Help desk
< February 27	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 29 >

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.

February 28[edit]

Mickey G Information[edit]

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0299856/bio?ref_=nmbio_ql_1

kindly refer to the information on IMDB in regards to accurate bio on us. Thank you Jennifer Wilkins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.93.5 (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDB is generally not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. I suggest that you post suggested changes to Talk:Mickey G., along with sources that support them, beyond the IMDB entry. Note that there are existing sources, if those are incorrect, please indicate why or at least how. Also if you are the person or are closely related to or associated with the person, please understand that autobiographies are strongly discouraged, as is editing with a Conflict of Interest. DES ^(talk) 01:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors are at an impasse ...[edit]

Two editors -- me being one of them -- are at an impasse in a disagreement over how a certain article should be edited. What's the next step I need to take? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

WP:Dispute resolution.--ukexpat (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the dispute is about which date format to use in the 88th article of a series. The previous articles of the series use a mixture of date formats, sometimes within one paragraph. You don't need to take any step at all, it seems an odd thing to care about – but we all have our foibles. Maproom (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion is that, while consistency across articles that make up a series is desirable, it is less important than either consistency in an article or which date format to use in an article. That is my opinion. My opinion also is that American dates should be used with regard to American awards. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It's not the 88th article in a series. And, (2) how is yours a helpful answer? (3) Are you saying that we should maintain inconsistency in all articles, even within the same paragraph? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, a comment to the original poster is that it isn't helpful to state that there is an impasse without stating what article it is. It causes the other editors to have to go through contribution history. Otherwise you will just be told to discuss on the article talk page and read the dispute resolution policy, and you already knew that. In the specific case, I would advise using American dates, and, if the other editor wants to use European dates, a Request for Comments is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: My question was a general one, and not in regard to this specific article. Which is why I did not mention the specific article, as it was not relevant. It was this specific article that prompted my curiosity and my question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't yet read the dispute resolution policy, and you are an experienced editor by now, you should read or reread it. It will say to discuss on the article talk page. You did, and the discussion was at an impasse. It then says to follow any of the specific dispute resolution procedures listed in the policy. In this case, the simplest procedure would have been to request a third opinion, a lightweight non-binding procedure. I provided the equivalent of a third opinion. The next steps could be either the dispute resolution noticeboard (where I would be disqualified from mediating the dispute by prior invovlement) or a request for formal mediation, but my advice would be that, if the other editor disagrees with us, they should file a Request for Comments, which is binding and runs for 30 days. There are other specialized dispute resolution noticeboards that are listed in the policy but do not apply. The policy also says that conduct disputes can be reported to the edit-warring noticeboard or WP:ANI, but fortunately there is no conduct dispute that I see. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Thanks. I briefly read through that page. For the moment, I have started (or, rather, continued) a disucssion at this talk page here: Talk:List of submissions to the 88th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film#Request for input about date formats in this AND all other similar articles. Please weigh in there, with your opinion. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro: You are right, I see that it's only the 60th, it starts with List of submissions to the 29th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. And I would not presume to say what you should do. But if I were concerned about the date format used in those articles, I would start a discussion somewhere, about what format to use for all of them, before trying to impose that format on them, and meeting resistance in some. If you do start such a discussion, please let me know - I believe that you are right. Maproom (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: Thanks. I have started a Talk Page discussion here: Talk:List of submissions to the 88th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film#Request for input about date formats in this AND all other similar articles. As you have requested, I am making you aware. Please weigh in with your opinions, there. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article to which references above are being made is this one: List of submissions to the 88th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Japanese Sign Language[edit]

Reference help requested. How do I fix this? Thanks, Myhotdog (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in this edit.--ukexpat (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants - Giant star[edit]

Hey y'all, anyone want to test their sleuthing abilities to figure out why there's a giant Featured List star at the top of SpongeBob SquarePants? It's clearly not a list article, so that's not correct anyway. I figure some template somewhere is out of whack, but I'm having trouble spotting it, and I'm a touch busy IRL at the moment. Much obliged. I'll toss a barnstar your way if you can suss it out! Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a member of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded because it exceeds "one of the template limits, other than the limits on expensive parser functions and template argument size. These pages should be simplified by removing or simplifying calls to templates, or they will not render properly." The star can be made to go away by removing any significant portion of the article, but not by removing any single section consistently, because the issue is the lack of buffer space for templates, not any specific template or combination of templates. General Ization ^Talk 04:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: This was a group effort discussion on IRC and the cause was finally found out by Mcmatter to be a full article transclusion of another page. This caused the article to hit its transclusion cap (as mentioned above). The cap caused all the rest of the templates to fail and caused the giant star. --Majora (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Majora, General Ization: Good work to all involved and thanks for being on top of the greater issue. <3 Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The root cause seems to have been this edit, in which an editor inadvertently removed the <onlyinclude> directives from the transcluded article, so that the entire article instead of just the table was being transcluded. General Ization ^Talk 04:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Side box info[edit]

How do I create a side box with pic on the right of an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chbakol (talk • contribs) 15:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the 'sidebox' or infobox as they are known, are included in a page by use of an appropriate template depending on the type of article involved. The template is placed at the top of the page but after any maintenance notices. A list of the available templates can be found here. Hopefully there will be one you find suitable. Complete as many of the fields as you can of those that are relevant, but bear in mind that the information must be verifiable. Images can be problematical. You cannot use an image you find on the web somewhere as it is likely to be copyrighted or at least be the property of the person who created it. The best way to add an image to an article is to upload something which is your own work (I.e. you are the photographer) to Wikimedia Commons. Good luck. Eagleash (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Often the easiest way to add an infobox, Chbakol, is to find another article on a similar subject which has an infobox, open it for editing, and copy the whole infobox from {{infobox xxx up to the matching }}. When you've pasted this into the top of the article you are working on, you can edit the fields appropriately. Be aware that you can only use the fields which are defined for that template: you can't just add another field and expect it to work. Each infobox template is documented, with descriptions of the available fields. --ColinFine (talk)

Yes, that's very good advice. I often do it that way myself! Eagleash (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with something on my sandbox.[edit]

Hello. If you go to User:Chesnaught555/sandbox you will notice that I am working on creating something for my user page. It is an image of the London Tower Bridge, from WM Commons, with my username over it. However, I would like my username to appear on the top left rather than the bottom left. Could someone fix this for me? Kindest regards, --Ches (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. I have not posted my password or my email address on the Help Desk. Regards, --Ches (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IP, who has been blocked for disruptive editing, may have been trolling. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, Robert McClenon. I was terribly confused for a moment. Regards, --Ches (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ::Do not worry! That was a rogue edit by an IP editor who also posted a request for help re warning templates. It was missed when another editor undid the help request. It's now been removed. I have also removed the copied instructions from the top of this page. Eagleash (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Eagleash. I think now would be a good time to mention that my actual issue which led to me posting this thread has been solved! :-) Best, --Ches (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty following talk page conversations[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I recently registered and added some pages to my "watchlist." I'm getting the hang of it but one thing I find especially difficult is following threaded talk page conversations. I've tried stepping through edits individually but oftentimes they'll alternate between two or more threads, which is difficult to follow. Alternatively, I can view all new edits at once (with "compare selected revisions") but still, links aren't clickable and posts with multiple diffs are difficult to read. I'm wondering if there's a gadget (or method) to make following discussions easier, for example, one that would highlight all new posts in a thread with a yellow background or some other visible marker. Thanks. – Halford Brimley 19:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a WMF project called WP:Flow that was intended to make the wiki discussion system more accessible for new users but it appears to be no longer in development. All talk page posts have timestamps, which is one way you can see which posts are the newest. You don't necessarily have to look at diffs, you can just read the talk page thread as it is. Once you read a thread once through all the way any new posts should clearly stand out. At least they do for me anyway. -- œ^™ 23:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to watch the related changes for the subcategories of a given category[edit]

In the watchlish I want to watch the related changes that happens in the subcategories of a given category — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uni3993 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Gate Bridge[edit]

I wanted you to know there is a mistake on your page for the Hell Gate Bridge. The Bridge did NOT open to rail traffic in 1916. It was 1917. I have a MINT book on the engineering and construction of the Hell Gate Bridge Published by ASCE in 1918. It states that the bridge was thought to be complete in 1916. But due to problems it was opened in March of 1917. In fact, it was opened to Rail Traffic and dedicated on March 9th 1917. I wish you would correct this as soon as possible. I believe you have seen my photographic work. My website is www.davefrieder.com Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.81.58 (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. If you have a book with the correct information, it would be very helpful if you would edit the article, citing the book (author, title, publisher, year, etc). Alternatively, if you don't feel confident in doing that, please post your suggested change, with the information about the book, on the talk page Talk:Hell Gate Bridge (just as you have here), and somebody will edit the article accordingly. --ColinFine (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was it opened in 1916 then closed again until 1917? I've changed the date on the assumption that your report of your book is accurate. Can you tell us the page number for your date? Dbfirs 10:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]