Help desk
< September 4	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 6 >

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 5[edit]

Rolled back changes "because they did not appear constructive"[edit]

A recent change of mine was rolled back "because they did not appear constructive". However, I believe this change was constructive, as it updated the article to reflect the updated name of the venue.

Can someone check over this? I'm extremely new to Wikipedia, so if I missed a guideline, etc, please point me in the right direction.

Thanks. Jkm7 (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, looks like your edit was completely correct (the name of the venue, and our article, having changed in 2017) so I've reinstated it. Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, your edit looks fine to me, Jkm7. I don't know why CLCStudent thought it wasn't constructive: perhaps they thought you were changing the text of a wikilink, and assumed the link would be broken, without themselves checking whether that wikilink existed; but I don't know. It might also be that you added information without a reference - the existing paragraph has no reference for the location (in fact it has one citation, which is a broken link). In this case you brought your query here, which is fine, and Black Kite reapplied your change. But if you look at the Bold cycle, you'll see that this is how Wikipedia is meant to operate: if an editor thinks your edit is unhelpful and reverts it, your recommended course would be to open a discussion with the editor who reverted you, usually on the talk page of the article in question, and try to reach consensus. --ColinFine (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to them on my talk page. Thank you Black Kite and ColinFine! Jkm7 (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. If you ever disagree with a change I make, you can always come to my talkpage and tell me. CLCStudent (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CLCStudent and Jkm7: I appreciate that you two are interested discussing edit changes. But others are also interested. Instead of each other's user page, please use the article talk page where the debate may get input from others also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing infoboxes[edit]

Hi, I posted this question in the Teahouse, but did not get an answer. I'm copying it here:

I found an article about a company in a non-Anglophone country with some outdated info in the infobox. Looking at the article in the country's native language, their infobox had some more up-to-date details. I could update it, but it seems that it would be difficult to keep up with. However, when I look at the page with the (undocumented) Infobox company/wikidata template (after adding the details to Wikidata), it seems like no information is lost from the current state, plus it would have the benefits of keeping up with Wikidata changes. However, when looking up the policy for this, I found a recent discussion on Wikidata infoboxes, and it seems to be a contentious issue. Additionally, I don't know of any other articles which use this template, so maybe it's not ready for primetime. Is there a policy in place for this? ARR8 (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARR8, I'd say go for it if you feel that the Wikidata entry is a) more likely to be updated and b) not more likely to be vandalized. If anyone objects, they can revert and start a discussion. I think the main concern is vandalism, and if the article on English isn't very watched, there isn't really much advantage to not using a Wikidata box. If it improves Wikipedia, ignore all rules — Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha3031, thank you! ARR8 (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About pinging[edit]

Another user found a new way to be annoying; pinging me a bunch of times in a row.

I turned off pings from that user, but I was wondering about the mechanism. (I tried pinging myself and nothing happoned).

To be continued... --Guy Macon (talk)

@Guy Macon: If I ping someone...

@Guy Macon: ...multiple times in one comment...

@Guy Macon: ...will they see multiple pings? ---Guy Macon (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: Or do I have to... --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: ...post a new comment... --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: ...for each ping? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I understand, it is one ping per editor pinged for each time someone signs a signature. Lourdes 05:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you can't do is to ping yourself. To test pinging, you have to log out or use an alt account. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...or ask someone else for help. :) --CiaPan (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to get multiple notifications about the same edit if it links your user page multiple times. Some context of the link is shown so the notifications may not look identical. You can also get a separate notification if your username is linked in the edit summary. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy:....pong! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Dotard" entry[edit]

A few months ago, I included an entry to this word in the List of disability-related terms with negative connotations list, and I have included a source to back this up. Maybe we can redirect this entry to the linked article "List of disability-related terms with negative connotations" instead of having it just its own page that redirects to Wiktionary? Just an idea. It's just that nobody's taken me up on this idea, is all. Johnnysama (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see wiktionary having a better description than the main page List of disability-related terms with negative connotations. Imo, the current redirects are editorially sensible and there's no need to do a back redirect. Warmly, Lourdes 05:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why, if I may ask, the current redirects work? Just wondering. Johnnysama (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erasiest to ensure comfort[edit]

Add erasiest to encyclopedias Honor Karen Phariss the erasiest to ensure comforting the global world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.241.166 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. I don't know what you are talking about (it would be helpful if you would ~~right~~write in comprehensible English). But if what you are asking is for a new word to be added to the encyclopaedia, the answer is No, until the word has been written about by several people (unconnected with those who invented it) in reliable sources; see notability. If you are asking for something else to be added, you'd better explain more clearly what you want. --ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I don't think it is even a protologism yet, and neither Wikipedia nor Wiktionary allows those until they become neologisms. Try waiting a decade to see if the word sticks. Dbfirs 15:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they're referring to Karen Pharis who owns/owned stations like KFPW (AM), KPBI-CA... But probably not. (I miss EEng during these golden moments :D ) Lourdes 16:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss me? I didn't even know you were shooting at me! E Eng 17:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Math rendering[edit]

While editing "Antiderivative" yesterday, I noticed that within <math>-tagged expressions, some figures appear bolder than others (e. g. $(-1)$ in $\left[F\left(-1\right),F\left(1\right)\right]$ , or $GF(1)$ and $2$ ~~(← Why is that rendered so small here?)~~ in $\int _{F(-1)}^{F(1)}g(x)\,dx=GF(1)-GF(-1)=2$ ). How come?--Neufund (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It seems to depend on the brwoser zoom. I'm using Firefox and when I go on 110 %, for instance, $GF(1)$ and $GF(-1)$ seem equally bold, but $GF(-1)$ and $2$ appear slightly sharper …--Neufund (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neufund, this is probably something to do with your screen resolution. It all appears quite similar and fine to me. Lourdes 16:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ارسال مقاله جدید[edit]

سلام من میخواهم یک مقاله از یک بازیگر پورن بنویسم که معروف است اما در ویکی پدیا اطلاعاتی از آن نیست… لطفا کمک کنید — Preceding unsigned comment added by KINGSIAVASH (talk • contribs) 18:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is the English Wikipedia. You might like to read WP:Your first article and WP:Biographies of living persons before you start. You should also be aware that being famous in one very limited field does not necessarily make the person WP:Notable. You should start by collecting what has been written about the person in independent WP:Reliable sources, then summarise what is written using your own words. Dbfirs 19:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors for specific guidelines in regards to notability.Naraht (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to permanently and globally disable mobile wikitext editor without disabling mobile wiki skin.[edit]

I have repeatedly encountered the problem and tried to searched and asked for solution but still can't find anything that can help me.

On mobile devices, due to the limited amount of memory, it's easy for browser tabs to be clear out of memory when user opened too much other tabs to look for information when from other sites.

Normally, when browser reload those tabs when user switch into the tab after the tab being cleared out if the memory, it would still be possible for original text in editor field to be loaded back.

However, since that wikitext mobile editor was dynamically pulled in the page, this browser text field recovery process could not work, and thus hours and hours of edits that would have been made via mobile browsers have all go into vain thanks to that completely counterproductive design.

How to permanently disable that?C933103 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). That's where all the *really* techie people hang out...Naraht (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C933103, have you tried switching off your "Beta" preferences using the "Settings" tab in the mobile version? That should dissociate the Wikitext editor function without disabling the mobile wiki skin. (But I'm not sure about this; so do try this and confirm please). Thanks, Lourdes 07:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: I didn't enable the beta setting in mobile setting so that does not help C933103 (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Wiki page[edit]

Hello, I have been working with an editor on updating the Wiki page of Richard Borer. We are going on two months of back and forth and no progress has been made. Can someone please help me get content updated? I have the script that I would like to use. I have read through the Wiki rules of conduct and am confident that the content meets all of the requirements. I also have links to references (if needed). Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.228.31 (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first step is to put your suggested changes on the article talk page. - X201 (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And then read WP:BRD and WP:DR NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and please User:Thehappyworkaholic always log in when editing. Theroadislong (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 style templates: access-date and archived sources[edit]

Hello! I was wondering if someone might be able to give me some advice about this matter. I was checking a reference - which source is no longer directly available on-line, but only via internet-archive copies - and I found out that the more recent archived versions (as the linked one) do support the content of the article, whereas the older ones (e.g. those around the access date) don't. Since the content is a data subject to infrequent updates, this is probably what happened: after the citation had been added for the first time, some later editors updated the content but omitted to update the access-date parameter too; then the main link dead and someone (maybe a BOT) rescued it with the then-most-recent archive copy. That being the case, I'm not sure what I should do: leaving the current access-date would be misleading, using the same date as archive-date would be a lie (I didn't actually saw the original back then, but only the copy now provided by the archive) and I don't know when the last editor used the then-available link to update the content the for the last time. May I use today as the access-date, despite being more recent than the death of original link? Or may I leave the access-date parameter empty? Thank you for your consideration. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yak79 2.0: You should update the access date, since you verified that the article reflects the source as of today. The prior history is not relevant. If the available archived copy has a publication date, add that date in the "date=" parameter. You are effectively replacing the old source with a new source. -Arch dude (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your kind reply; but I'm afraid my question wasn't clear enough: the article doesn't reflects the source as of today, because now the source is gone for good; the article reflects the source as of the day it was archived “for the last time” (18 February 2017, which currently fill the archive-date parameter), and not as the day we know for sure it was verified for the last time (21 September 2013, which current fill the access-date parameter); moreover, the source was just an ordinary webpage without any date of publication or last editing on display, thus the date parameter can't be filled. In the end, although I didn't actually verified the source, I'm anyway certain:

that the article reflects it as of some day between September 2013 and February 2017 (due the archived copy I still consult today),
that the source was likely verified by someone during that period (due the fact that the article has been updated accordingly),

In this respect the prior history is relevant: I'm not able to check the source but I'm sure it was verified in the past (or at least it was positively checkable), only I don't know when exactly this happened and therefore what day the access-date parameter should be filled with. Best regards, Yak79 2.0 (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to check the article for its own citations, and hunt down the one that supports your statement, then use that. That's what I did, for all the good it's done me. I have to ask, though - if the updated articles don't support it, are you sure it's still true?

2601:543:C001:FE13:189C:9DDE:3E6A:2568 (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]