Help desk
< September 13	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 15 >

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.

September 14[edit]

Spell check is not working[edit]

I do not know if there is some problem with my browser, but it is checking spellings when I am using gmail. So the possibility of issues with browser is less. I do not know how to go ahead with this. Spell check is not working in the editor of Wikipedia. May I request experienced editors to kindly help? May I reqeust them to kindly let me know at my talk page if they can detect where the problem lies and what can be the solution? Thank you in advance. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which browser do you have? Lourdes 08:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome. And surprisingly as I am typing it, it is working absolutely fine. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a process on French or Spanish Wikipedia to reuse open license text[edit]

Hi

Does anyone know if there is a process on French or Spanish Wikipedia to reuse open license text like there is on English Wikipedia?

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John Cummings. I am not aware of a similar page on other Wikipedia projects, as they are not linked on WIkidata. I would suggest that you ask on the French Wikipedia help desk and the Spanish Wikipedia help desk. Hope that helps. Have an amazing day! Daylen (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Daylen. --John Cummings (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations (multiples thereof)[edit]

Look. Using {{citeweb}} etc., how to re-use the same ref but with a different page number? As I've just found out, if I copy it and change the page, it changes it across the board. Heh. Any news? TYVMI! (avoiding sfn, if poss, cheers)— fortunavelut luna 09:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why avoid {{sfn}}? It does exactly what you appear to want. You can always make free-form 'short references' that describe the 'long references' but there are no automatic links between the two and making and maintaining consistent formatting of many different short refs can be a true pain.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Trappist -what it was, you see, was that these short refs were condemned in my recent GA, so I thought it best to avoid them. See what I mean? — fortunavelut luna 10:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reference info for John Neville, 1st Marquess of Montagu

unnamed refs

1

named refs

0

self closed

0

Refn templates

2

cs1 refs

1

cs1 templates

82

cs1-like templates

7

sfn templates

245

refbegin templates

1

use xxx dates

dmy

cs1|2 ymd dates

2

cs1|2 last/first

78

cs1|2 author

1

List of cs1 templates

Cite book (1)
cite book (62)
cite journal (13)
cite thesis (2)
cite web (4)

List of cs1-like templates

cite DNB (1)
cite EB1911 (1)
cite odnb (5)

List of sfn templates

sfn (245)

explanations

Yeah. All that manual citation formatting suggests that {{sfn}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite encyclopedia}}, {{cite journal}}, and {{cite odnb}} are the odd men out though I suspect that had you not made this edit, we would not be having this conversation. To my mind, the article fairly calls out for a references section and a bibliography section with {{sfn}} throughout and cs1 templating; though WP:CITEVAR stands in your way (but, one might claim that because {{sfn}} and cs1 had been in the article since this edit it would be in your rights to 'return' to that style).

There is {{rp}} which, like {{sfn}} has its proponents and its detractors; to me it's more of that manual-maintenance-headache styling.

Too many commas in Richardson,, D. (2011). Everingham,, K. G., ed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on em now. VERY well spotted where I (innocently!) took away what at the time just looked like stray links and refs- but were part of the actual list. Unbelievable! Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 11:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tool[edit]

Is there any tool for easily citing web pages, by just entering the URL?--Freshman404^Talk 11:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, but Refill and ProveIt both do something similar, as does the inbuilt RefToolbar. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Two good ones I've used are Yadkard and User:Ark25/RefScript#How to use the script . For the RefScript thing, use the old method of installation. Thanks. Lourdes 12:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Freshman404... Lourdes 12:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freshman404 Not sure I understand the first comment "not exactly". If you are using the visual editor, and click on the cite button, then enter the URL, it can often create a reference. It isn't 100% but it's north of 90%. Referencing, which used to be a challenging task is now relatively easy in many cases. Tools such as refill a useful for cleaning up existing articles with improper references, but I wouldn't use it for for a new reference. Not only does the site automatically convert URLs, drop in an ISBN, PMID or DOI , and in many cases it will complete a reference for you. (Some people realize this, however there were some editors who are unhappy with the initial rollout of visual editor and vowed never to use it again. If anyone made that file they should try again because references along make it worthwhile. Plus, it handles tables nicely now.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, if the URL is already saved as a reference it is ridiculously easy to fix. Click on edit to invoke the visual editor, click on the reference number, click on convert, click on insert and save. If the article has a half dozen or more I use refill but fewer than that is just as easy to let visual editor do the work.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: Thanks for your kind answer. I know that. I was looking for Yadkard, which "Lourdes" mentioned. Freshman404^Talk 15:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, I just improve six references in Jeanette Pohlen-Mavunga In less than a minute. (As a tip, if you have more than one reference to change start at the end.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 15:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC) --S Philbrick (Talk) 15:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Yadkard works for you, then great, but I looked at it and thought it seemed like more work than VE. Do you think I am missing something? What does Yadkard do that VE cannot do faster and easier? Serious question, if it is a useful tool, I'd like to use it, but my quick review suggested it may have been useful pre-VE, but is now redundant.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

formatting literature[edit]

Hi, dear people... i wanted to name a book which is written in both languages - english and german. Unfortunately the "cite book" only allows one "language" parameter. How do i format this correctly? --Gyanda (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gyanda: buried somewhere in the documentation of the template, we find The language in which the source is written. (...) When the source uses more than one language, list them individually, separated by commas, e.g. |language=French, German. Is that what you were looking for? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is clever, will try that immediately! Great, it worked! How nice of you to help me! May i add another question? If you quote from a book more than once - in the german wikipedia you can just name the book under literature and then use a tag <ref name=> - would this work here as well? And thanks again for having found this great info for me!!! --Gyanda (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gyanda: Yes, named references work here too. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, John of Reading. I have made up a "vademecum" with the most important issues on formatting and i will add this info, so i hopefully will not have to ask this question again. Thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyanda (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA bot?[edit]

This passed a GA review @06:50 this morning, but the bot hasn't come round. Is that a problem? (Me again, many thanks!) — fortunavelut luna 13:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FIM. How's everything going? Nice to see the GA. Alright, which bot are you worried about, and what was it supposed to do? (Lego would transclude the discussion on the talk page in due course; if that's what was worrying you...) (p.s: I've corrected a small inadvertent error by Hawkeye7 while adding the article to the GA list.) Thanks. Lourdes 13:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, hi Lourdes :) thanks for that. It's no big deal, I just never seen it take so long. Idle curiosity really, no problem with H7. Perhaps legobot on strike! In my naivity I just assumed that bots never went wrong... unlike humans :) — fortunavelut luna 14:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "like humans", don't you? :D Lourdes 15:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes :) — fortunavelut luna 17:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page Summary Help[edit]

Good morning,

I am drafting a Wikipedia page for my company, a global applicant tracking system. I have noticed a lot of other company pages have a gray box to the right of the page with highlights of company information. Does that generate automatically?

If not, how can I set it up on this page?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohennz (talk • contribs) 13:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is called an "infobox". The way I find easiest is to copy one from another article, and change the details. If you're good at reading manuals, you may prefer Help:Infobox. By the way – you ought to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Maproom (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly second Maproom's suggestion of reading up on COIs before submitting, it'll help save you some time. The specific template you're looking for is likely the company infobox template. PureRED | talk to me | 13:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mohennz. Unfortunately, there is a rather widespread set of misapprehensions about Wikipedia, to which you have fallen victim. These include:

That Wikipedia has pages for companies or other subject: it doesn't. It has articles about subjects, based on independent sources and written in neutral language.
That anybody may use Wikipedia to tell the world about themselves or their projects: that is called promotion, and is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia.
That, if we have an article about your company, you or your company have a role in creating or maintaining that article. Well actually, you do have a limited role: you are welcome to suggest changes, for other people to decide on. You are also permitted (but not encouraged) to create an article in draft form (for example by using the article wizard) and submitting it for approval by other editors.

Please have a look at your first article as well as the essays others have suggested to you. --ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack[edit]

I think I have been personally attacked by Dr K.. He is judging my motives. It is a form of harassment. I would like to know where to ask for help. as I am not familiar with en.Wikipedia. Thanks. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Τζερόνυμο, it's not a personal attack. It's just an editor, in this case Dr.K., expressing their opinions strongly – nothing wrong with that. Just follow consensus (which, at least on that particular talk page, is not with your proposition), and if you reach a wall, you could follow the steps laid out in dispute resolution. Of course, don't hesitate to come back here for more support. Lourdes 15:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with that a bit, WP:NPA makes it clear that, in heated discussions, one should take care to "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (direct quote, bold in original). Dr K. clearly directs his comments at another contributor rather than on the disputed text in the article. So it's probably a bit over the line. THAT being said, sometimes the proper response is still nothing. At best, someone might like to remind Dr K. to keep his comments from being too personal. But otherwise, I'd advise to ignore it and move on. --Jayron 32 17:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been told by at least another editor, in addition to myself, how he appears to be trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS both on the Greek and English Wikipedias. I don't think describing his disruption, and its consequences, on both wikis is a PA. In addition to causing disruption, this editor has used sarcasm to distort my username in one of his replies to me, for which I warned him in the past. Dr. K. 18:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True Dr.K.. But Jayron is right. I'll second Jayron's suggestion to be softer in approach towards Τζερόνυμο. I'm sure you understand the situation, given your experience here. Hope to see you around. Warmly. Lourdes 03:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes, I respect your assessment and I have no intention to argue with you. Thank you for your kind comments. However, I would like to make a final comment. I have no canine in this fight. I could not care less about the minor point of adding a title or not in the Patriarch's infobox. What I care about is stopping disruption imported for ideological reasons from other wikis. In fact, Cplakidas, another experienced editor, first alerted me to this ideological conflict on the Greek wiki and the battles between far right and left editors. See this also. In the link I provided, Clakidas mentioned: Given the frequency in which practices in the English WP are cited as models in other WPs, I suspect this has come up there, and Τζερόνυμο is now trying to alter it to support his/her preferred view. I then checked the situation at the Greek wiki and reported my findings here. I still stand by my assessment that stating the record and connecting the dots is not a PA when faced with importing ideologically-motivated disruption to this wiki from other wikis. Dr. K. 03:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it inappropriate to try to change a minor point in en.Wiki if there is a "battle" in el.Wiki? And why are you trying to flag me us "ultra left" (which btw is yet another 'personal attack' ). I really don't care about the patriarch anymore, I would like somebody with authority know that I being bullied by an experienced user (I don't suppose experienced user have more rights/amnesty than new users).Τζερόνυμο (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.K., hello again. I understand what you are referring to. However, with due regards to your views, I'll strongly suggest that on the talk page of the article; focus purely on the content using diffs than characterize any editor. If you believe any editor is editing against consensus, follow dispute resolution; if you feel the said editing is highly disruptive or tendentious, take it up at ANI, again using diffs. You know it better than I do, that on the talk page, the same points could have been raised using softer words. Τζερόνυμο, as much as I can infer, I'm sure that Dr. K didn't mean to personally attack you. If you wish to take this up at WP:ANI by filing a formal report, in my personal opinion and experience, it won't get any traction. I'll strongly suggest to you too to keep calm, ignore the apparent slight, and carry on discussing on the talk page, now that you've made your point. To both of you, this is is the Help Desk, meant for support in editing issues, and not meant to be a forum for deciding what is consensus in an article or if someone is acting disruptively. Hope this settles it here. Do carry on and come back if you need any editing assistance. Warmly, Lourdes 07:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make changes but refused by another user[edit]

Hi I want to make changes to the entry for Central Sussex College - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Sussex_College

The college has merged, is part of a new college group, and the name has changed (it is again Crawley College). In addition there is a new principal.

I made changes to this effect yesterday, but today found out that they were undone by another user because 'they did not appear constructive'.

I work in Comms for the college and these are necessary changes. I don't know who this user is or why he/she can undo my changes.

The fact that the Wikipedia entry is showing old information means that this wrong info is also showing up on Google searches. What can I do to effect these necessary changes?

For reference, see the college website here: https://www.crawley.ac.uk/ and a press release about the merger here: https://www.crawley.ac.uk/news/detail/2017/08/01/colleges-merge-to-form-largest-college-group-in-sussex

Here is a link to the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vferejohn Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vferejohn (talk • contribs) 15:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vferejohn. I've formally requested for an article title move at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests to change the name of the article to Crawley College. I've also changed the Principal's name, per the source. I've removed the logo too. Hope that helps. But you need to necessarily read our conflict of interest guidelines before trying to edit the article again. Come back if you require more assistance. Lourdes 16:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vferejohn: Lourdes' advice is excellent; however, they pointed you to our conflict of interest guidelines, which is not enough. Since your edits were made as part of your job, they fall under the more stringent paid editing guidelines, which you should immediately read before making any further edits: you do not appear to have made the mandatory disclosure of such edits.

Also, on talk pages, you should sign your messages by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. See WP:TPG for more information. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Find ibrahim ineke wiki page[edit]

Hi,

I've made a new page for Ibrahim Ineke a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately I can't find this page in the results if I google on internet. Do you know how I can solve this? Thanks!

Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvanderliende (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robvanderliende: New pages are not indexed by Google etc. for 90 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) 20:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

error UNESCO Formed in 2045?[edit]

there is an error in the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.14 (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. I have reverted this vandalism in the UNESCO article. GermanJoe (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]