Help desk
< May 7	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 9 >

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.

May 8[edit]

Vertical bar in URL causing error[edit]

I'm trying to put this ref into an article: ^[1]

However, the vertical bar in the URL seem to be what is producing this error in the ref: Unknown parameter |oclc;query= ignored (help)

Is there a way to include this URL in a ref without generating the error? NewtonCourt (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NewtonCourt: You have to use the escape pipe {{|}}. I have fixed the link and it looks like it is working. --Majora (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: Thanks very much! NewtonCourt (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NewtonCourt: unfortunately, that is not the right type of escaping. {{|}} is a form of wikicode escaping, but that doesn't actually work inside refs (yes wikicode is TERRIBLE). What you need here is percent-encoding. The encoded value of | is %7C. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDJ: You're right, pipe macro {{|}} doesn't do what User:NewtonCourt needs here. However exclamation mark macro {{!}} does. See example.^[2] --CiaPan (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. "Boston Central Artery Corridor Master Plan". C/W MARS. Retrieved 6 May 2016.
^ Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. "Boston Central Artery Corridor Master Plan". C/W MARS. Retrieved 6 May 2016.

Update on CLARE TURLAY NEWBERRY[edit]

Her daughter, Felicia N. Trujillo, just released a biography that includes full color covers of all 20 of her books (not 17) and 2 portfolios: THE CAT ARTIST~The Story of Clare Turlay Newberry. <redacted per WP:EL> Also see: www.NewberryCats.com a portfolio site featuring most of Newberry's books. ^{WP:COPYVIO book ad removed} Felicia Newberry Trujillo (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Clare T. Newberry PHOTOS AVAILABLE--DON'T KNOW HOW TO UPLOAD[reply]

Presumably this is intended to refer to Clare Turlay Newberry? --David Biddulph (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Felicia Newberry Trujillo: Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not post ads for books, especially when the text plagiarizes another source. As you have a conflict of interest, I recommend that you do not directly edit the article on Clare Turlay Newberry. However, your book would be a useful source, so you are welcome to mention it on the article's talk page (Talk:Clare Turlay Newberry). The message will stay there longer than it will here, and volunteers who work on that article are more likely to find it there. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for the photos, Felicia Newberry Trujillo: one or two of them may be welcome additions to the article, but only if they are released under a suitable licence. One aim of Wikipedia is to make all its information freely reusable, and that includes images. With some narrow exceptions (which I don't believe will be relevant in this case) all images are freely reusable by anybody for any purpose, including commercial, as long as they are properly attributed. This means that in order to upload any of the images to Wikipedia (or, better, to Wikimedia Commons), the holder of the copyright in them must explicitly follow the procedure in Donating copyright materials - which, as I say, will grant an irrevocable licence to reuse them. If the copyright holder wishes to do so, and follows that procedure, then you can upload them using the upload wizard. Adding suitable licensed pictures is something that people with a conflict of interest are usually OK in doing, as long as they accept the consensus if other editors do not feel that the pictures are appropriate for some reason. --ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with GeoHack[edit]

See this article: IIT Kanpur Airport. In the Infobox on the right, the coordinates are given for the location of the topic. When we click on the coordinates, it opens a new page on GeoHack. On that page, the WGS84 shows the correct coordinates which are same as that on Infobox of the Wikipedia article, whereas just one line below Geo URI show incorrect coordinates. Because of the incorrect Geo URI coordinates, the links to maps such as Bing Maps or Google Maps lands the user on an incorrect location. I don't know how to change these Geo URI coordinates :( . Please Help. Iamvaibhavkumar (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates in the infobox were wrong, GeoHack did what it was told and pointed to the location it received from the page. I think I've fixed the problem by looking up the airstrip in google maps and correcting the coordinates in the article. Jarkeld (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The infobox uses degrees, minutes, seconds. It says 26°31′14″N 080°13′51″E after the fix by Jarkeld. @Iamvaibhavkumar: Somewhere you found degrees as decimal numbers 26.5202N 80.2330E and tried to enter it in [1]. But to get minutes and seconds you would have to say 0.5202×60×60 = 1873 = 31×60 + 13, so it becomes 26°31′13″N with your measurement. Similarly, 0.2330×60×60 = 839 = 13×60 + 59, so it becomes 080°13′59″E. That's very close to Jarkeld's coordinates. Your measurement would give https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=IIT_Kanpur_Airport&params=26_31_13_N_080_13_59_E_type:airport_region:IN. That actually hits the landing strip while Jarkeld is 10m north of it. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see my mistake. I should have seen it. Thank you @PrimeHunter: and @Jarkeld:. I'm very sorry for all this trouble. Apologies. Iamvaibhavkumar (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious reversion of my own edit after I saved another edit[edit]

On May 1, 2016, I removed some linkspam from A Girl like Me (film). Today I made a minor edit to Generic Access Network. Then I looked at my contribution history and discovered that I had supposedly reverted my own edit to "A Girl like Me (film)". But I did not! I haven't even looked at that page since May 1. Any ideas? Peter Chastain ^[¡habla!] 09:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I once achieved a similar result, by accidentally editing not the current version of an article but an old version. Maproom (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Chastain: Could this have been an accidental click on a "rollback" link in your watchlist? -- John of Reading (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John of Reading: That is quite plausible, not in the watchlist but on my User Contributions page. After I edit a page, I often go there to make sure it really got saved properly. Thanks! Peter Chastain ^[¡habla!] 21:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tool for comparing intersection of pages edited by users?[edit]

I can't find it - I want to see why pages are both edited by two specific users - it gets used in SPIs. Legacypac (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:, I think this is what you're looking for. Dismas|^(talk) 12:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Sir, i m a good writer & hv written many articles in diffrent topic so i hv earn by those articles, so the PDF of those in which address i should send. Please clarify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.185.66.184 (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you need. There is no address to send things. You just write, but to contribute at this English Wikipedia you need a good grasp of English. Two suggestions:

Ask your question at the Wikipedia for your native language.
Further clarify what you are asking. Try again. Ask your question in different ways. Herostratus (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Beyonce discography[edit]

Reference help requested. Hello. I was editing Beyoncé discography, adding certification with correct and valid references from official sites where the certifications are stated. The next day my edit was gone ( same as Adel's and Lady Gaga edit). I just wanna ask why is that and what am I doing wrong? Thank you very much, Jacob. Thanks, Jakubik.v (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I haven't gone into the various edits, but it seems that your additions were changed by another editor who left various comments in the edit summaries as can be seen in the page history here. Music bios and discographies sometimes seem to attract referencing anomalies. It might be an idea if you raised any queries you may have with the editor who made the changes. Eagleash (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Substituting a Better Image[edit]

I'm trying to understand when I can substitute an image for the lead/first/representative image in an article.

A day or so ago I substituted this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prairie-nymph----Herbertia.jpg for the lead image in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbertia_%28plant%29 . It stayed for a while, but when I came back to the article today the original lead picture had reappeared and my substitute was gone. I understand that better is in the eye of the beholder, but I've asked before what, if any, are the rules for substituting a better image for another in an article but got no response. (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :Hello, I don't think there's a problem with the image you substituted. However, your edit broke the taxonomy box as can be seen here. I expect the editor who corrected it just 'undid' the entire edit which would have removed the replacement image. I think both images might be considered OK and you can always try adding it again without causing formatting errors. If it is reverted again then it is best to discuss with the editor who does so. Eagleash (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for RV does indeed appear to be because of the broken taxobox, but I'm not sure that the new image is any better than the current: it looks like it has been heavily modified in photoshop, so I am not sure it is a natural depiction of the flower. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 16:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I still struggle with the arcane syntax of Wikipedia. I don't understand what the phrase "broke the taxonomy box" means. I went to your link but didn't understand what it was trying to tell me. foobar (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try the link again and then click on the further link (just under the pink bit) which says 'newer revision'. This will show what the difference is. Clicking on 'previous revision' will show the page as before your edit. Eagleash (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely prefer the previous image, which has the background in focus and a natural-looking flower. The one you substituted has a kind of ghostly shimmer around the edges of the petals, which is quite off-putting and makes it look faked. Maproom (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware if we have written rules but I have participated in a few such discussions, so I'll share how it was handled.

In some cases, a proposed replacement may be so obviously superior to the image replaces that an editor are to just go ahead and make the replacement. If it is a close call, or even if you don't think it's a close call but could imagine someone else might hold a different opinion, one approach is to post the alternatives on the talk page and ask for a consensus of editors.

I have participated in several of these and generally ends up being amicable, even in cases where the individual starting the discussion and having a particular interest in one image does not prevail.

In this particular instance it sounds like something else is going on—not a debate over the desirability of a particular image but the fact that the replacement ended up creating an error unrelated to the image quality.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The error was generated because the image file was inserted at the top of the taxo box and not into the image parameter as shown here. Eagleash (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving AFC Draft to Mainspace by Non-Reviewer[edit]

I would like to know, first, whether there are any actual guidelines about moving a draft article to mainspace by a non-reviewer, and, second, how reviewers and other experienced editors should deal with such an action. I can't find another specific forum to ask this two-part question.

First, I am not aware of any guidelines. In general, often an enthusiastic inexperienced editor asks, either at the Teahouse or here, whether they should move their declined draft into mainspace and what will happen then. They may do this because they find AFC to be a frustrating process (which it is if the author either has a non-notable topic, isn't good with English, or just finds referencing difficult (which it is)). They are usually advised that submission to mainspace will subject the article to nomination for deletion, a more painful process than being declined. Most authors heed the advice. A few do it anyway.

Second, do reviewers and other experienced editors have specific ideas about how to deal with an author moving a draft to mainspace? I have seen two different approaches, both of which make sense. The first is to nominate the article for deletion (or, if it is hopeless, tag it for speedy deletion). The second is to move it back to draft space.

It is true that a particular article that was moved back from mainspace to draft space has prompted my question, but my question isn't really about it, but a general question. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that requesting the conflict of interest disclosure and possibly the paid editing disclosure may be in order. I did that in the case in point. But my question really has to do with what is the general thinking of other experienced editors about inexperienced editors who move a draft to mainspace because they are tired of AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any policy on the reviewing of AFCs by a non-reviewer, except that the general idea is that non-reviewers should not review unless they are suitably familiar with content policies (and ready to have their actions reviewed by a more experienced community member). If the article is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, I would move it back to the draft space, unless I can tell that:

There are no references at at all (whether in the article or not);
The subject is hopelessly not notable;
The subject is clearly a hoax/vandalism;
The current article contains BLP/CVIO issues and the material should not be publicly visible;
The creator is a sock (G5).

These would probably result in deletions. (Although, depending on the situation for the first two, I might move back; I would not CSD these instances). However, if there are no issues that require immediate deletion, after moving back to the draft space, I would leave a clear and thought out message explaining why the article should not be moved from the draft space yet. Also, if the mover is not the creator (and not a sock of the creator), I would explain how the reviewing process should work, and why/what mistakes they made. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The moves that I had in mind were either by the author or by another contributor. If an editor who is not a known reviewer moves a draft to article space, my assumption would be that they are a new reviewer. .Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, when User:The Voidwalker says that serious BLP or copyvio that should not be visible should not be moved back from mainspace into draft space, I agree, but with the understanding that they should have been speedied in draft space. There are a few reasons to speedy in draft space, and they do include serious BLP violations and copyright violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can a draft page be vandalism, anyway? It can be a hoax. Vandalism is malicious damage to the encyclopedia. How can something new be vandalism? (I don't consider patent nonsense to be vandalism, for instance, but a different type of stuff that should be deleted, except that overwriting encyclopedic text with patent nonsense is a common form of vandalism.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not expecting to see vandalism (or even the other serious issues) moved from the draft space, and certainly not expecting another good-faith user to make that move. It seems unlikely that a vandal would create pages in the draft space so that they could move it out later. Not to mention, patrolling users would probably find it first. (I only worded it like that because I was thinking of WP:CSD#G3 at the time.) All I stated was what I believe I might see. It could be a good page, that would be kept. It could be a bad page, which would be moved. Or it could be so bad that it needs to be deleted. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 19:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit status[edit]

Does there exist a system for monitoring the state of the Category:Requested edits backlog, like {{AFC status}} for AFC? I ask because there is a fairly significant backlog right now and I wouldn't mind making such a template, but I don't want to duplicate existing functionality. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 19:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The open count is shown in the {{admin dashboard}}. While clearing a requested edit does not require one to be an admin, it is a task that should not be undertaken by newbies (in my opinion). There may be a valid need for such a template but I'd be interested in knowing where you thought it should be placed. We need more experienced editor's working on this backlog. As a community, we tell editors with the COI not to edit certain articles but to request an edit then we promptly ignore the request. We need to do better. If this template helps I'm in favor of it but the key is getting the volunteers to help out.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing REs is a tricky task requiring familiarity with policy and guidelines, but so is AFC reviewing. I am basically thinking of putting a notice in {{request edit}} informing users of the degree of backlog, much like that on Template:AFC submission/pending. Overall, I'm interested in getting around to formalising the process, to make it easier to get into for experienced editors unfamiliar with that specific task, similar to all the information that can be found at WikiProject Articles for creation. The wording on Template:AFC submission/pending is based on the number found at Template:AFC status/level, hence my enquiring about a similar system for REs. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 20:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure to check out Request Edit Wizard, a stalled attempt to improve the precess.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I expected there might have been something like this lying around. Did it just fizzle out, or was there something specific that stopped progress? — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 21:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my case, fizzle. I am unaware of anything specific, but it is a great question to ask.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Subtitle" in search results[edit]

I'm currently editing Turkmenistan. When I search for Abadan, a city, the appropriate hit says

Abadan, Turkmenistan

district of Ashgabat, former city

(Ashgabat, "Așgabat" in Turkmen, is the national capital.)

The first sentence of Abadan, Turkmenistan is

Abadan is a town located near Aşgabat in the Ahal Province of Turkmenistan.

The article says nothing about its having been incorporated into the capital city. Where did that note come from? I don't see anything like it in the page's source code. Please {{ping}} me for discussion.

--Thnidu (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: From Wikidata -See d:Q304522 - NQ (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NQ: I see the text there, but no source for it. If the source is one of those five "statements" or three "identifiers", it's far from obvious - in fact, it's totally opaque. Doesn't Wikidata require sources?? I certainly wouldn't put it into the article here with no source.--Thnidu (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: The entry was added by ru:User:Ahonc, so I'm assuming it was sourced to the Russian language wikipedia. As far as Wikidata is concerned that statement is unsourced. - NQ (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note for readers: User:Thnidu has already added sources (original, web archive) for the information about expanding the capital's borders. --CiaPan (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are also some comments in English, related to the fact of joining on the Turkmenistan government site:

President of Turkmenistan conducts a meeting on the expansion of the Turkmen capital http://turkmenistan.gov.tm/_eng/?id=2313
The President also noted that the decision to join some settlements in Ruhabat Etrap in Ahal Etrap and Abadan town to Ashgabat was adopted with the view to integrating the plans for the development of Ashgabat and adjacent territories into the urban planning programme, ...
President of Turkmenistan conducts a meeting on Ashgabat development http://www.turkmenistan.gov.tm/_eng/?id=2301
...the commission established in accordance with the Order of the President of Turkmenistan carried out the work to form new districts by joining the territories of Abadan town and Ruhabat Etrap in Ahal Velayat to the territory of Ashgabat and identify their boundaries.

but there's no direct info (or I could not find it) specifically about the joining, although there is one in Russian:

Ашхабад прирос новыми территориями (Ashgabat has grown by new territories) http://turkmenistan.gov.tm/?id=4117
...Меджлис Туркменистана постановил:

Земли территории города Абадан (...) включить в пределы территории земель города Ашхабада, исключив эти земли из состава территории Ахалского велаята.

(Mejlis of Turkmenistan decided:)

(to include grounds of the Abadan town (...) into an area of the Ashgabat town while excluding those grounds from the Ahal Province territories.)

CiaPan (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CiaPan: Thanks for the Russian source and the official Turkmen ones. I will add at least one of these to the article.--Thnidu (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: Actually the source in Russian language is official Turkmen, too – it is the same turkmenistan.gov.tm site. --CiaPan (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

CiaPan Ah, thanks for the info.--Thnidu (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User's sandbox listed on MOS page[edit]

A user's (Dumboldboy) sandbox is erroneously being listed on Category: content policies CAT:CONTENT because he copied the MOS no original research page. I did not think this was possible even with the category code copied. I am a bit anxious about editing the fellow's sandbox but I don't think he is here frequently nor understands the issue. — Box73 (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC) ce topic heading Box73 (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the categorization by only linking to the category pages.[2] I routinely do this in userspace without discussing with or informing the user. The usual freedom in your own userspace doesn't apply when you affect a category page. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. "Boston Central Artery Corridor Master Plan". C/W MARS. Retrieved 6 May 2016.

[2] Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. "Boston Central Artery Corridor Master Plan". C/W MARS. Retrieved 6 May 2016.

[1]

[2]