Help desk
< January 9	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 10[edit]

Draft[edit]

Courtesy link: Draft:Marco Castelli

Hi I would like to know how I can submit Ny article to review!

Can you please help me out ?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cm1990 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cm1990, if you feel like you're ready, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. I would strongly recommend proofreading your draft and citing sources properly (WP:EASYREFBEGIN has information on that) before doing so, though. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tenryuu Thanks a lot for your help!

I will try My best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cm1990 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cm1990, Visual editor messed it up (not your fault). I've now added it properly. Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 10:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merging talk pages and archives of pages[edit]

If one page is merged to another, how should their talk pages be handled? Would the sections of the talk pages be weaved together? Would the talk page of the merged page be moved to a dedicated archive of the other talk page? Would it be redirected? What if one or both talk pages have archive subpages? JsfasdF252 (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions are given at WP:PROMERGE, JsfasdF252. In brief, Talk Pages need to be kept where they were in most cases. Seek advice if you need it, as some of the details can be a bit tricky until are familiar with them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk) Wissotzky Tea: What needs attention[edit]

Talk:Wissotzky Tea is tagged with

Food and drink articles needing attention to referencing and citation
Food and drink articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy
Food and drink articles needing attention to structure
Food and drink articles needing attention to grammar
Food and drink articles needing attention to supporting materials
Food and drink articles needing attention to accessibility

Is there a way to find out details, such as which sentence(s) have grammar problems? Pi314m (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section Wissotzky Tea#Kalman Ze'ev Wissotzky is mostly about Wissotzky, rather than the tea company, and is out of place in the article. Two of the "See also" items are not to Wikipedia articles but are external links, and should be deleted or moved to an "External links" section. Most or all of the tags listed above do not (now) apply, and should be removed. Maproom (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Common wikipedia doubt: Why is my link not qualified as reliable source link?[edit]

I added reliable source to the talk page. But Primefac not updating the List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. I have doubt: Why is my link not qualified as reliable source link? Rizosome (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rizosome: It may be a moot point. A trailer needs more than 72M views to get on the list. Wikipedia:Help_desk#Please_somebody_add_KGF_chapter_2_teaser_to_here RudolfRed (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there are videos which have less than 79M views made on the list. I think K G F chapter 2 teaser fits somewhere here. Rizosome (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

All charts are missing on all pages[edit]

Example page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States#New_daily_cases

There are no charts now. Nothing except a line of text is shown.

Approximately a week ago it was fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.187.94.75 (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Empty_graphs_in_an_article_-_is_it_my_browser/settings?. One solution is to enable JavaScript. RudolfRed (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My browser does not have JavaScript (and frankly I don't want it either, it's such a security disaster).

How can I see the charts? Is there some setting I can change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.187.94.75 (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

202.187.94.75 Charts are opening fine for me. proof Rizosome (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rizosome: he speficially mentioned he has javascript disabled. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, a fair amount of Wikipedia functionality runs on Javascript. Would it be possible to use a browser extension to whitelist Javascripts on select domains like Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the people that responded previously.

So far no one has fixed this. Charts are still not working on any pages.

About one week ago it was working fine, now Wikipedia is broken. Can one of you guys fix this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.187.94.75 (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your post to the existing section. Click "edit" next to a section heading to add a post to that section. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do Wikipedia allow editors to post match results before TV telecast?[edit]

Originalchampion Mt.FijiBoiz PrimeHunter RudolfRed AEW New Year's Smash Night 2 prerecorded on Jan 7 2021 but yet to telecast on Jan 13 2021. So if editors have reliable sources of Night 2 results, will Wikipedia admins allow editors to post Night 2 match results here before TV telecast date i.e Jan 13 2021? Rizosome (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there is indeed a reliable source, then per Wikipedia:Spoiler there is no reason why it should not be posted in an appropriate place on Wikipedia, also bearing mind that Wikipedia is also not here for news reporting.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shantavira Posting results before TV telecast comes under news reporting? Rizosome (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rizosome: Posting results is not "news reporting" per se. "News reporting" is more about the tone and purpose of an article or article section. We are supposed to be creating an encyclopedia whose articles will still be relevant 20 years from now. -Arch dude (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing RogerEbert.com and Chicago Sun-Times together?[edit]

As you can see in the article Annie Hall, a section reads as follows:

In his 2002 lookback, Roger Ebert added it to his Great Movies list and commented with surprise that the film had "an instant familiarity" despite its age,

It's immediately followed by a citation, which I had updated earlier.

RogerEbert.com is an American film review website that archives reviews written by film critic Roger Ebert for the Chicago Sun-Times and also shares other critics' reviews and essays.

Since the citation's in the form of Cite web, I decided to put RogerEbert.com (the original live website) in the website category. But the review from the official website is actually just copied over (or archived) from Roger Ebert's original review for the Chicago Sun-Times.

Which parameter should I put Chicago Sun-Times under? Or should I change the citation style? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PianistHere (talk • contribs) 13:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do this:

{{cite web|last=Ebert|first=Roger|date=12 May 2002|title=Annie Hall movie review & film summary (1977)|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-annie-hall-1977|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130414011939/http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-annie-hall-1977|archive-date=14 April 2013|access-date=10 January 2021|work=[[RogerEbert.com]]|publisher=Ebert Digital LLC|via=[[Chicago Sun-Times]]}}

Ebert, Roger (12 May 2002). "Annie Hall movie review & film summary (1977)". RogerEbert.com. Ebert Digital LLC. Archived from the original on 14 April 2013. Retrieved 10 January 2021 – via Chicago Sun-Times.

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies. If you are citing a review at Chicago Sun-Times then cite Chicago Sun-Times and leave Ebert's website out of the citation. If you are citing a review at RogerEbert.com then cite RogerEbert.com and leave Chicago Sun-Times out of the citation. Since it appears that you are citing RogerEbert.com, write the citation this way:

{{cite web |last=Ebert |first=Roger |date=12 May 2002 |title=Annie Hall movie review & film summary (1977) |url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-annie-hall-1977 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130414011939/http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-annie-hall-1977 |archive-date=14 April 2013 |access-date=10 January 2021 |website=[[RogerEbert.com]]}}

Ebert, Roger (12 May 2002). "Annie Hall movie review & film summary (1977)". RogerEbert.com. Archived from the original on 14 April 2013. Retrieved 10 January 2021.

I removed |publisher= and |via= because 'Ebert Digital LLC' is substantively the same as RogerEbert.com so is considered redundant and because the cited source is not distributed by (via) Chicago Sun-Times.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving at climate change[edit]

Archiving on talk:climate change seems to have stopped again. Anybody knows how to fix it? Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minus sign in <math> formula does not show in browser[edit]

Dear sirs,
The page American wire gauge has a <math> formula including a difference (n - 36) where the minus sign does not appear visibly in my browser (I'm using Google Chrome, but I just tried Edge with the same result).

The difference by itself formats nicely:

n-36

When the difference is in the numerator of a fraction, the minus sign still shows:

{\frac {36-n}{39}}

When the difference is in an exponent, the minus sign still shows:

92^{36-n}

But when the difference is in the numerator of a fraction in an exponent, the minus sign disappears:

92^{\frac {36-n}{39}}

Is there a remedy? Is this a known problem? Regards, Cacadril (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From Firefox ESR 45.9.0 the minus sign is visible. What browser are you using? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, for me on Chrome, I can't see the minus sign on the third example, but can see fourth example. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't see the fourth example either, and I'm using Chrome, version 87.0.4280.141. It might be the way LaTeX renders on Wikipedia, as I managed to produce the missing minus sign on CodeCogs Online LaTeX Equation Editor. Seems like further inquiry at WP:VPT could be a good idea. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trappist the monk linked to the correct VPT issue (many thanks). I can see it if I switch zoom levels on my browser, which is unfortunate, as that is the ideal zoom that doesn't strain my eyes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cacadril: Just to reiterate: this is not a Wikipedia issue. It is bug in the Chrome browser code, which is also used in the Edge browser. Please follow the link above to get instructions on how to make a bug report to the Chrome developers. The problem relates to how Chrome renders SVG at different scales. -Arch dude (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not much point in submitting a bug to chrome that would just be marked as a duplicate of the current one [1]. It's now fixed and closed and we are just waiting for the fix to make its way through beta and into production. There are various workarounds, the simplest being to use a different zoom level. --Salix alba (talk): 23:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cacadril: On top of other users' notes, this is a known bug as tracked on Wikimedia phabricator; it's not just you. (Phabricator is linked from the earlier Village Pump link and links to the Chromium bug tracker entry.) Personally I couldn't wait for the patch to be published and solved the issue by installing a Chrome extension, Wikipedia with MathJax. I believe this workaround simply replaces Wikipedia's entire LaTeX rendering system.--Anon423 (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?[edit]

Hello, I was sent this https://file.wikileaks.org/file/icwatch-pics/pictures/ on FB. What is it? I don't think it's what it claims to be that's why I ask.

Thank You, 65.26.50.93 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(wild guess) looks like a directory for uploaded files on Wikileaks. I don't know what's in there, and I don't realy want to look. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And WikiLeaks is not run by Wikipedia, so we cannot help you. This is a help desk for editing Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding/Updating External Links to an Updated Version of a Website[edit]

Hi! I'm working as part of team of researchers on a project called the Interactive Nolli Map. It's a project began in 2005, and it is an accurate interactive map of 18th century Rome. Adobe Flash's expiration encouraged a team of researchers to update the map, and now it is equipped with significantly more detailed entries and tools that generally make it more user friendly. There are exactly 1320 ruins or objects listed in the map, and each object has a detailed entry, geographic information, drawings made at the time of the Nolli Map's creation. The map allows you to orient yourself in Ancient Rome, and it allows users to get a remarkably accurate sense of a specific object's geographic location that is nearly impossible to replicate in text. The map is completely free to access and requires no account or registration of any kind. We have read Wikipedia's External Linking Guidelines and think that it would be really helpful to update Wikipedia's External Links on pages that already link to the now defunct site and add specific external links directing users to that exact object in the map to the site on pages that don't link to it anymore, but we keep running into warnings about successive linking. I would love to talk to someone about the potential merits of this site in contextualizing an encyclopedic entry and its overall benefit to these entries. Please let me know if creating these links will be possible. We absolutely do not want to risk getting suspended. I've linked an example of page that I added a link to, so you can see the website and how it connects to the entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column_of_Antoninus_Pius — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rendor21 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rendor21 (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rendor21: I think this is a valuable addition. I suggest that you ask at Wikipedia talk:Spam. I have no recent experience with this, but I created the (now superseded) {{worldcat id}} template in 2007, after first discussing it there. A few of the instances were flagged as spam in 2009, so I added a point-by-point defense to the template's talk page based on the list of types of objectionable link. I suggest you take the same approach. After you complete your discussion, create a template and use it instead of just encoding external links, and add your justification on the template's talk page. A template will also let you adjust all of the links in one place if your URL or naming changes again. I do note that it would be theoretically possible to provide this function within Wikipedia, but it would be a lot of duplicated work. -Arch dude (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]