Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 September 13

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.

September 13

Editing area

Is the editing area monospaced when you edit a page? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Click on the "Edit source" link by the title of this section.

See how the two lines below are displayed.

WWWWWWWWWWWWWW

iiiiiiiiiiiiii

QED

Rojomoke (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It depends on your preferences and browser. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing has the selection "Edit area font style". The default value is "Browser default" which is monospaced in most browsers. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Zero-width spaces

Special:WhatLinksHere/​ shows that the Chagos Archipelago article has a link to the zero-width space: not the article, but the space character itself, which is redirected to the ZWSP article. Where is it? I've looked through the article but can't find it. When I go to the WhatLinksHere page and search for the ZWSP character itself (it's in my clipboard, so I just remove everything in the "Find" box and paste in the ZWSP), my IE browser finds three instances, but if I do the same thing at the Chagos article, nothing comes up. Only seven pages link to the ZWSP character, and the rest are projectspace or userspace pages, not templates that might be transcluded at the Chagos article. Nyttend (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The source has two ​ in weird parameter code which causes links by the infobox.[1] My Firefox indicates it finds the character on the rendered article but it's not visibly marked so I can only guess it's around the infobox. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've just undone the two edits by Rob984 that included the thing you mentioned. Now, WhatLinksHere doesn't include the archipelago, so you're clearly correct about the relationship. Nyttend (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I just wasn't sure how to do this, and I didn't figure the workaround would create a link. Apologies for any confusion. Rob984 (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Lupton family

Hi I have made some difficult edits on the above page and would really appreciate it if you could check them Thanks again M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbernadette (talk • contribs) 11:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

ref number 100 is a mess - what is wrong?

Please fix as I am too tired to think straight . Your help is always appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbernadette (talk • contribs) 12:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Srbernadette. It was a simple typo issue: 20115 → 2015. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Cassidy McFadzean

Hi all,

I'm having trouble editing this page I started, located here: Draft:Cassidy McFadzean

1) I'm finding that the bottom of the page is nesting in itself (why is it indented/ doing that?)

2) How do I attach a photo in the info box?

3) Am I submitting correctly / is it correctly under review?

Thank you all so, so much. I feel like a complete novice here...

J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamcyu (talk • contribs) 19:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Jamcyu: You forgot to close the ref at the end of the personal life section. This caused everything past that to be associated with the ref which caused the formatting issue. Always remember to close your refs with </ref>. As for a photo, you can search commons for a photo that is already uploaded. Remember, photos must be licensed under the correct copyright for us to be able to use them. If you find one you would put the image name into the infobox template information next to |image=. Once you are ready to submit your draft put {{subst:submit}} on the top of the article and hit save. This will put a notice on the top that will signal that the article is waiting for a review. If you have any other questions let me know. --Stabila711 (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Article nomination

Is it better to propose or nominate an article for deletion if I think it's quite likely not to belong in Wikipedia but not super sure, such as the article Creepypasta? Which is worse, no propose an article for deletion that was better to nominate for deletion, or to nominate one that should have been proposed? From what Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says, it seems like PROD should only be used by experienced editors who are super sure an article doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and that it's bad to PROD one that should have been nominated for deletion because I can't be sure someone else is going to be smart enough to contest the PROD before the article gets deleted instead of just trusting that I'm experienced enough to know it doesn't belong when I'm actually not, if it turns out it does belong in Wikipedia. On the other hand, I used to think Proposed deletion was a weaker indication that an article doesn't belong in Wikipedia that nomination for deletion and meant it's so unimportant that it get deleted that it should only get deleted if no one objects to its deletion, and that nominating an article that I think there's a small chance doesn't belong was worse than PRODing it because the PROD tag can be removed and doesn't waste so much of other people's time in a deletion discussion. Am I correct that no one should propose an article for deletion just because they're not sure enough that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia to be worthy of nominating for deletion, even if they have the plan not to nominate it for deletion if the PROD gets contested? Blackbombchu (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The proposed for deletion process, as the deletion policy explains, is meant to be used for articles where the deletion should be uncontroversial or obvious, but the article does not meet any of the specified criteria for speedy deletion. If there is any reasonable likelihood that the requested deletion will be opposed, then it is a better idea to go ahead and nominate the article for deletion via Articles for Deletion, because any other editor can pull the PROD tag, but a deletion nomination runs to its 7-day conclusion. That is, in general, if you think that anyone else may disagree with your deletion rationale, it is better to get agreement and disagreement at AFD. In my own opinion, with the exception of the special case of WP:BLPPROD for unsourced biographies of living persons, there are fewer cases where PROD is appropriate than where either AFD or speedy deletion is appropriate. (That is, the main obvious reasons why deletion should be uncontroversial, in my opinion, are already in the criteria for speedy deletion.) That is my opinion. If you personally aren't sure whether the article belongs in Wikipedia, you definitely shouldn't PROD it, and maybe shouldn't nominate it for deletion. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Given Wikipedia's systemic bias, low value, poorly sourced internet memes are highly likely to survive AFD. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)