Help desk
< March 10	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 12 >

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 11

How do I stop watching the protection log?

Somehow, I managed to add the protection log to my Watchlist. However, I cannot find a Stop Watching link on the protection log page or the Watchlist. How do I stop watching the protection log? Thanks, David Spector (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Have you tried looking at the watchlist using the "Edit raw watchlist" and removing the entry by hand. MilborneOne (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Yes, and there is no such entry in the raw Watchlist! Here is the current log entry in my regular Watchlist:

(Protection log); 08:04 . . Ged UK (talk | contribs) protected Emoji? ?[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 13:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC))?[move=autoconfirmed] (expires 13:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)) ?(Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content)

David Spector (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Are you watching the log itself, or does it just so happen that the pages on your list are having their protection levels changed? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)reply

I think it is watching the log itself. I don't remember ever seeing what you are describing. But I'm only guessing, as I'm not an expert. David Spector (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

You edited Talk:Emoji in January. Are you saying Emoji is not on your watchlist? Is it the only page you see a protection log entry for? It was March 5 and lots of pages are protected every day. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Yes, it was the only page I saw a protection log entry for!

But now I have a bigger problem. Someone has delete all my Watchlist entries, replacing them with the following entries:

Thread:Talk:Article feedback/AFT special: ratings
Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Add percentage rollout and numbers of votes
Extension:OggHandler/Client download

Could someone restore my Watchlist? I promise not to complain again. David Spector (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

You are the only one, on wiki, with access to the list of pages on your watchlist. No-one can add or remove items from that watchlist, except you (well, developers theoretically could, but none would without a very good reason, and you would have been notified beforehand because if they did access your watchlist without very good reason or without notifying you, it would mean their job). Help:Watchlist#Privacy explains it (you may want to read over that entire page actually) Good luck! . — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

I don't know how that could happen if you didn't edit the raw watchlist and accidentally do it yourself. We don't have access to your watchlist and it doesn't have a page history so the former contents may be lost. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

(Technical note) This has been reported on #wikimedia-dev ^connect and the developers are looking into it. They may or may not comment here with what they find. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

My entire Watchlist has been restored! All I did was watch a couple of new pages in the last couple of hours. David Spector (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Is a Page Semi-Protected?

Is there a quick way that I can check whether an article page is semi-protected, other than logging out and attempting to edit the page logged out, which seems undesirable? At Talk: Soviet Union, an IP stated that the page should be unlocked so that the references can be improved and the article improved. The article is not currently locked in the sense of fully protected, so I assumed that it is semi-protected. I invited the IP to register and confirm an account and then work to improve the article. (The article Soviet Union has a history of being edited by sock-puppets, so that semi-protection may have been implemented.) However, is there a way short of attempting to edit the page logged out that I can check whether it is semi-protected? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

There is a lock icon in the top right of the article that, if you hover your mouse over it, says that the article is semi-protected indefinitely. Dismas|^(talk) 01:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

If you click Edit while logged in then you see a notice saying it's semi-protected. You can also click "View logs for this page" in the page history and figure out the current status from log entries. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

What do you/we do with a talk page that has become disconnected from the Article which it supported?

While looking through my contribution history, I noticed that a comment I had made years ago was still listed as "current". This seemed unlikely to me, so I followed the link to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kermesse_%28festival%29/Comments and noticed that the talk page had come away from the Article itself. The Article is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermesse_%28festival%29 and seems to have grown a replacement Talk page.

The comments in the original (now separated) talk page are overcome by events, as the ambiguity I addressed has since been corrected by another editor, so the contents are of interest only for historic or continuity purposes. However, for tidiness purposes, does one simply delete the "loose" talk page, or merge it with the talk page currently attached to the Article, or what (and how)?

Thanks for any guidance you can provide. D.A.Timm (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Talk:Kermesse (festival)/Comments is not a disconnected page but a subpage of Talk:Kermesse (festival) where the WikiProject boxes say "This article has comments here." I'm not sure why you edited the subpage. It seems your comment would have been better below the 2008 post by Gustav von Humpelschmumpel at Talk:Kermesse (festival). You can move the post if you want. See also Wikipedia:Discontinuation of comments subpages. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Ah, thanks for the explanation. Apparently back then I was flailing around and wound up on the wrong page for what I was trying to do. It doesn't seem as though my mistake then has caused any problems in the intervening years, though, so I'll just leave it as it is and try to be more careful in the future. D.A.Timm (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

attempt to edit rejected

I have just completed an edit of the article Prefigurative Politics. When I get to the end I see a box saying "you're almost done" and I click submit, but the "you're alomst done" box reappears and the edit is not accepted. What am I doing wrong? Tocreate (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

I'm guessing that you're going through some sort of editing training program because when I edit, I don't see an "almost done" box. So, what happens when you go to the Prefigurative politics article and click on the "Edit" link at the top of the article, make your changes, and then hit the "Save Page" button? Dismas|^(talk) 04:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

It sounds like mw:Onboarding new Wikipedians/Guided tours so User:Steven (WMF) may know about it. Here at the help desk we can help better if you use the normal "Edit" tab as suggested by Dismas. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

@Tocreate: It sounds like you're getting to the Preview step, but not actually hitting Save page. Or if you are, there's an issue with the edit. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

reply to dismas

I'm guessing that you're going through some sort of editing training program because when I edit, I don't see an "almost done" box. So, what happens when you go to the Prefigurative politics article and click on the "Edit" link at the top of the article, make your changes, and then hit the "Save Page" button? Dismas|(talk) 04:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not going through a training program. I did click on the edit button at the top of the article and inserted the edits, and then I saw the "almost done" box. Underneath it it said (I believe) "save page," not "submit" as I said in my earlier inquiry Tocreate (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

To add a reply to an existing message, just click the [edit] link alongside the section heading. I have moved your new section to become part of the previous section.

I have removed the leading spaces at the beginning of a line in your message, as leading spaces confuse the formatting. We don't see an "almost done" box; is this on hitting "Show preview", or do you have some other button to hit before "Save page"?--David Biddulph (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

are you uploading a picture? i think the "almost done" is a phase in that wizard. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Big question

Have I missed some weird policy or is this reversion a bit odd? User:Diego Moya seems to be a fairly experienced editor, but this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Inline linking to a known redirect on another project sounds like a terrible idea, regardless of justification. The history for that page on Wiktionary links to this little debate. If this is related to that, this is a ridiculous idea, and seems to be an invasion of privacy (using a redirect against Wiktionary's policies to get a better understanding of the user's referrer). Scarce2 (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Build the web is a guideline in the MOS; and although Information scent is not a guideline, it's a solid principle for building hyperlinks.

I don't see why a redirect to another project would be seen as a bad idea. The web doesn't care whether informations is hosted at the same or a different site - the beauty of hyperlinks is that you can access relevant information at any website with a single click. Would you care to explain why building information silos, and keeping readers within Wikipedia would be a worthy goal? In special when we don't hold the information they are looking for as in this case?

I linked the words "large or of great size" because 1) there isn't an article for "Large" nor "Size" with that meaning (I checked before creating the hyperlink), and 2) the Wiktionary box text "Look up big in Wiktionary, the free dictionary" does not provide any hint ("scent") as to what content, nor that this is the only place where the meaning of size is covered within the mediawiki sister projects. If the goal is to direct readers to the place where the meaning of "big-as-large-in-size" is explained, the linked words make a better job than the external link box. May I inquire what is the basis for opposing this link, which is intended to lower the navigation friction? Diego (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

P.S. the link is totally unrelated to the attempt to track readers. Another editor insisted to keep all the redirects in the page to track usage, but I don't mind anything other than keeping a named link to the definition in place. I have removed the redirect and created a direct link. I've stroked the assumption that you opposed the link per se, as your concern was only about the redirect. Diego (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Links in the lead

I'd like to know if the WP:BOLDTITLE directive, that interdicts the placement of wikilinks in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence, should be applied here . The title Miklós Horthy de Nagybánya is the longer form of Miklós Horthy 79.117.160.96 (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

The directive seems quite clear: it should be applied in the Horthy article. But the article should, somewhere, explain the "Nagybánya" component of his title. Maproom (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

User:Maproom- so Nagybánya should b linked later in the article, not in the first sentence. Did I understand correctly? 79.117.160.96 (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

I believe that it should be linked later in the article, but not inside the boldface version of the full name (which pretty much implies, not in the first sentence). I would suggest also, not in the lede, but in a later section which explains why he is called "de Nagybánya", and whether this is part of his name, or a hereditary title. (I am puzzled by the "de" which seems to be neither Hungarian nor English, but French). Maproom (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Wikisource

It was suggested in a GA review that a link to wikisource is inappropriate. The article in question is Toothache#History, society and culture paragraph 6... to support a source from a Shakespeare play. Thoughts? Lesion (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Links to other wikis are never appropriate, as wikis are inherently not reliable sources. Link to some external source for the same information. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

In general user-generated pages such as wikis are frowned upon as reliable sources, see WP:USERGENERATED. For a Shakespeare play, the text is readily available from reliable publishers. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

The appropriate place for this question is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- Gadget850^talk 13:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Thank you for your attention in this matter, especially the person who helpfullly replaced the source. I will remember in future not to link to Wikisource in that case. Lesion (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

please inform me how we can edit the title in wikipedia?

please inform me how we can edit the title in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.22.151 (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

See Wikipedia:Moving a page. --Jayron32 13:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Also note that I have reverted your recent edits to Towhid Prison as you removed a lot of content and all the references without explanation.--ukexpat (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

How can I export script into another wiki

I want to import autoed script (Wikipedia:AutoEd/complete.js) into my Common.js of hindi wiktionary. How can I do it.--Wikiuser13 (talk | contribs) 14:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Use the following code - mw.loader.load("//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AutoEd/complete.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript");. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Linking to scholarly articles

How does one add a link to their published scholarly article on relevant Wikipedia subject page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.143.186 (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

See WP:REFB for how to add references. It's usually not a good idea to cite your own work, as it can be hard to maintain impartiality in that case. RudolfRed (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Requested edit

To whom it may concern

The article about the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine needs an URGENT edit.

National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine

Dmytro Yarosh is NOT Deputy Secretary of RNBO

Current Deputy Secretary of RNBO is Viktoriia Siumar

For confirmation you might check an oficcial page of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine (unfortunately, there’s no English version so far).

http://www.rnbo.gov.ua/content/aparat.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.229.226.9 (talk • contribs)

I see you already made the edit. I checked another source and it didn't mention Dmytro Yarosh having any official position. Since the person who said he was a secretary also added what appears to be valid information, it's probably not vandalism.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Dividing an article while maintaining attribution

Dear editors: This article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard Williams and Sir Richard Williams (Royal Marines officers) has been written about two people. Necrothesp at Wikiproject Military history agrees with me that the subjects are notable, but that there should be a separate article about each person. If the material about one of the people is moved, how can the attribution be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Anne, does WP:SPLIT help?--ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Note that Richard Williams (Royal Marines officer) (the 1764-1839 one) already has an article. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Thanks, ukexpat, the WP:SPLIT is helpful, and good to know about. However, since one of the people already has an article, would it be acceptable to just remove the information about that person, and move the article to the name of the other person? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

I think that's the way to go, and add anything useful from the stuff you remove to the existing article.--ukexpat (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply

The draft is now at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard Williams (Royal Marines officer born 1757). —Anne Delong (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Is there a tool to show recent edits to any article you have edited?

Each user has a Contributions page (Special:Contributions/David spector). It is possible to see an accurate list of recent edits after your last article edit by doing the following steps (note that the Current indicator in the Contributions page is inaccurate):

In your Contributions page, click on hist for the article.
Locate the first line containing your user name.
Click Cur in that line.
The result is the list of differences showing all edits done after your edit to the article.

Is there a tool for making all these steps doable in a single click? David Spector (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

I've seen a "since mine" in the WP:Twinkle menu before, although I'm not sure of exactly how that works. I do know that if you click on diff in your Special:Contribs, and then change the "diff=prev" to "diff=0" in the URL address bar, that it will do what you want with a few less steps. I could write you a script to add a "curr" link to every line in your Special:Contribs if you want though. Ping me -- — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

If you are certain it hasn't already been done, I'm sure lots of people would be interested in a link in each line of Contributions if it showed the above info. The link name might be recent. Probably, there is a WP: (namespace) article listing all tools, to which it could be added so others could enjoy it. Or maybe the Special:Contribs page could be extended directly? Let's wait a bit and see if anyone else has an opinion. David Spector (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Revisionjumper almost does what you ask for, David spector, and is activated from Preferences/Gadgets. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 19:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Sam, I don't have time to learn your complex tool to learn how to almost do what I asked for. While I admire your tool for what it does, your comment is unhelpful because you do not give cookbook directions for my use case. David Spector (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Dave, Revisionjumper is not my tool, and I am sorry you find the lack of cookbook directions unhelpful, a less than polite remark that could have been avoided had you invested your time more wisely in actually testing the script and read its description. Sam Sailor ^Sing 01:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply

I've slept on it, and just remembered that — Preferences → Gadgets → The revisionjumper creates an interface which allows you to jump between different revisions. — should do what you want. There are also a couple of other userscripts that deal with Wikipedia:User scripts#Diffs that you may want to check out. If none of those will work for you, I'll write you a custom script. Let me know. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Sam, I'm sorry that you found my remark less than polite. I apologize, as that was not my intention. I thank you for your additional suggestion, but I have no way to evaluate how much time it would take me to try it out, as I have never run a "script" on WP before. With no experience, it sounds like a difficult task to me. If you think it is easy, can you try out your suggestion yourself and tell me what you learn? I am appreciative of your wanting to help. By the way, I'm surprised if I am the first person to ask about such a valuable and fundamental function for any WP editor. I would have thought that viewing the subsequent edits after one's own edit to any article would be basic and part of WP. David Spector (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply

David, thanks, no harm done, lets move on. The point here is: Revisionjumper is super easy to check out. It will take you 10 seconds to activate (follow instruktions above), and less than 1 minute to have a look at the function, you ask for: open the latest diff in a file you have edited at one point in the past. Click on "changes since my last edit". That's a hell of a lot faster way for you to form your own opinion rather than listen to mine. (Granted, it's still not exactly what you're looking for, but it's the best suggestion I know of.) Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 21:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply

And Technical 13 is right, Twinkle has a "Since mine" in its menu, I never used it before, but it gives the same result. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 21:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Maximum Allowable Characters For A Username (42 Or 40?)

1.) I'm finally creating an account for myself here on Wikipedia. I'm just uncertain about whether the character limit for a Username is 42 characters (or just 40). I've generated a Username already and will end it with "1999" (if the character limit is 42) or "99" (if the character limit is just 40).

2.) How credible would the following Username be? Would people not take me seriously and be more likely to report me, if my Wiki Username were as follows? — "WyzzzarrdBlytzzzerFizzyrZzyzzerStyzzyr1999"

3.) If that Username wouldn't be a good idea for Wiki, have you got any suggestions? Sometimes, I'm really very bad at brainstorming.

4.) How long does a Wiki account take to set-up and does Wiki take record of the exact time it was created? I'd like for Wiki to mark my account as being created at exactly 00:00 on March 12th, which would mean that I'd need to do so at exactly 8:00PM in my time zone. When does Wiki take record of a new account's creation? Does it do so at the conclusion of the Registration Process or at the very beginning of it?

5.) Is a Wiki account something that anybody can create or is it something that needs to be approved of by the Admins? Must the Admins vote to allow me to have an account or do people always have an automatic right to create an account? I intend to have one (and only one) account. I do not intend to be one of those types of Wikipedians who has multiple accounts. I have every intention to play by Wiki rules. I intend to be a "Legit Wikipedian," if you will. I say this because it is my educated assumption that Wikipedians are expected to have only one account; this is perfectly fine by me, because I'd only need one account.

50.138.170.28 (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Does it matter? The name you have generated in 2. is absurd.
WP:UNCONF
Train.
-
Everybody can create their first account rigth away. I some case you can have a second, legit account. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 18:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

What about, say, "Mosquito99" or something like that? Might that be less absurd than, say, that incredibly lengthy Username I mentioned earlier? "Radio99" is another idea, in case people might be more apt to get bothered by the word, Mosquito.

50.138.170.28 (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Are malls notable?

Hey all, so my question, broadly, is "are malls notable", but of course I know they CAN be, so my real question is whether or not THESE malls are. I'm doing some AWB cleanup and I've come across a couple of mall stubs and I'm trying to figure out if they should be {{notability}} tagged or not, or nommed for deletion: Southgate Mall (Missoula), Gallatin Valley Mall,