASA people with lower case p. Wikipedia uses sentence case in category and article names. The link becomes red if the category doesn't exist. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tool to check XfD votes vs concensus[edit]

I recall there is a way to see how often an editor voted Keep or Delete vs the result of the XfD over time. I've got a couple cases I'd like to check. Any one know where that tool is? Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: There's one tool that you can check the XFD stats of each user. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a name to the Air Medal list[edit]

I would appreciate information on how to add a name to the Air Medal awardees list. Thank you. Gordon CarmichaelTexasfurclan (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Texasfurclan: Add who? If you mean Category:Recipients of the Air Medal then only people with Wikipedia articles can be added to categories. If you mean Air Medal#Notable recipients then only a small part of the 1,198 people with articles should be added. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janet m Evans[edit]

Please remove all links to me. Otherwise I will have to file charges on unroofed allegations toward me. Get me off Wikipedia with your unsubstantial lies. Janet Evans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.65.210 (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@99.3.65.210: please do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. Seagull123 Φ 21:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, if there is a Wikipedia article with unfounded allegations about you, please tell us which article (I assume you are not Janet Evans the swimmer) and they can be dealt with. Maproom (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be about Janet M. Evans in American Biographical Institute. I wonder why so many posters want us to edit a page but don't say which page. We have millions. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Obama Race speech.png fair-use rationale[edit]

Hi, the file File:Obama Race speech.png is used under "fair-use" - however, there is no non free media rationale (with or without a template such as {{Non-free use rationale}}). What should happen? The editor who uploaded it, Northwesterner1, hasn't edited since 2009, and I don't think I can (or should?) add the rationale. Is it OK for someone else to add this, or is there something else that should happen? Thanks. Seagull123 Φ 21:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, thank you Joseph2302! Seagull123 Φ 15:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this album name supposed to be written?[edit]

How is 2 Live Crew's album As Nasty As They Wanna Be supposed to be written? Isn't the word "as" supposed to be written in lowercase letters? --Sullay (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first word in titles is always capitalized. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A0A5:6CF:D9C3:3FD3 (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC) - Oh, and the second "As" is discretionary; it might look out of place as the only non-cap word.[reply]

It's been like that for thirteen years. Presumably we follow the group's choice of title rather than the usual capitalisation. Dbfirs 06:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laird[edit]

There are two funny brackets after the number (reference) 4 on this page. Why? 101.182.69.169 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a typo to me. --Sullay (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. †dismas†|^(talk) 23:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference links[edit]

Since nobody has answered yet, I would like to kindly point out to you this request. Up to now, I was not able to resolve the matter. Best--Erdic (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which matter? "this issue" is very vague when no issue is mentioned or obvious in the linked section. Is it about the cleanup box in the following section? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the page history, I can see that the Ziegler and Deaux citerefs have gone nowhere ever since Sabrebd made it a substantive article in 2014 [2] after splitting a lot of the content as discussed in Talk:House of Plantagenet/Archive 2#Split Article. I can't seem to find the targets in the Bib sections of the Plantagenet article history. Perhaps Sabrebd can help? Nanonic (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full bibliographical info for Ziegler and Deaux seems to be available at Black Death in England, and could probably be copied over if the references are the same. Just as a quick tip: searching for a short reference (like "Ziegler 2003") in Wikipedia's search engine, or looking into the initial main article of a summary section ("Black Death"), often reveals articles with the missing information. Unfortunately harvard references often get damaged, when parts of the reference are not copied correctly, or they get deleted by accident later. GermanJoe (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears Sabrebd copied it (originally to a sandbox [3]) without adhering to our license and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia by linking the source page in the edit summary. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]