Help desk
< September 16	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 18 >

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 17[edit]

Empty ref tag errors[edit]

In working through Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting, I'm seeing a lot of errors resulting from a series of empty <ref> tags, as in this diff. This does not appear to be simple vandalism, as the errors are often introduced as part of a legitimate edit. One could produce these results by clicking the "Cite your sources" link at the bottom of the edit window multiple times, but I can't understand why that would be happening so often, and to so many different editors. Can anyone provide any insight? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the OR but I work in tech support. I've known many computer users who double clicked everything. They're usually not very computer savvy in general and are used to double clicking icons on their desktop and therefore double click hyperlinks and web buttons as well. Dismas|^(talk) 01:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that would explain two tags for one ref, but the cases I've seen have always been more than two. The above example would have required at least five clicks, since there are five occurrences of </ref>. Then, apparently, the editor noticed that something was wrong and removed two of the <ref>'s, leaving only three. How does someone click something five times accidentally? Again, this is far from a one-time occurrence, I see it all the time. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually four <ref> and four </ref>, but the IP didn't write the url in the middle. I'm guessing they just double-clicked a second time "to be sure". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good eye. I guess that's plausible. And when there are more than four, they double-clicked more than twice, just to be extra sure. How bizarre. But this is common enough that it calls for a software change in the handling of that link: After one click, ignore subsequent clicks until a change is made in the edit window. With a beep for each ignored click, if possible. I wouldn't know how to go about helping that happen (my one experience with Bugzilla was enough for me).

I've designed a lot of software, and one of my guiding principles was as follows: You can't prevent the user from shooting himself in the foot, but you don't have to hand him the gun. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One way in which this can happen is this: An editor uses a touchpad to select a spot at which they want to add a reference, and then click on the "cite your sources". However, the first touchpad click, as sometimes happens, doesn't "take" and the ref tags are instead placed wherever the editor's cursor happened to have been previously positioned. With an eye on the spot where something is expected to appear, the editor doesn't notice the misplaced tags and clicks again, and maybe again, thinking that it was the second click that didn't work. This happens to me all the time with text; for me the tiny thin cursor is difficult to see. Because I am aware of the problem, if I don't get expected results I go looking for the misplaced text or tag, but I often can't find it until I resort to just leaning on some key or other until the text shifts down a line so that I can see it move, which helps me find it. Another possibility is that some people may have their touchpads or touch screens set too sensitively so that when they tap they sometimes get multiple inputs. Also I'm a klutz, so I have many, many times accidentally created double ref tags just through clumsy tapping - but of course I remove them. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to fix this in the editing interface might be messy. Maybe a better solution would be to just have one of the Bots clean up empty or nested ref tags. It wouldn't have completely fixed the example given, but it could clean up the easy cases. I bet someone here at help desk knows the best place to suggest new Bot features. Alsee (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marking some pages as visited in watchlist, in one go[edit]

Is there a way to mark only some pages as visited in the watchlist, in one go? Right now, I can only see "mark all pages as visited" button. Kingsindian (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One way is to visit the page. When you visit any page in your watchlist, all the related changes are marked as viewed. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 11:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you can hover over the article link and right click then open in a new window or new tab. - you then have to close the tab....-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but I don't want to visit every page. There could be a hundred pages like that. Kingsindian (talk) 11:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the only way, open the watchlist in a new window. Holding Ctrl and clicking on links will open them in a new tab. You can quickly open all the pages by keeping Ctrl pressed and clicking on all the relevant pages. All the pages will open in separate tabs in the same window. Alternatively, you can press the third button (scroll wheel) without pressing Ctrl for the same result. Spinningspark might know another way. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 17:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that is not an option - to visit a hundred pages would get tedious quickly. I wish to know whether one can mark a page visited without actually visiting it, and do it in a wholesale fashion. Kingsindian (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you are not actually "visiting" it - a right click to open a a bunch of tabs that you then close with one additional click is not any more clicks than if you clicked a hundred check boxes and then clicked a box that said "clear these". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in matter of clicks, perhaps. But, opening a 100 (or even 20) tabs in firefox, urgh. All of those pages would be loaded too, so it would waste bandwidth (though, for some it would be cut short when I close them). Very unsatisfactory. Seems to be using a big hammer to solve a small problem. Kingsindian (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Sablan, Benguet[edit]

Reference help requested. Hello. Please help fix the format of the source/reference that caused error displayed in the References section of the article "Sablan, Benguet". I am new to editing, so I have no idea how to fix it.

Thanks, Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the error message in the article, the word "help" is in blue, meaning that it is a wikilink. In this case, the link goes to Help:CS1 errors#text ignored. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanglahi86: I have fixed the reference. Basically, there was some stray duplicated text in the citation. You can see the page linked to by David Biddulph above for details. Kingsindian (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Warning Template[edit]

Hi there, is there a user warning template designed specifically for warning users to refrain from marking pages as patrolled hastily without tagging them appropriately? Thanks. --Dps04 (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the list, I see {{Uw-patrolled}}, which might be what you're looking for. RudolfRed (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the OP correctly, his complaint wasn't that the patroller hadn't marked the page as patrolled, but rather that the page had been marked as patrolled but without appropriate tags being applied. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I was wondering if there were some sort of warning messages I could use to warn users who kept on pressing the [Mark this page as patrolled] button without actually patrolling those pages. {{subst:uw-patrolled}} is not applicable in this case. --Dps04 (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin[edit]

In the portion of the article about the reservation communities, the link for the Round Lake community takes you to information about Round Lake located in Sawyer County. The Round Lake Community is located near Luck, WI in Polk County. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.41.193.51 (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have turned it into a red link with this edit.--ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"After Tiller"[edit]

Why did you not have any interviews from ProLife organizations? The articles you used were from mainly pro-abortion organizations and shows much of the trash you have on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.63.5 (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article's talk page is --> this way.--ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Durango Discovery Museum[edit]

Hello- I would like some help with our company's business page. We have recently changed our name from the "Durango Discovery Museum" to "The Powerhouse Science Center". I'd like to change the title of the page from "Durango Discovery Museum" to "Powerhouse Science Center", but cannot make the edit. Could you please help me with this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durango_Discovery_Museum Thanks, 19:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)19:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.203.153.250 (talk)

The page can be moved, but the article has bigger problems than its title - it doesn't cite a single source that demonstrates that it meets the notability guidelines.--ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Science.gov[edit]

Dear editors: I often come across reference to the website science.gov when I am looking for sources for scientific articles. Unfortunately, my browser is unable to find it. Is it down, or is there some other explanation? I am outside of the USA. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It works for me. Windows 7, Firefox 31, in the US. You could try Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The website is up and works fine from Europe. Maybe it is a particular link you are looking at?-- sincerely, Taketa (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its IP appears to be 192.107.175.71. See if you can access it that way. If you can, it points to a DNS problem. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's what was returned by "ping science.gov", anyway. When I access it by that IP, I get a Spanish-language version of the home page. Do you speak Spanish? Anyway, the links from the home page still seem to go to English-language content. Go figure. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are on windows, sometimes this works when some webpages don't load. Open Command Prompt as administrator (by right clicking and selecting "Run as Administrator"), and type ipconfig/flushdns and hit enter. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 13:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled section[edit]

I contributed to this "talk" page in June Jack London but my contributions, under the section Animal Activism, are still there and not on the public end. Does this mean that I did not contribute correctly, or that the moderator just hasn't had time to revise the public page? I've searched a few sections, including the Help desk FAQ and the Teahouse section, but I don't see a response to my question, so I thought I'd ask here. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisilla (talk • contribs) 21:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On December 22nd 2013 a user with a name similar to yours, "Daisillagu", added a section Animal Activism to the talk page of the article. It did not appear to call for any action, and none was taken. The article, like all Wikipedia articles, has no moderator. I assume that your intention was to have that section (which I see contains supporting references) transferred to the article. If so, you could just place it there yourself, just as you placed it on the talk page. Maproom (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now transferred it there myself (and changed its formatting slightly, in accordance with Wikipedia's recommended style). Maproom (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack London is semi-protected so neither of User:Daisilla and User:Daisillagu can edit it currently since the accounts are not autoconfirmed. If you don't have an "Edit" tab on a page then click the "View source" tab for instructions, or see WP:SEMI. You should have used {{Edit semi-protected}} to alert other editors. The "View source" tab has a button to automatically add it to a post on the talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]