Help desk
< March 27	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 29 >

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.

March 28[edit]

Turning off the new mobile talk pages by default[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T241402

A few months ago, a new version of the talk pages on mobile showed up. It is glitchy, restrictive, and harder to use than normal. To get rid of it, one can click a button on the bottom of the page to “read as wiki page.”

Is there any way to make this option stay on ? I don’t like this format to view and add to talk pages at all. DemonDays64 (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

Unfortunately there's no way to make it persist for now. But T241402 is exploring possibility of making a preference setting for it. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

Hi, I tried setting up archiving on Talk: Ballon d'Or yesterday, but it doesn't look to have worked. Could someone please have a look where I've gone wrong? Joseph2302 (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: The archive parameter was not a subpage of the talk page. I've fixed it. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, bad copy/paste on my part. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need help formatting The "Sissy Boy Syndrome" and the Development of Homosexuality[edit]

Hello. At The "Sissy Boy Syndrome" and the Development of Homosexuality, there is a problem with one of the citations, Mass 1987. The error message "sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFMass1987" is displayed. I don't know how to fix this, can someone please show me? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Freeknowledgecreator. I am not familiar with using sfn, but I believe that the problem is that there are two different "Mass, 1997" cited. See Template:Sfn#More than one work in a year. --ColinFine (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to cite an offline reference?[edit]

Hello, I need to cite a reference in my article which is available with me as a pdf but not available online. How do I cite it in the article? A1412De (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A1412De. It depends on the status and origin of the PDF. If it represents something which has been published (on paper) but is not generally available online, you treat it like an offline source: cite the usual bibliographic information (author, title, date, journal, publisher, etc): for such sources, even if they are available on line, a URL is a convenience, not an essential part of the citation.

If it has not been published by a reliable organ, then you may not use it as a source, I'm afraid (which incidentally, means that you can't do the trick that some people have tried, and post it on the web yourself, because you are presumably not a reputable publisher). All references must be to published sources, otherwise a reader has no way of checking the validity of the material they support. See citing sources. --ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that scans of alleged newspaper and magazine articles, posted somewhere online, are not reliable sources because in this era of Photoshop there is no way of knowing how authentic such purported scans are. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Name of Article[edit]

Hello, This is Soumya, I found an Article (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%27s_Bridge), Article's Name is Adams Bridge. This is about an ancient bridge connecting India and Sri lanka. I have an Objection with article's name. As per Hindu Mythology 'Ramayan' this bridge is made by lord Ram . Its called Ram Setu. I Believe there are enough evidence available to prove my argument.

Where as Calling it Adam's Bridge is false & misleading. I raised this concern in Article-talk section, but it doesn't resolve issue. Kindly consider this matter.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahoo.syam (talk • contribs) 13:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahoo.syam: - this issue has been disputed before on the talk page of that article. If someone submits it on their behalf, please do so within the contested section of Requested Moves. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how to display a military decorations.[edit]

I'm trying to show a military ribbons bar image at the bottom a site. How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughes1953 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hughes1953: Take a look at the source code of an article that already has a ribbons bar, and copy it. Here's one at random: John E. Kilmer -Arch dude (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Expo 17 article[edit]

Hi, I just searched an article that has existed for nearly 10 years and it has been deleted. As one of the contributors, I was not notified, which is odd, because I was notified long ago about a minor detail to be improved. It is also odd that I can't find the page in the deletion log. Some text was taken from the page and copied into an article on Expo 2017 (Astana), but the link to Expo 17 (mentioned in the text of Expo 2017) is wrongly linked back to Expo 2017. In other words, a loop.

Can you please help? The article in question (Expo 17) provided historic information on Expo 2017 and had links to the 51 page proposal in French and English. It also showed the logo and colours of the proposed exhibition. All of this has disappeared with no notice given at all.

Thank you,

Rick

Prof Homunculus (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Expo 17" was not deleted, but turned into a redirect on March 8. If you click Expo 17 it will take you to the Expo 2017 article. There is no notification requirement for users who have edited a particular article. It is up to you to watchlist and monitor any article you are interested in. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it had to be turned into a redirect. I have listed it on WP:RFD for reverting to the original article. JIP | Talk 19:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

contribute a page when it will be live[edit]

when my contribution will be live ,and how do they get verified — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prnews18 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prnews18 Your contributions are "live" in that we can see them, but they are not formally part of the encyclopedia, because you edited your user page and your sandbox, which are not spaces for articles. Your user page is a place to tell the Wikipedia community about yourself in the context of your Wikipedia use. To submit a draft for review, please go to Articles for Creation. Be advised that successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to do on Wikipedia.

Your username suggests to me you are a public relations person perhaps representing the people you have written about. If this is true, please review conflict of interest and paid editing as you have some required disclosures to make. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OP's username appears on a number of press releases, so I've blocked them under WP:CORPNAME and WP:NOTPROMO. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i don't have time[edit]

i don't have time to learn how to edit wikipedia. every time i make an edit or add content it gets rejected. see the attached. it definitely belongs on the cited entry. it gets rejected. i would donate $100 a month if i could submit content and have it entered and not rejected. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pale_Blue_Dot&action=edit&section=6

Lithuanian ambient artist Stellardrone pays homage to Sagan and the Pale Blue Dot photograph on his 2013 album Light Years in the song Eternity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m8fGyElK0k with Sagan speaking the following lines:

The spacecraft, was a long way from home. I thought it might be a good idea just after Saturn, to have them take one last glance homeward. From Saturn, the Earth would appear too small for Voyager to make out any detail. Our planet would be just a , point of light a lonely pixel, hardly distinguishable from the other points of light Voyager would see, nearby planets, far off suns. But precisely because of the obscurity of our world thus revealed, such a picture might be worth having. It had been well understood by the scientists and philosophers of classical antiquity that the Earth was a mere point, in a vast, encompassing, Cosmos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:670:6460:D0D3:4537:4EDA:D84B (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an independent professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source supporting this claim? Otherwise, no, it doesn't belong. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you donate money or not has no effect on your edits and how they are received. The money does not go to editors, but to the foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on. If you feel that your edit merits inclusion but it is removed, you should discuss it on the article talk page with the other editors that follow that article. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the reversion of your edit. What Ian.thomson and 331dot said, but also: The world has a vast number of artists. Very many of these mention, quote, recycle, or pay homage to works, people, events etc better known than themselves. Some of these mentions, quotes, recyclings, homages are notable. But here we see one whose notability isn't obvious. Aside from the fact that you don't cite any discussion of it, Stellardrone himself has no article here (or doesn't as long as that link is red). I've never heard of him, but am willing to believe that he's notable. If he is notable (by Wikipedia's standards), then what I suggest you do is get yourself a username, log in to that username, and work on Draft:Stellardrone till you think it's good enough to be launched as an article. (See Help:Your first article.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I love it when those of you out there in wikispace NEVER FOLLOW THROUGH AND DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. It's not a "claim" you dipshits. You are like corner-doc quickiemarts. All you can do is diagnose, criticize, bitch, and moan. Take 10 seconds and listen to the Stellardrone album Light Years on youtube, track 3, Eternity, and you will hear the cultural artifact in question encased and enshrined in the Alphabet Temple of YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDJn0SQehb4

I don't have time to "cite it" and it doesn't need to be "cited".

That single YouTube artifact has 2,615,042 views to date. Let's compare with Sagan's YouTube artifact from Cosmos 1980, wherein he describes Flatland (a place many of you reside). It has 3,663,621 views. You said it yourself, "you haven't heard of him", therefore he's not valid. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, bitches. All the crap about citations, mentions, homages, etc. is just that. Bulldada. I didn't know who Stellardrone was 2 months ago, but that doesn't justify excising the content I added on this topic. I don't need to "cite any discussion of it" to make my edit valid. There are billions and billions of non-cited statements throughout wikiworld. The rules are only applied when wiki-ites like yourselves decide to apply them.

I'm 54. I watched Cosmos debut in 1980 at the age of 14. But today's average 14-year-old has a higher probability of learning about the Pale Blue Dot Voyager photo from a Stellardrone song on YouTube than they do in the education system of the failed state known as the USA. Yeah, wiki/intertrons/international/global yaddayadda.

Saving this content for future use before it too gets excised because WIKIJUSTICE.