Help desk
< December 28	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 30 >

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.

December 29[edit]

Export Wikimedia to a word processor[edit]

How can I export an article from MediaWiki to a word processor format like MS Word, Open Office, or a Google Doc?

I want to export "v:Information is a public good: Designing experiments to improve government" to a Google Doc, which I can then revise collaboratively and then export into MS Word format and submit to Real-World Economics Review (RWER). I've done this with two other Wikiversity articles (v:Externalities, contagious diseases and news and v:Do copyrights and paywalls on academic journals violate the US Constitution?), both of which were accepted without revision and published in the March 2022 and 2023 issues of RWER.

Do I have to copy the text and manually re-enter the 129 notes in that article and all the live links one by one? I don't remember what I did roughly 16 and 30 months ago, but I think it was much less work than this.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DavidMCEddy, is your browser not able to export the Wikiversity page as HTML? You might also look into mw:Alternative parsers, most of which should be able to export a MediaWiki document to a format google docs can understand. Folly Mox (talk) 12:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Opie[edit]

References 18 and 20 are in red and I cannot fix. please assist if able. Thanks you 175.38.42.62 (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the error messages, they are both missing the required journal= parameter. If you add that, the error should go away. RudolfRed (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do that. Neither of those sources are journals. Probably best to rewrite as {{cite web}} templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried and failed - can you assist please? Thanks as always 175.38.42.62 (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. GoingBatty (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do Anyone know the name of this template[edit]

{{#tag:timeline| 
Define $width = 1000 # 4 pixels per year ($end - $start) × 4 
Define $warning = 880 # $width - 120 
Define $height = 400 # 43 x 20 + 160

Define $start = 1873 
Define $end = 2025 
Define $now = {{CURRENTYEAR}}

ImageSize  = width:$width height:$height 
PlotArea   = right:10 left:1 bottom:80 top:60 
Period     = from:$start till:$end 
TimeAxis   = orientation:horizontal
Legend = orientation:vertical position:bottom columns:1

Colors =
     id:bg              value:white
     id:lightline       value:rgb(0.9, 0.9, 0.9)
     id:lighttext       value:rgb(0.5, 0.5, 0.5)

MAL MALDIVE (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:MAL MALDIVE, I'm wrong: see below ~~that looks like it might be calling the Graphs Extension, which has been disabled due to security vulnerabilities lo these past nine months. It doesn't look like a regular template.~~ Folly Mox (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 12:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

its used on many articles such as Lifespan timeline of presidents of Russia 69.94.33.233 (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The #tag at the beginning is used to call a Wikipedia extension and give it parameters (c.f. WP:MAGIC#Formatting). The extension being called here is the Timeline one. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm used to seeing #invoke for templates, but had not before seen #tag for extensions. Thanks for the correction! Folly Mox (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, some extensions add a tag of form <tagname>...</tagname>, e.g. <ref>...</ref> in mw:Extension:Cite. {{#tag:tagname|...}} is an alternative way to use a tag. It's required in some situations, especially if templates are used inside the tag. I don't know all the details but have fixed some problems by trying {{#tag:}} when it didn't work without. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denarius of L. Censorinus#Political climate[edit]

Here the template is badly formatted, I tried to format it correctly, but one of the two links turns strangely red. JackkBrown (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: Hello! Which template are you talking about? I don't see any red links. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deltaspace42: the template "Main discussion". No, it turns red when I try to format the template correctly. JackkBrown (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: But it's just an internal link, what's wrong with it? What do you mean by "formatting the template correctly"? Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I didn't realize that there exists the {{main}} template for this purpose. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, the template you want to link to another article here is {{main}}, not {{main discussion}}. I fixed it. For the record, I know you've come under scrutiny for your Help Desk participation, and I view this question as totally legitimate and unproblematic. Folly Mox (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: It said:

:''Main discussion: [[Marsyas#Prophecy and free speech at Rome|Marsyas, Prophecy and free speech at Rome]].''

and produced:

Main discussion: Marsyas, Prophecy and free speech at Rome.

The vertical bar '|' makes it a piped link to the article section Marsyas#Prophecy and free speech at Rome, displaying "Marsyas, Prophecy and free speech at Rome" as link text. It had nothing to do with a template which is something in {{...}}. I guess you tried to change it to something like:

{{Main|Marsyas#Prophecy and free speech at Rome|Marsyas, Prophecy and free speech at Rome}}

which would produce:

That fails because the pipe separates two parameters to {{main}} and each unnamed parameter is supposed to be a page name. There is only one page to link so Folly Mox just said:

{{Main|Marsyas#Prophecy and free speech at Rome}}

I would have used {{further}} but it's not important. When you seek help with your code, please post or link the code so we don't have to guess what you tried to do. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Péter Ágh[edit]

Reference help requested. I would love to edit and correct number four on the reference list - there is amissing external link or what, but what?? :( I don't know how. I have tried it a dozen times. I'm still a beginner in editing wikipedia pages :/ And I would appreciate any help from you Thanks, Polgár Kincső (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that the |title= of the reference was a URL. The |title= field is supposed to be human-readable. See my fix, and alter the title as appropriate for the source cited (I guessed, not being able to read Hungarian). Folly Mox (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page for "List of Civil War Battles"[edit]

The page "List of Civil War Battles" for the table "Battles of the American Civil War Rated by CWSAC" shows two inconsistencies with the CWSAC report (for the report, see http://npshistory.com/publications/battlefield/cwsac/technical-v2.pdf):

1. The column for "Victory" sometimes says "Inconclusive." CWSAC uses "Indecisive." Should the Wikipedia page be changed to match the CWSAC report?

2. The row for the November 7, 1861, Battle of Belmont, in the "Victory" column, says "Inconclusive." However, CWSAC, page 71, identifies the battle as a "Union" victory. Should the Wikipedia page be changed?

Thanks for checking these issues and, if warranted, making changes. Jim Strickler 76.150.206.92 (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jim. The best place to bring up questions about a particular article is in that article's talk page - in this case Talk:List of American Civil War battles.

But unless the changes you are suggesting are controversial, you're welcome to make them yourself. (The worst that can happen is that somebody disagrees and reverts your changes, in which case you can then go on to discuss on the talk page: see WP:BRD). ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to achieve unblock[edit]

Is it possible to get help unblocking my editorial rights and privileges?

I have tried following guidelines but am not getting very far or very fast.

David Hocken Yourmrbumbles (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot help you here. Especially if you are using multiple accounts to evade blocks. Remsense留 15:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yourmrbumbles The account you used here was created in 2013, so I assume it was a WP:VALIDSOCK for your main (now blocked) account. However, blocking applies to people, not just individual accounts and the only way to appeal your block is via the Talk Page of the account which was blocked, where there will be instructions how to do so. Do not continue to use the Yourmrbumbles account, as that will only make it even less likely that an admin will unblock you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia page about something that I can't find online[edit]

Hello, This Wikipedia page Russian Holiday is about a film that I can't find and its one source doesn't seem to be on topic. is it reliable? Anyways could someone please help me. Thank you. Chacabangaso (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chacabangaso: Hello! I couldn't find anything either, so I nominated it for deletion. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Chacabangaso (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be odd. The iMDB entry is titled Russian Holiday, and has posters titled both "Russian Holiday" and "Russian Roulette", with the same picture.

Unless some reliable sources can be found, the article should be deleted anyway, as non-notable. ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes films are released under more than one title, this is quite common.[1] But this film is struggling to get anywhere near WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly expanded an existing Wikipedia article and was rejected by a bot (!!!) as a "possible violator[edit]

The existing Wikipedia entry for "St. Louis Globe-Democrat" is quite brief and sketchy. I greatly expanded the information, with a primary reference bring a scholarly history written in 1961 by a University of Missouri professor (Jim Allee Hart) for the period 1852 to 1960 and impeccable references for the period 1960 to the close of the paper in 1986. I am a Harvard graduate, a journalist for almost a half-century with knowledge of the subject, and am greatly concerned with accuracy. I cannot understand why my expanded history, with much specific new and important information, has been summarily rejected. Please be my editor and take a look at the existing ("old") version and the expanded version I have proposed with 161 references and footnotes. I am new to this whole process. Thank you very much. Globeralways Globeralways (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: St. Louis Globe-Democrat Remsense留 23:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Globeralways: Hello! The bot was probably triggered because you removed all reference templates and generally broke the wikitext mark up. It would be a good idea to make small incremental edits to each paragraph rather than publishing huge content in one go, breaking the wikitext structure in the process. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, while citations are not required to be in any particular format, some methods of working with citations are much easier to work with than others, and it would likely be very helpful for you to familiarize yourself with the methods on the page I've just linked. cheers! Remsense留 23:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information. The problem of incremental changes is that it would be hard to maintain any flow and continuity without basically ripping out almost all existing content, changing reference numbers (footnotes), etc. I guess it can be done if absolutely necessary, but couldn't a live editor look at the two, side by side if necessary, and see if the new version is (or is not) the "way to go"? I'll abide by whatever a human editor tells me I musty do. Thank you. Globeralways Globeralways (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Globeralways, please be aware that when your references are properly formatted with reference templates, the software will automatically number them and display them properly in a reference section at the end of the article. If future edits to the article remove, add or rearrange references, then the software will instantly sort that out and renumber all the references. Proper formatting is important. As a journalist with a half century of experience, you must certainly know that serious publications have their own house style. So too does Wikipedia, the #7 website worldwide, with many billions of pageviews each month. Your well-intentioned edit which I am sure has lots of useful information, unintentionally wrecked the standardized structure of the article. So, you will need to spend some time learning about the "skeleton structure" of a Wikipedia article, and how the content interacts with the software. I highly recommend that you spend some time studying the wikicoding of St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I cannot vouch for the accuracy or comprehensiveness of that article, but the coding and formatting is proper. Cullen328 (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Globeralways. Thank you for wanting to help improve Wikipedia. Unfortunately, your edit has lost most of the formatting - most importantly, of all the references, but also headers, and you have attempted to replace the infobox by a Wikitable. ColinFine (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: Also, looks like there is a conflict of interest: diff of the message which this user left on someone's talk page: I wish to greatly enhance the Wikipedia listing of the "St. Louis Globe-Democrat," where I worked for 13 years. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was me (Globeralways). I worked there for 13 years. Does this make me a conflict of interest? Globeralways (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working somewhere for a long time certainly constitutes a conflict of interest, as the topic is very close to you. While it is generally discouraged, editors are allowed to edit articles on topics with which they have a conflict of interest, but they must maintain an encyclopedic tone and neutral point of view in their edits as with any other article. It sounds like you no longer work there, but if someone has a paid conflict of interest (which would be automatic if they were editing about their present employer), it is required to explicitly disclose on one's userpage, which you can learn how to do here. Remsense留 23:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I have not worked there for decades. The paper closed in 1986. I wasn't there at the end and believe what I wrote has been neutral and in an encyclopedic tone. I'm open to doing whatever you and./r other Wikipedia editors want. I spent many, many hours and days researching and writing, doing so after looking at the existing entry and finding it so incomplete. The St. Louis Globe-Democrat was a major newspaper. I acknowledge that my knowledge of Wikipedia procedures is quite weak. I have been hoping that an editor could do the hyperlinks or other technical steps where I am deficient. What do you suggest I do? Thank you for any help. Globerwalways Globeralways (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can be very overwhelming! I appreciate the work you are doing and I hope I can answer the important questions to make editing easier for you:

You can link to other pages by putting the relevant text in square brackets, [[like this]]. We write articles with what we call Wikitext, check that page for plenty of tips, tricks, and help with it.
In general, it's worth taking a look at our Manual of Style and guidelines for the layout of a typical article also, it certainly made me more comfortable editing because I knew I was doing things inline with site norms.
Generally, one shouldn't worry too much, there's always a learning process and others are often happy to contribute and improve each others' work, but with things like references like I've said above, it can save you and others a lot of time.

If you have more questions at some point, you can ask me on my talk page! Like we've said, it's worthwhile doing your edit in digestible chunks so they can be integrated and checked more easily, and I'd be happy to look at your edits when you do them. Cheers. Remsense留 00:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's very helpful and I will do it, which may take some time due to other obligations. I especially appreciate your willingness to be a resource. When I first thought about doing this, I was assigned to an editor, but never received any responses from him (or her) to inquiries so I was flying blind. Now there seems to be a path ahead to reach a yes or no result based on human judges and not just an automated response! Thanks again. Globeralways Globeralways (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our software automatically assigns and renumbers reference numbers; so don't give that a thought, and above all don't try to re-number them manually! --Orange Mike | Talk 03:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC) (cut his teeth on a slug of Linotype at the Anniston Star)[reply]

Thanks so much! globeralways Globeralways (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]