Help desk
< July 1	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 3 >

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 2

Arrangement of box templates

Hey folks, I promise this is more about trying to learn for future utility and not just nit-picky aesthetics, but I wonder if someone could help me through the markup for something, as every permutation I try has been unfeasible in one way or another. On my user talk, I would like to arrange the four current community templates I maintain there immediately to the right of the table of contents, in a quadrant pattern: the compact version of the central discussion template upper left; the collapsed archivebox in the upper right; Admin's newsletter lower left; signpost lower right. I'd like all four to be equal in width to the others, and ideally (but less importantly) to use the majority of the space to the right of the TOC, with a marginal gap between the TOC and the cluster/quadrant of templates--if that makes sense? I know it's a trivial use of volunteer time to ask, but not being able to figure this out is straining my slightly obsessive brain. :) Any help appreciated--please feel free to edit the talk page directly, or just outline the markup here, if you would be so kind. Thanks in advance! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with Wall Street Journal access

I'd greatly appreciate it if someone with Wall Street Journal online access could verify whether the citation given at The Leopard#Reception bears out the claim that "critical acclaim" of the novel came "most famously from the English novelist E.M. Forster" [italics mine] . I'm not questioning whether Forster liked the book, but would have thought that Louis Aragon's praise of it was equally well known. (I suspect English-language bias in any case, but I guess if the bias is the WSJ's, not the Wikipedian's, then it's citable.)

If the article does bear this out, could you give me the relevant quotation? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 16:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel The word "Forster" does not appear in the article (although I did not read it thoroughly). If you'd like a copy, please send me a wikimail. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– Jmabel | Talk 00:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An Official Investigation

I would like to make an official investigation of what happened with me at Wikipedia. John.GGVV (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The proper forum to discuss user conduct issues is WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with noncommunicative IP(s)

There is an IP-hopping user or multiple IPs who keep removing the Greek name from Mount Erciyes and don't discuss the removal, despite two others (me and another editor) disagreeing. Is there a way to handle this situation? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Several. We could semi-protect the article for a while; if that's what you want, ask at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. - Jmabel | Talk 18:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to see number of contributions?

Hello, I am trying to figure out the number of contributions I've made. If a reason is needed, it's because I'm curious how close I am to being extended autoconfirmed. Is there a way to see the number of contributions on the contributions page? Or anywhere on Wikipedia? Thanks. ★Ulysses Grant Official★ 20:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. At the bottom of your contributions page Special:Contributions/Ulysses Grant Official, you will see a number of links to external tools, including "Edit count" . ColinFine (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe I didn't see that lol. Thank you! ★Ulysses Grant Official★ 21:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand this choice

For some time, I have been wondering why this need to have articles written in American English and not have them all in British English. A person who knows British English very well might not "chew" American English well; I really don't understand this choice. This way, in my opinion, en.wiki risks having fewer readers than it could reach if it had all articles written in British English. JackkBrown (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JackkBrown. Wikipedia doesn't have a strict policy about British vs. American English. Typically, articles that are more closely related to the UK (British people, works of art, companies, etc) are written with British conventions and American with American. Outside of that I'm not sure what "need" you're referring to. The most important thing is consistency within articles; see MOS:ENGVAR. I don't follow your logic in any case; aren't there people who might not "chew" British English in the same way? WPscatter ^t/_c 00:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The differences are unimportant, JackkBrown. Some people like to fret over them. Let them do so, and waste each other's time (where 3RR and similar rules don't prevent this). What puzzles me is the need for pre-18th-century units of measurement, almost anywhere. I'd remove mention of feet, furlongs, fluid ounces, British thermal units, pounds, degrees Fahrenheit and the rest, other than from quotations and the like. But Wikipedia is deeply conservative in matters such as these. -- Hoary (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feet, Fahrenheit, Pounds, Miles, etc. are used because they're still utilized, at least in part, in at least 8 countries accounting for nearly half a billion people. Additionally, the plurality of editors are based in the US, which justifies a mention of the alternate at the very least.

Also, I think feet and inches are more palatable than centimeters for measuring height (my personal opinion)

- AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, if you're creating a draft or article on a subject (such as some aspect of Italy) that doesn't dictate one spelling convention, and if you're after a spelling convention that's less likely to be unpalatable to rigidly-minded adherents of either British or American spelling, consider "Oxford spelling". If you use it, put {{British English Oxford spelling|small=yes}} at the top or near the top of the article/draft's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, I could argue that someone who knows American English well might not be very okay with British English, and so we should have en.wiki be completely in American English. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jakk. Your suggestion seems to be predicated on the assumption that Brits have a problem with American spelling, but Americans don't have a problem with British spelling. This is simply not the case - if anything it's the other way round. Most British English speakers are aware that American spelling is different, and can understand it, even if they don't like it. But not all Americans are even aware that British spelling is different (see for example this edit, where the editor thought they were correcting a "spelling mistake"). ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should table this proposal. -Arch dude (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's moot. CodeTalker (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]