Help desk
< April 7	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 9 >

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.

April 8

Squashing the mobile version

I have an iPad, and whenever I surf to Wikipedia, I get the mobile version. I don't like that version, and I never want to see it on my iPad. How can I banish it? Lou Sander (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the page you should be able to select "mobile view" or "desktop view". Rwessel (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself selecting "desktop view" on my Nexus several times each day. If there's a way to set it permanently, I would like to hear about it. Maproom (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's up to the browser on the tablet. Once I set it, my iPad has never switched back to the mobile version. Dismas|^(talk) 06:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried this on my iPad, and the change seems to "stick" -- once you select desktop view, it stays in place until you reset it to mobile view. I tried it on my Amazon Fire 6, whose screen is much smaller, and I can't easily tell if it "sticks". The screen there is so small that I might prefer the mobile view. ~~I tried setting up a bookmark to Wikipedia in each of the two views, but the desktop view kept reverting to mobile view. Bummer for the Kindle.~~ Lou Sander (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take back what I said about the Kindle. The mobile bookmark now consistently brings up the mobile version, and the desktop bookmark now consistently brings up the desktop version. I can't explain the apparent change, except to think that I was screwing up, or maybe there was some sort of delay in things propagating through the Kindle and its connections to the Internet. Lou Sander (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to get my company on Wikipedia, its new

How do I go about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.31.2 (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, aims to cover content that's noteworthy. As a result, we have notability guidelines - that is, we have articles on subjects that have received significant and independent coverage from reliable sources. This is one major way to differ from your typical business directory. Since your company is new, I imagine it doesn't meet our notability guidelines for companies, unless it's somehow received major coverage. If you have any questions on this, feel free to ask. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name without the user group

How can I have my name showing without the word user showing in front of my name when I or anyone else looks up my name. I see that I am in a user group. Is there anyway that the word user is not shown. User: Cynthia Washington 04:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Cynthia Washington (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cynthia Washington: Are you referring to how, when I visit User:Cynthia Washington, the top of the page is labelled as "User:Cynthia Washington"? I believe that isn't removable, and for good reason - it's a clear way for editors to identify the page as a userpage, and not an actual article (which won't have any pre-fixes like User:, Wikipedia:, or Draft;). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cynthia Washington: See here: Changing the displayed title. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlpearc: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the system will still force there to be the "User:" prefix, even with {{DISPLAYTITLE:Desired Title}} (nor do I think removing it would be a good idea). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that Cynthia Washington misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia. It is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for personal profiles. She should start by reading Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Autobiography, and then ask herself whether she thinks she meets the notability guidelines - as demonstrated through significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. If so, she should probably ask for an uninvolved contributor to white an article on her, rather than writing it herself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperHamster: Well, looks like you're right, seems like I had that working on my page a few years ago. Sorry, Mlpearc (open channel) 05:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem @Mlpearc: I remember trying the same a few years back too. I forget if I got it working or not. Looking at my userpage now, it appears I event tried some CSS trickery and did {{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="display:none;">User:</span>... - again, not sure if that ever worked at some point, and it's definitely not working now. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

display: none; was disallowed in 2013.[1][2] PrimeHunter (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cynthia Washington: To add to the good comments above, you are confusing a user page with an article. User pages are primarily for the eyes of other Wikipedia editors, not the general public. To see some other user pages, just click on some usernames in this thread; you'll notice that none of them look like Wikipedia articles. Judging solely by your IMDb page, I'm guessing you have a fair chance of passing Wikipedia's notability requirements. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the comments. I will certainly look into the Wikipedia's notability requirements and the other suggestions. Thanks! 06:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynthia Washington (talk • contribs)

I want to join research centre

I want to join research centre but I don't know how please help anyone I am student of pcm and I want to research in physics area — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.219.30.142 (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. CaptRik (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need assistance from users who know well the MOS:LEAD policy

An extra opinion is necessary at Talk:Székely_Land#The_name_in_the_Old_Hungarian_alphabet regarding the inclusion of the name . 178.40.6.200 (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~The best way to request a third opinion would be to post a request at the third opinion noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

There are already opinions from several registered editors and multiple IP addresses at the article talk page. One way to obtain input from additional editors would be a Request for Comments, which could be publicized at the appropriate Wikiprojects. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brand endorsement

Hi,

I have launched a new brand of perfumes and i want to get the profile added on wikipedia. Please suggest me the best way of doing it.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.149.247 (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't. Wikipedia is not for promotion of products. Use another site such as Facebook which allows promotion. Maproom (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to this question is basically the same as a few questions above in the "I would like to get my company on Wikipedia, its new" section. Dismas|^(talk) 13:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion box messing up documentation

At Template:Comment from uninvolved editor the deletion discussion box is reproduced six times in the documentation section making all of the examples useless. Is there some way of tweaking the template that creates the deletion discussion box so it only appears at the top of such pages? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction was that a noinclude was called for. But I think a transclusion is supposed to include the deletion discussion box, and the examples are supposed to show what each transclusion produces. Therefore the template is correct, as is the doc. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The end result is a page that says something that is not true. Right now it says:

{{Comment from uninvolved editor}} produces

This template is being discussed for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please discuss this matter at this template's entry at templates for discussion to help reach a consensus.

(Comment from uninvolved editor)

But if you try it, it really produces

(Comment from uninvolved editor)

Any documentation that says "X produces Y" should show you exactly what X produces, not something else. If our transclusion system breaks that basic functionality, then we should fix it. My only question is whether some tweak to the template will fix it or whether I need to file a bug report and see what the wikimedia software developers can do. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? You wanted me to actually test my hypothesis?? When I try it in my sandbox I get this. Note the tiny text about the deletion discussion. But you're right, that doesn't match what the doc shows, and I'm stumped. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to report to the developers. It behaves as it is coded to do. Template:Comment from uninvolved editor has been nominated for deletion by saving {{subst:Template for discussion}} on it. The subst adds {{Template for discussion/dated}} to the template page. {{Template for discussion/dated}} makes a namespace check and displays a box in template space but a smaller notice in other namespaces. The idea is that in template space you are probably viewing the nominated template itself and there should be a clearly visible box there about the deletion nomination. Placing <noinclude>...</noinclude> around {{Template for discussion/dated}} would ensure that you only see the box once on the template page and not in the template documentation or other pages in template space, but it would prevent the smaller notice from appearing on other pages like User:Mandruss/sandbox. Therefore you shouldn't use <noinclude>...</noinclude>. I don't see a good way to prevent the documentation examples from also displaying the box. There are problematic ways like adding a parameter to examples and checking for this parameter in {{Template for discussion/dated}}, but I don't like that. Examples should use clean normal code to avoid confusion in other situations. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. I refuse to accept "There is nothing to report to the developers. It behaves as it is coded to do." as an answer when the end result is bad. I have been working in software development far to long to accept that. I can accept "it's a bad result but affects few pages so it is a low priority" or "it looks like a really hard thing to fix and we have higher priorities" but I absolutely refuse to accept pretending that it is OK for the documentation to say that {{Comment from uninvolved editor}} produces anything other than what {{Comment from uninvolved editor}} actually produces. It's wrong and Wikipedia deserves better. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you misunderstand what the Wikimedia software developers do. They make the underlying MediaWiki software which makes it possible to make templates. The actual templates and the processes to use them are made by volunteer editors at the English Wikipedia like you and I. Filing a bug for the Wikimedia developers would be like complaining to them that an article contains a false statement. Suggestions should be made here at the English Wikipedia, for example at Template talk:Template for discussion or Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. It is certainly possible for us to make changes to avoid the deletion box in documentation pages but I'm not sure whether it can be done without inconvenient consequences. Maybe {{subst:Template for discussion}} could place something like <noinclude>|bignotice=yes</noinclude> in the call of {{Template for discussion/dated}} (I don't know whether a subst can generate working noinclude tags). If you make a suggestion then also say whether you want the template documentation to include or exclude the smaller notice "‹ The template below (Comment from uninvolved editor) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus.›". This is currently displayed on non-templates using {{Comment from uninvolved editor}}. Seeing the notice in the documentation may confuse some users of the template but that is what the template actually produces on talk pages during the deletion discussion. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I write bad code in Visual Studio, do I call up Bill Gates to complain? (By the way, I have added noinclude so that this big notice will not be transcluded ... there are less obtrusive notices that could be used if transclusion is really really necessary.) --B (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rendering fail

The Machine Learning – The Complete Guide page book rendering fails with following error for last 2 weeks. Please fix.

 Rendering failed
 Generation of the document file has failed.
 Status: Rendering process died with non zero code: 1
 Return to Book:Machine Learning – The Complete Guide

206.83.160.121 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Harvey[reply]

Its a known fault, no estimated fix time available. - X201 (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTCHA

I'M TRYING TO UPDATE MY BIO AND IT SAYS THERE'S AN ERROR. SOMETHING TO DO WITH CAPTCHA. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RorbyWrites (talk • contribs) 15:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RorbyWrites: No need for caps lock; that's usually taken as yelling online. CAPTCHA is a way to confirm that your edits are being performed by you (a human) and not a bot. If you are getting an error about CAPTCHA, you'll need to enter the CAPTCHA text you see either above or below the editing box before you save the page.

On another note, you mention that you're writing your biography. If you're creating an article about yourself, note that you have a conflict of interest and are strongly discouraged from doing so. If you're creating your userpage at User:RorbyWrites, that's great - but note that your userpage should not serve as a biography, and should not replace the purpose of a Wikipedia article. It may serve as a limited autobiographical introduction about yourself, but needs to focus on your editing on Wikipedia. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Stand on Alternative Medicine

After seeing the Kickstarter campaign, I was sorry I donated to Wikipedia. Your position on the ancient forms of healing that have kept us going for millennia is disastrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.192.161 (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever bias you think you're seeing, I assure you, there's nothing in it. Wikipedia doesn't bias articles, it just uses reliable information, from reliable sources. - X201 (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm curious, what Kickstarter campaign? - X201 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@X201: This ironically named book. Sam Walton (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just found it. Wikipedia is so biased against "The truth" that it will probably delete that link to it. - X201 (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking help for Ramadan months fast

Assalamalekum,muslim brothers and sisters my name is Yusuf Osman Adem Ethiopian muslim refugee who based in kenya kakuma refugee camp with 7 family.ahelples man now from2012 up to date.so i kindly requst you charity for the coming fast months if Allah says. if any body interested to help me Kenya Equatiy bank kakuma ATM (^{[details removed]}) thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.177.251.238 (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 4 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AWB template substitution

I want to translate the contents of one template on a group of pages into a different template for these pages. How can this be accomplished in AWB? Buffaboy ^talk 20:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffaboy:I'd suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. I've found the people there to be quite helpful and knowledgeable. If that doesn't work, feel free to try again here. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your Taj Mahal article in Wikipedia world wide.

This letter is to actually point out a big inconcistency in your article about the Taj Mahal in India. To this day this tomstone is considered a natural wonder in the world. People from all over go on and on about how beautiful it is. However the truth is missing in your article in wikipedia. More concerning to me than this place were the main architects who built it. At the end of your article you post a couple of lines talking about how there is no evidence that the architects were dismembered for building this place. IT IS COMPLETELY WRONG. The main architects were robbed of all talent after this place was built. THEIR hands were literally cut off. THERE WAS no evidence because these achitects were then forbidden for talking to anyone about their injuries. Not only was their life in danger but so was their close family. They were underpaid for their talent. THE PLACE IS A HELL WHOLE. These people were just barbaric. BELIEVE ME I HATE INDIA BECAUSE THIS STORY. Consider me an attorney on behalf of these dismembered architects. PLEASE REMOVE THE LAST PARAGRAPH OR ACKNOWLEDGE THE TRUTH That the barbarians cut off the hands off the architect in a jealous rage so that the would not be able to make beautiful art ever again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.20.145 (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are aware of any reliable work of scholarship that corroborates these reports, please provide that information on the article talk page, Talk: Taj Mahal. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 April 8

Contents