Help desk
< March 31	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 2 >

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.

April 1[edit]

How to define constants local to a page[edit]

I am working on a page containing a large table: User:Erel Segal/Land reform by country. I want each row to have a color based on the continent. In order to make the colors easier to change, I would like to define constants with the colors, i.e. the constant "EUROPE_COLOR" will be "#cfc", etc. This way, if I later want to change the color of Europe to blue, I can do this easily in a single place. Is there a way to define such local constants / macros? --Erel Segal (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know MediaWiki is capable of this (through extensions), but Wikipedia doesn't support it (as far as I know). It seems like a waste to introduce some type of memory just to render colors for a table on an encyclopedia article. I suggest you just do a find-and-replace search in the editor (Advanced > little icon all the way to the right) for "#cfc" to change them all quickly.

Also maybe consider not using colors at all. It causes accessibility issues and can get aesthetically unpleasing very quickly and (and specifically, it doesn't look right on the table you've created). Scarce2 (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erel Segal: The accessibility issue is covered at WP:COLOUR. But to get mnemonic names for colours, you could use templates, see for example the use of {{Hotcold}} at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month. Here, the accessibility issue is addressed by giving the actual figure in each square, which does not require the reader to refer to the colour key. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have this feature in templates, only in Lua modules. Some MediaWiki extensions like mw:Extension:Variables can do it but are not installed here. A possible workaround for constants is to use a subtemplate with named parameters. If User:Erel Segal/Land reform by country/core is called with {{User:Erel Segal/Land reform by country/core|EUROPE_COLOR=#ccc}} then it can say {{{EUROPE_COLOR}}} when it wants the value. I don't recommend doing this in your case. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all! My main goal is just to add a visual clue for the location (the continent), since the table is sorted by time. The continent name is also explicitly written in the first cell, so I don't think there is an accessibility issue. I do agree that my selection of colors is far from perfect... Can you suggest a better visual clue? --Erel Segal (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Wednesday details[edit]

Ash Wednesday is not the first day of Lent that's been going on for the last 35 days; however, it is the first day of the Passion of Christ where Judas is outed at the last supper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.66.131 (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be confusing Ash Wednesday with Maundy Thursday. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or you may be confusing Ash Wednesday and Holy Wednesday. Ash Wednesday is the first day of Lent (seven weeks ago). Holy Wednesday is the Wednesday before Easter (today). —teb728 t c 07:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Help Desk, for questions about editing and using Wikipedia. General knowledge questions can be directed to the Reference Desk. In particular, questions about religion can go to the Humanities Reference Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edit this page button disappeared[edit]

For some reason the edit and new section button has disappeared off of all pages, can someone help me with that so I can edit again? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!} 11:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its a known problem, loads of people report it at this time of year. It even happens on the French Wiki, see Toujours là pour toi - X201 (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=48

p.s. Nice one. ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 12:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Call me grouchy but I don't get the joke. Many people have lost tabs for different reasons and reported it on help pages. The top of the page has a big link "Click here to ask a new question about how to use or edit Wikipedia", so it's trivial to post the question without edit tabs (it can also be done in other ways). User talk:PCHS-NJROTC previously had a rickrolling link in a similar post but it was made after the help desk post. I don't see the point in making a false but ordinary looking and plausible post here just because of the date. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia branches and contributors[edit]

Quick question: The article writers of Wikipedia are called "Wikipedians". Are there established terms for contributors of the other branches? I'm afraid that "commonists" and "wiktionaryans" would be inappropriate terms. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 11:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is the general meta:Wikimedian. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that sounds so wikimediocre. But it's not half as bad as "flicktard". ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain})

Lewixographers? --ColinFine (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionaryan might be problematic (especially if you highlight the "aryan" part by linking it), but I think the more natural spelling would be Wiktionarian, and that would not have that problem. I suggest that you start using Wiktionarian and maybe it will catch on (all grass roots movements begin with one person's idea). ―Mandruss ☎ 12:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd have suggested that instead (it's consistent with library --> librarian after all), if not for today's date. That's the reason why ~~two~~ three of today's sigs are in Comic Sans, too. ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 13:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionarian (full Wiktionary search) has already caught on. The redirect was made in 2007. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are these sections[edit]

"{{Infobox video game"//what options here what put here?
"|collapsible ="//what options here what put here?
"|state ="//what options here what put here?
"|show image ="//what options here what put here?
"|image ="//what options here what put here?
"|caption ="//what options here what put here?
"|platforms ="//what options here what put here?
"|genre ="//what options here what put here?
"|modes ="//what options here what put here?
"|media ="//what options here what put here?

And are there any other more sections for article definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlineGamesExpert (talk • contribs) 12:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information about that template can be found at Template:Infobox video game. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A general introduction into so-called infoboxes can be found at Help:Infobox, a list of ready-to-use infoboxes for various topics is at Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes. GermanJoe (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I tested {{Infobox video game}} I gave up and used {{Infobox software}}. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Be..anyone:If you're having trouble with the video game infobox please ask for help at WT:VG, using the software infobox just creates work for other users at some point in the future. - X201 (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem, for all purposes I'm interested in {{infobox software}} is better suited. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref name trouble[edit]

Hey, can anyone figure out what's wrong with the ref name "Keene 319" in this article? Thanks! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in this edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: It took me awhile to understand it, but the unclosed "Keene 649" <ref> was preventing the "Keene 319" ref from being recognized. Thus, the one change fixed both errors. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Identification[edit]

There are two images of the same portrait (both uploaded by the same user), File:3rdEarlOfRoden.jpg and File:1stViscountEversley.jpg that are labelled as two different portraits of two different sitters by two different artists. Could anybody help with identifying which is the correct set of information?--The Theosophist (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which is right but they both link the source and the uploader simply copied the information there: [1][2]. The user uploaded 500 images that month and I don't blame him for not noticing that two of them were very similar. He hasn't edited since 2012. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Charles Shaw-Lefevre is the right one, but it's not nearly clear enough for my liking. I attempted to find other attributed portraits to compare. Here's one of Charles Shaw-Lefevre and though it looks like he's a bit older there, it really does look like the same person – the mouth the nose... On the other hand, I could not find such a clear portrait for Robert Jocelyn. There's this—not nearly as a good a portrait to allow comparison—but from what gross details can be made out, there's at least a superficial resemblance. Back to square one.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit, the portrait in your second link is of Robert Jocelyn, Viscount Jocelyn, the son of the Third Earl of Roden (note the birth date). Deor (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XREF added, 1st file now lists the 2nd as "other version", and vice versa. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be Eversley because he was 63 years old when he joined the House of Lords and the sitter appears to be at his late 40′s, which points to Roden, who joined the House when he was 33. On the other hand, the style of the painting looks more like that of Partridge than that of Say. Furthermore, we have to keep in mind that it may be the portrait of a third person, which is likely. I have e-mailed the site about this and I am waiting for their answer.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

visiongain's wikipedia page deleted[edit]

Hi is it possible to get visiongain's wikipedia page reinstated please? I can send you all the links where visiongain is mentioned and these are independent pages, not connected to visiongain?

I look forward to hearing from you

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.17.32 (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need more than mere evidence that a company exists to justify an article. And it wasn't 'visiongain's wikipedia page', it was our page on the company - deleted because it didn't meet our notability guidelines - see WP:CORPDEPTH. [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Text flow in a wikitable cell[edit]

Please refer to the text at the end of this wikitable. It uses <br> for line breaks; without that, all of the text appears on one line, destroying the table dimensions. The use of <br> is undesirable for at least two reasons. First, it's not very maintainable: even the removal or insertion of a single word requires all of the breaks to be moved to re-flow the text correctly (lots of trial-and-error using Preview). And it doesn't seem very portable; it looks fine in my browser, but I have no idea whether it will flow nicely in other Windows browsers, let alone on other platforms. Ideally the text flow should be done dynamically by the client, not hard-coded, as with the prose in the body of an article. Is there any way to accomplish this? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine in IE 8 and Firefox 36. --Gaff (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added width:250px to the table style and deleted the <br /> tags.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very first article[edit]

Hello. I have been working on an article (my first for Wikipedia)about Eliza Anna Grier for some time. I volunteer one day a week at The Legacy Center for Drexel University College of Medicine which is the archive center for Woman's Medical College of Pennsylvania. I have access to primary resources , as well as secondary sources about Eliza Grier. When I checked today I found another recently posted article about Dr. Grier. My article is still sitting in my sandbox. User:Amjay728/sandbox [My sandbox article]

Eliza Ann Grier {recently posted article about Dr. Grier]

I have additional information and some corrections. Should I post as a new article? Should I rework the posted article with my information? I am totally inexperienced and not sure what protocol to follow. Thank you for your help. Amjay728 (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand the existing article with new material from your draft, please don't post as a new article.--ukexpat (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read both the existing article and your draft. Your draft does contain more detail about Dr. Grier than the existing article. I would encourage merging the additional material into the existing article. An existing article should only be replaced with a new article under the most unusual circumstances, such as if the existing article was bad. The existing article is not bad. An expanded article will be better. Thank you for writing the draft. Thank you for asking rather than just replacing. (Replacing could have been a good-faith action by a new editor, but would have complicated matters for Wikipedia.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

using external links in an infobox[edit]

RE: New Jersey Institute of Technology

In the infobox for NJIT I linked directly to the college's athletic dept. via the "Nickname" parameter. I did this several months ago but in the last few days my link was deleted and replaced several times with a wiki link to the nickname. Before linking as described, I checked numerous colleges, including RPI, and Caltech, and in many cases clicking on the nickname brought me to the college's athletic dept. The person who has repeatedly undone my link insists that what I did is not legit despite its wide use. I have looked for material that addresses using external links in infoboxes but haven't found anything relevant. I would appreciate help in locating material that I could bring to the attention of my critic. Wrrsimone (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

California Institute of Technology

I see that discussion is finally underway at Talk:New Jersey Institute of Technology, which is where the discussion should be. As is mentioned on the talk page, the use of external links in the body of an article or in the infobox of an article is deprecated. External links should be at the bottom of the article in their own list. If there are incorrect external links for RPI or for Caltech, they should be changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your theory based on WP:EL is not obviously supported by WP:EL, quote "in the appropriate location within an infobox", unquote. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the guideline is ambiguous, my interpretation is that "the appropriate location within an infobox" is a place in the infobox that identifies the official web site for the institution, not in order to provide information that can be provided as text. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert's interpretation matches mine: that this is to allow the ONE permitted link within the info box. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This interpretation is not supported by the page, where the obscure nickname was not the second external link, but the third after an also obscure mascot external link. The mascot EL spam is still there. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are inappropriate ELs all over New Jersey Institute of Technology. I'll start pruning.--ukexpat (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--ukexpat (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently had a similar discussion about St John's College, Cambridge: I didn't remove external links from the infobox (where they actually have defined fields), but I did from the External Links section. Ebonelm restored them, and argued that they belong, citing WP:EL and other college pages. --ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]