Help desk
< July 11	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 13 >

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.

July 12

download all revisions of an article?

I'd like to download all the revisions of one Wikipedia article. Can anyone recommend a way to do this without running afoul of the rules about scripted access? —rybec 00:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for a machine readable format, Special:Export, make sure "all revisions" and not just the most recent one is selected. For a human readable format, I'm not sure if there's a way to download them other than caching them. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 02:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I had no idea Special:Export existed. It's fine for what I'm trying to do. —rybec 03:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Useraccounts for Wikimedia Foundation employees editing as part of their work

I was under the impression that Wikimedia Foundation employees editing as part of their work should have "(WMF)" as part of their useraccount name, as for example "Maggie Dennis (WMF)". But I'm not seeing that consistently, so perhaps I'm imagining things. Is there such a rule/guideline? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most do, such as User:Philippe (WMF) and User:Mdennis (WMF). Some keep their old names and append (WMF) for a new staff account. As far as I know, anyone who performs actions for the WMF in any capacity does so from a staff account.

However, many still edit with their old accounts, even holding admin or other bits with their volunteer accounts (Philippe and Maggie both). They aren't required to edit only with their staff account, so a lot still edit with both accounts, one for work, one for volunteering. If there's any specific cases, Philippe can probably provide a better answer. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 02:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@John Broughton:, it isn't required but these days is generally encouraged for new staff members to maintain two accounts if they wish to volunteer. If you look at User:Eloquence and User:Sue Gardner, for example, they have for a very long time now been using those accounts for both roles. If you look at Category:Wikimedia Foundation staff, the (WMF) is pretty standard. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdennis (WMF): Thank you; very helpful. One further question, if I might - is there an expectation that editors will put this category on both their personal and official (WMF) useraccounts, where those useraccounts are different? Or is it optional (or even not the norm at all) to put this category on personal useraccounts of WMF employees? -- John Broughton (♫♫)

@John Broughton:, we do not generally put this category on personal useraccounts, but WMF staff are asked to identify their personal accounts. See, for example, the notice (which I need to update, my job title having changed!) at the top of User:Moonriddengirl, in the "about me" section at User:Ironholds or the announcement at User:Philippe. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh, hey, User:Moonriddengirl! The problem with these new accounts is that it can take a while to mentally associate the volunteer username with the employee name. For example, I hadn't realized that Maggie Dennis was the same person I had known previously under that other pseudonym. Just the other day I even came across a WMF employee account that didn't even bother to identify the still active volunteer admin account controlled by the same person. I do think the (WMF) tagging is a good idea, though it isn't necessarily free from confusion. Dragons flight (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I had known when I started that we could do what User:Whatamidoing (WMF) did, I might be User:Moonriddengirl (WMF). :D I think it's a really good idea for clarity - I'll see if I can encourage people to visibly link their accounts. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed that since it worked for Jorm/User:Jorm (WMF)/Brandon Harris, it was at least possible. I think it's difficult to keep multiple names straight, so I assume other people do, too. (I might just be worse than average on this point without knowing it, though.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

page curation toolbar doesn't appear

I've been working on wp:npp and with most articles the toolbar appears without a problem but with two of them, .44 Remington Centerfire, and .223 Wylde, the toolbar does not appear. I've tried refreshing and hovering over the area where the toolbar pops up but no luck. What's causing this, and how can it be fixed? Thank you. JanetteDoe (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Janette. The page curation toolbar appears to only be available for articles logged as created within the past 60 days, so both articles have aged out.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? If you look at my last ten or so article space edits, they are all to pages from wp:npp and they were all dated April 2 or 3 which is obviously more than 60 days back, and they all had the toolbar. JanetteDoe (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's determinative that I'm incorrect, and it could be something else entirely, but I believe there was such a date cutoff at one time, so maybe it's still the issue but the cutoff is now longer. From the perspective of yesterday, the two articles were respectively 112- and 109-days old. There's only one article in the feed that is older but it was moved to the mainspace recently, so it wouldn't appear until then as logged. The article immediately after these two in the feed does get the toolbar but it's seven days newer, so if this isn't just a false trail (which it may be), the cutoff would have to be some time after 102 days but less than 109. Maybe you should bring up the issue at Wikipedia talk:Page Curation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

View History tab has suddenly vanished

Hello, does anyone know how I can bring back the "View History" tab? It used to always be in it's same place since the switch to Vector, but is now buried in the drop-down arrow menus. In addition, I occasionally have several 'dud' (for lack of a better term) drop-down menu arrows which do nothing when moused over or clicked. I've looked through the archives and found people with the same problem, but they are always told that it must be a custom script they're using, or too small of a screen. In my case, I have no custom scripts and have my browser maximised on a 1920x1080 screen. I really like the look of the Vector skin, and would dread having to bring out the old crusty Monobook, but I really need the history tab. Shirudo talk 09:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried disabling VisualEditor? That's the only thing I can think of if you're using the standard Vector with no customisations. You can do so by going to Preferences>Gadgets and ticking the top box under Editing. I hope this helps! drewmunn talk 09:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, but I already have had Visual Editor disabled since I was first able to. I hope the history tab wasn't a casualty of that horrible thing. Shirudo talk 10:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still have the History tab, and I've got it disabled. If you sign out, does it re-appear? drewmunn talk 11:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In situations like this a WP:BYPASS and a WP:PURGE sometimes help.--ukexpat (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it look anything like User:Haza-w/Drop-down menus? ~Hue Sat Lum 20:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried logging out, and it does re-appear until I log back in; I tried the bypass and purge but they did nothing; yes, it does look similar to that screenshot (history being relegated to an option in a dropdown menu). Shirudo talk 23:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See if the sixth option under the "Appearance" section of the Gadgets section of your preferences is checked – it says, "Add page and user options to drop-down menus on the toolbar." ~Hue Sat Lum 00:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I unchecked that setting and all is fine now; thanks for helping me out. I vaguely recall that box always being checked, though it never did this before. Shirudo talk 01:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding pictures

I tried to follow instructions to paste a photo of the ne towers at Lavell Edwards Stadioum and managed to paste the link, but it doesn't work See: LaVell Edwards Stadium. How do I make it display the photo? Thx, George — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgel912 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, you managed to surround the whole paragraph with <nowiki>. I've fixed it for you. Astronaut (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were you using the visual editor or the old editor (edit source)? (The visual editor is new.) RJFJR (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And very buggy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:George1912 was using VisualEditor, and it added nowiki tags.

George, can you tell me the name of the page where you found the instructions? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, Help:Cheatsheet, Help:Wiki markup, Help:Visual file markup ... ? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But presumably not Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide#Editing images and other media files, which is the page that he needed. We need to find all of those pages and get them updated, or at least tagged with a note that the instructions are not useful for people who are using VisualEditor. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First ever article

What was the first ever article on Wikipedia? Or first ten articles? --Remitrer Adehere (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See link 36 at History of Wikipedia, which is to an announcement on Wikimedia about logs being found from the earliest days in 2001. There you can download a zipped file of the logs. It would take several minutes of my employer's bandwidth, or I'd do it myself. The direct link is http://noc.wikimedia.org/~tstarling/wikipedia-logs-2001-08-17.7z Rojomoke (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a logo and how it appears on Facebook

Hello, ok so the logo updated on wikipedia fits neatly and nice. However, on a facebook community page the logo/picture is cropped and displays very ugly. I tried playing around the sizes, squares, pixels, but nothing seems to correct the problem. I know facebook community pages take contents from wikipedia but is there something I don't know here? I really would appreciate any help. Thank you Inspironss (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we have no control over what Facebook put up, or how they do it. Also, changing the image on Wikipedia is unlikely to solve the issue, as it seems that Facebook takes it from the upload page; Not the article. Mdann52 (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Facebook registered the height to width ratio in the past and made display code for that ratio. The current ratio is different. I don't know whether Facebook will eventually detect such a change and update their display code. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So there is simply nothing can be done? Even through directly updating the logo upload page? or even contacting facebook? Inspironss (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of how Facebook maintains community pages. Maybe it will automatically be fixed. Wikipedia shouldn't base image decisions on how the images might be used by Facebook but my best guess is that it might make a difference to upload a version with the same height to width ratio as the original. It's also conceivable that they require the same actual height and width. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For optimal use, Facebook requires images that are square, with side dimensions of 160px. However, uploading a new version to Wikipedia will not resolve this, as Facebook locally hosts images. You will need to upload a new image to Facebook, not Wikipedia to resolve this issue. drewmunn talk 15:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need Disambiguation page for Ballast Point Park

There are two places which are parks in the world called Ballast Point Park. One is Ballast Point Park in Tampa, Florida, USA and the other is Ballast Point Park in Ballast Point (New South Wales). I would like to create a Disambiguation page where the two could be distinguished. Heditor6 (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are only two articles we really do not need a disambiguation page. You can use a hatnote on Ballast Point Park directing to Ballast Point (New South Wales). GB fan 18:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

words with missing letters for crossword solving ,is this available?18:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)~~

Bold text--Conrad gozzo (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Conrad. You might try asking for help with a crossword puzzle clues at the language section of the reference desk. This page is not for general knowledge questions but for help with using Wikipedia itself. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's one at www.mijnwoordenboek.nl. There are doubtless others. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pran died

Pran died on 12 July 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.56.141.157 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That fact has been added to his article. Rojomoke (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intitle and plurals

I'm trying to use the intitle search function, but I'm getting some false positives, specifically returns of Foos compared to my search term of Foo. No doubt this is a sometimes useful feature to include plurals, but that's not the case here. Is there an easy way for me to exclude the "plural" results? --BDD (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried quotes intitle:"foo"? Rojomoke (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. That did the trick. Thanks. --BDD (talk)

Actually, I'm surprised. On 2nd thoughts I realised that anything including "foos" would also include "foo", so exact-match searching with quotes wouldn't work. I was coming back here to suggest you use "-foos" instead. Rojomoke (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lowercase and italicized title

The title of this page, develop (Apple magazine), should have both a lowercase first letter and be italicized. If I use the templates {{lowercase}} and {{italic title}}, I can accomplish one of the effects, depending on which order I put them in, but not both. Any idea how to achieve both a lowercase first letter and an italicized title? Thanks Brycehughes (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it by using {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to learn. Thanks. Brycehughes (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strange user right

I hope this is in the right place. If not, please move it.

I was looking at Special:RecentChanges fairly recently, and I noticed a few of those red exclamation marks indicating that certain edits had not been patrolled. Now, this is very strange because I have not been given any rights on English Wikipedia that should allow me to patrol edits. In fact, I have no special rights listed at all. But for some reason, I am now able to patrol pages. Not individual edits, just pages. And, for whatever reason, I cannot patrol pages I have created, and they are not automatically patrolled.

Can anyone explain why I am allowed to do this? I have found nothing in my logs saying someone has given me such-and-such right and I've heard nothing about how registered/autoconfirmed/whatever users are now allowed to patrol new pages. I'm pretty confused.

For what it's worth, I have sometimes used this capability to mark pages as patrolled that I thought were all right. Should I not have done this? I haven't been recognised anywhere as having gained whatever level of trust is necessary to patrol things - I wonder if this was actually an accident, and if it is please remove it, for me at least. I don't want to use a right I'm not really supposed to have. Cathfolant (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think any user can patrol a page that they haven't created. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol and Wikipedia:New pages patrol/patrolled pages. If you personally create a lot of pages, that have been good, you can apply for Wikipedia:Autopatrolled, so any new pages you created won't need patroled. CTF83! 00:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So new page patrolling has been enabled for all users, then. I have created only 2 stub articles and 1 template and I don't really do all that much, so I'd not meet the criteria for autopatrolled but this is why being able to patrol pages is so strange. If it's assumed that a user knows which pages meet the policy, which is implied by letting them patrol pages, why should their own pages not be automatically patrolled? It seems more logical to me that they would have both rights or neither. Cathfolant (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point of patrolling is to gain a second opinion on the existence of page; what one user may believe the criteria to mean may not actually be correct, or a user may not have read the criteria. Another user, therefore, patrols the page to ensure as a kind of failsafe measure against vandalism. Users can't patrol their own pages, as this would defeat the purpose of the action. Users with autopatrol rights have been deemed by a review to know the criteria for page creation, and not be likely to be the source of vandalism. drewmunn talk 07:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]