Help desk
< October 18	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 20 >

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.

October 19[edit]

Problem in my page[edit]

Sumitraj3 (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)My page is not shown when I search for it in google instead of it only convent of Jesus and Mary page is shown under which my wikipedia page is inserted. What to do to fix this problem[reply]

I presume this is about Convent of Jesus and Mary, Waverley, Mussoorie which is completely unreferenced and contains a lot of promotional and subjective language. And I only read the introduction. That said, we don't control what Google does. †Dismas†|^(talk) 06:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sumitraj3: New articles are not indexed by Google until they are approved by a new page reviewer. The article on Convent of Jesus and Mary, Waverley, Mussoorie has been reviewed by new page reviewers, but they have found serious issues with the article; mostly related to the lack of reliable sources to support the information in the article. Please click the links in the orange box at the top of the article and learn what the problems are and how to resolve them. Once the article is fixed it can be approved and then Google will index it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn: Could you please give us a reference for your statement that "New articles are not indexed by Google until they are approved by a new page reviewer"? By what process is that achieved? I wasn't aware that new articles were NOINDEXded, and I see no sign of a NOINDEX magic word on the first version of Convent of Jesus and Mary, Waverley, Mussoorie, nor on the current version. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: WP:NPP says pages that are still not patrolled are not indexed and cached by Google or other search engines. I am not sure how the software handles this though. I skimmed through [1] but it does not seem to be handled here. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: Unreviewed pages were supposed to be automatically noindexed a long time ago, but it wasn't working. As part of a massive effort to improve the handling of new pages, that has been fixed. See relevant discussions at Wikipedia_talk:The future of NPP and AfC#A little bit of progress, this old version of the to do list, and Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements#8. No Index until patrolled. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Glad to hear that it's a new feature, and that I hadn't misunderstood how things have worked until now. We'll have to be on the lookout for more questions about why a published article isn't visible on Google. Can you please remind me how, when we look at an article, we can tell whether it has been reviewed throgh WP:NPP? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: For now, you can look at the bottom right hand corner of the page. If there is a little blue link that says "[Mark this page as patrolled]" that lets you know it hasn't been patrolled. However, that link will be going away soon for people who are not either admins or new page reviewers (See: Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller qualifications and Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right). What won't be going away is the logs. Checking the page log will let you know if it has been reviewed or not. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For me, I see the "[Mark this page as patrolled]" only briefly, and then it gets replaced by what I guess might be a patrolling toolbar of some sort. I assume that this too will disappear in future for those of us who are new page reviewers? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The patrolling toolbar also should only show up if a page is unpatrolled. Again, if you are not a new page reviewer that toolbar should also go away. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enlarge font in edit window[edit]

Surely there's a way to do this. Archive search unsuccessful. To clarify, I mean enlarging it for all edits, not only the current one. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On most windows systems, Control+ will increase the font size, Control- will reduce it, and Control0 will reset to normal size. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That works, but it's far less than what I'm looking for. 1. It enlarges the entire page, not just the wikitext. 2. It enlarges not just the current Firefox tab, but all of them. Unacceptable, as I often need to switch between tabs during an edit. 3. I would have to enlarge and reset for every edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Saw this at VPT and then you reverted it. At Special:MyPage/common.css, add the following rule:

textarea.mw-editfont-default {
  font-size: 133%;
}

I've used 133%, which will increase the size by one-third, but you can of course use any value you like, provided that it's more than 100% - exactly 100% will make no change. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosered64: - Perfect. I am writing this in the larger font. Thanks for following me here! ―Mandruss ☎ 09:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: However it still doesn't prevent all mistakes in the edit window. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 09:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HTTPS: Browser Recommendations[edit]

I am direct to HTTPS:_Browser_Recommendations beacuse I have an old brower, but I cannot ask questions about the Browser Recommendations on the talk page. I Wikimedia does not let log in so that may or may not be why.

I don't understand why I should care about "network security terms" for public data on Wikipedia. tahc ^chat 16:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tahc, you could go through WP:HTTPS to understand about this. One line may particularly interest you: "As of 2015, unencrypted access is no longer possible [for logged in users].". Thanks. Lourdes 16:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still able to log in on Wikipedia and edit fine.

It just cannot log in on Wikimedia, and it directs me to that Wikimedia page a couple times a day.

Why does it bother to make me look at the "HTTPS: Browser Recommendations" but not even hint at why it makes those recommendations? tahc ^chat 16:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably worth a question on the computing reference desk. Any computer expert will tell you that all software should be updated to the newest versions ASAP (unless there is a precise and compelling reason not to do so). Attack vectors are routinely found in software, and newer versions patch them (i.e. close the security hole); not updating makes your computer susceptible to common vulnerabilities, be it operating system, browser, plugins etc. There will always be security holes, but zero day exploits are too precious to waste on you - old attack code that is available for free on forums, on the other hand...

Another question could be why HTTPS is much better. Well, our article does a fairly good job of explaining; private network communications should have confidentiality (none can read what is said), integrity (none can change the message on its way), and authenticity (the receiver has a guarantee that the sender is the origin of the message). HTTP has none of those by design, whereas HTTPS is supposed to guarantee all three ("supposed to", of course, but it does a fairly good job at least for the latter two). Many feel that the certificate authority system is broken (e.g. [2]) but it is still better than no security at all. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partly, it is to protect your account login from being compromised. Crow^Caw 16:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references[edit]

I am trying to add my first inline info plus source, but I am having a hard time with it. Can someone check my attempt at the Alexandre Luigini article. Thanks, GinnevraDubois (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That works, but: if you only cite one page from the source, you don't need to divide into a "short" and "long" citation. The article does not do this for the rest of the sources.

Also, you should not include an access-date for a print source; their content is the same regardless of when you looked them up. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!! GinnevraDubois (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Wikipedia Page Published[edit]

Hello!

I put together a Wikipedia page on DreamWakers in May, and have been waiting for the page to be approved/go live. Am I missing something in this process? How can I know when my page can go live?

Thank you!

Style12345 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)style12345[reply]

@Style12345: You don't appear to have actually submitted your draft; to do so add {{subst:submit}} to the top. Ppp ery 19:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

I'm a little new to all of this and I previously was warned about using a streaming site for episode descriptions so I wanted to be 100% sure before I did anything. The Casper's Scare School (tv series) page is missing descriptions for most, if not all, of the season 2 episodes. I recently found that season 2 of the show is available on Netflix and I thought I could use their descriptions to round out the page. Thanks for the help.−ClarinetMinuet (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that would be a copyright violation. All content must be written in your own words. Think of it like you were describing the episode to a friend and use that level of summary in the article. Crow^Caw 20:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aligning text in a table[edit]

Hello, folks. I'm hoping you can help me with what I think is a simple question. I'm looking to center-align text in some, but not all, columns in a table. I know that I can do this by adding 'align=center' into each individual cell, but that's a lot of coding. Is there a way to do it in the column declaration?

I will greatly appreciate any help that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Code for a column must be applied to each cell. It's annoying but it's a property of html. Wiki code for tables is just an alternative notation to html. If the table has dozens of rows then a search-and-replace or a regular expression may be able to do it faster than manually. If you want help then specify the table. If the majority of columns are centered then it may be simpler to make centering code for the whole table and add other alignment to the cells in the non-centered columns. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Thanks for the prompt response. I feared that the answer might be the one that you gave, but it's good to know that I wasn't missing an easier way to do things. Fortunately for me, I'm not converting an existing table, but constructing a new one. So I'll just create a blank row that includes the in-cell formatting and then copy/paste that blank row for as many entries as I need before filling in those entries. Thanks again for the response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]