Help desk
< December 7	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 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.

December 8

menu with fill in choices is obscured

Hello,

I am having a weird problem trying to edit the tables on the page ‘https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_named_passenger_trains_of_the_United_States_(C)’. When I try to fill in a cell by typing ‘[[‘ , the menu that comes up with the choices is right at the top of the page with the best choices (at the top of the menu) not visible. In fact several of the choices are hidden behind the menu bar with the ‘Paragraph’, ‘Italic Symbol’, etc. In other words, it is impossible to fill in the cell and hence edit the page. Can you please help me? In other Wikipedia pages that I have edited, the menu with the fill-in choices is much lower on the page and easy to use. Thanks!

Fritzgoebel (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link: List of named passenger trains of the United States (C). Maproom (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what context does typing [[ cause anything to appear? It sounds like you're using a special script; if so, you'll need to explain what it is. Nyttend (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nyttend,

Thanks for your reply. I don't think that I am using a special script. I am using visual editor however. Let me try to be more explicit. Let's go to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_named_passenger_trains_of_the_United_States_(C)&action=edit

In the sixth row down in the column 'Train endpoints in a typical [year]' there is an empty cell. Suppose that I want to fill in this cell with the word 'Albany'. I highlight the cell and type '[['. Immediately a box appears named 'link' with a space where I can start typing in 'Albany'. After typing 'Al' a dropdown menu appears with lots of Wikipedia pages starting with 'Al'. The problem is that this menu is partly obscured by a toolbar and is partly off the top of the screen. The word 'Albany, which I want, might be there for me to click on, or it might be obscured (it's the luck of the draw whether Albany or some other entry that I might want shows up for me to click on). This problem started for the first time yesterday. Before then, the menu with the choices was in the middle of the screen and easy to access. Does this help? Fritzgoebel (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find Visual Editor much less easy to use than the normal editor screen, so I don't use it and I won't be able to help; I'm sorry. All I can suggest is that you edit the normal way and keep a second tab where you can see whether we have a page on a specific title. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spitzkoppe

I would like to add some basic information which is not available on the Spitzkoppe and would like to know how do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohannaNashipae (talk • contribs) 10:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JohannaNashipae. I see you worked out how to add some information to the article Spitzkoppe . Thank you for wanting to help us improve Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the information you have added is unsourced, so how can a reader know how reliable it is? I would have tagged it with ^{[citation needed]}; but the whole article is very weak on sourcing, so there didn't seem to be much point in adding a tag to a specific item. If you really want to help us improve the article, and have the time, far more valuable than adding another piece of unsourced information, would be to find some reliable published sources for information in the article, and cite them inline: see refrerencing for beginners. (This is a time-consuming process, so if that's not where you want to spend your time right now, that's up to you. But it would be more valuable for Wikipedia). --ColinFine (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patient feedback on medicines

Hi. We think it would be useful to add in patient feedback on medicines. Can we do this? If so under what section would be best? Thanks, Dani — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.207.233.90 (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

92.207.233.90, wikipedia is not a place for personal opinion or experience. Such experience may only added to the article of the wikipedia by citing reputable secondary source, or even peer-reviewed article and medical research. Matthew_hk t c 10:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kulikov

Hello. I can't connect the page Kulikov to the Russian page ru:Куликов on Wikidata. It's a page about the same surname. I don't understand why. Could anyone help? WikiArticleEditor (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

they used different wikidata item. One was classified as disambiguation page (wikidata:Q1693555) and one as surname (wikidata:Q21491121), which the ~~English~~Russian page was linked to disambiguation. But since the English Kulikov page had only one entry (the place) was not surname, may be merging the 2 wiki items? Matthew_hk t c 10:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. The Russian-wiki article was classified as disambiguation and English one as surname. Matthew_hk t c 10:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I merge them? WikiArticleEditor (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a button in wikidata, but since it is controversial, may better ask in the help desk of wikidata first, as the item as surname, it can be the parameter of wikidata:Property:P734, but an item as disambiguation page, did not. Alternatively, split ru:Куликов to a page dedicated to surname, leaving the other entries of the page for a disambiguation page, then link both pages to correct wikidata items. Matthew_hk t c 11:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is a long-standing unsolved problem with Wikidata, the "Adam and Eve" problem (I'm sure there are long discussions about it on WikiData somewhere, but I can't find them), where articles in different Wikipedias partly overlap but have different scope. The place to report it in Wikidata is D:WD:IWC. The only way I know of resolving it in particular cases at present is to use the old ILL mechanism, instead of Wikidata. --ColinFine (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Access-date question

Is it better to have an accessdate with just a year or month/year and have the "Check date values in: |access-date= " error message, rather than not have any accessdate at all? Example this page - Greg J. Bamber Thanks. Nat965 (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To me, either check the page history to add back day and month (assume the user who add the url had accessed the page on the same day he edit), or replace with current date, AFTER checking each link still live. Matthew_hk t c 11:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A whole date is required because web sources are ephemeral – they can change day-to-day so date precision is important. Before replacing the access date with a new date, it is not just that checking that the link is still live but more importantly, that the source still supports the Wikipedia article text.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To me i would check the page history. For the new date and checking the current version of the citation, either the webpage did not change, it just {{failed verification}} already at the time of insertion (people sometimes inserted url as citation, that nothing to do with the content they want to support), or the page changed dramatically that require additional check for the archived version in Wayback Machine. Matthew_hk t c 12:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? I am having a difficult time deciphering what you just wrote. How does the {{failed verification}} template come into this equation? Why would you assume that a bare url as a reference would have nothing to do with the content they want to support? I agree, first step is the page history when attempting to provide a correct date for |access-date=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

several editor was blocked for inserting random url as citation, for example User:Zombie433. So, checking the current version or archived version of the citation was rather a thing of proof reading, than digging out the access date. Matthew_hk t c 12:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original question was about |access-date=. Bare urls as references will not be likely to have an associated |access-date=. Vandals exist. Vandals will do as you described. What has that got to do with Editor Nat965's question about |access-date=?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trappist the monk, just insert the date by inspecting page history or inserting the new date with all other parameters, but for the latter it is rather a re-inspection of the source and proofread/verify. For the example Greg J. Bamber, it is neither a bare url or a full citation, as parameters were missing/filled incorrectly/incomplete, so the question would be preserving the original access-date or update it when someone verify it. As it was stated, either it was {{not in source}}, or the url had updated and failed to archive in the wayback machine, it is hard to say WHEN the source was accessed and added by user to the article, it was related and did verified/support the content at that time, or not. It should be case by case to update to a new date, or using the date of insertion. To save time and assume good faith of most of the user, should use the original date that the url that was inserted, but sometimes better to use the new date. Matthew_hk t c 13:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, we are not communicating.

I do not think that simply replacing the value assigned to |access-date= with the insert date from article history is necessarily the best and most correct action to take. The best and most correct action is to inspect the linked source. Does the source support the text in the Wikipedia article?

yes – replace the value assigned to |access-date= with today's date because, today, the source supported the article

no – inspect article history to locate an insert date; see if you can find an archive of the source from on or before the insert date that supports the article; if an archive is found, add that to the cs1|2 template and use insert date as the value for |access-date=; if there is no archive, either: remove the cs1|2 template and add {{citation needed}}, or find a new source.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the case of bare url, how could you assume the other parameters such as title, author were the same as the time when the bare url was inserted to the wikipedia article (in a rare case, i even seen an archive from wayback machine, archived date was earlier than the apparently publish date of that webpage, what the newspaper webpage can't be wrong, but the apparent archive date went wrong) The access-date parameters should be case by case basis. Matthew_hk t c 13:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question at hand is not about bare urls. If all you have is a bare url inside <ref>...</ref> tags, then there is no |access-date= and no Check date values in: |access-date= error message. All that you can do is inspect the source. Does the source support the Wikipedia article?

yes – wrap the bare url with the appropriate cs1|2 template and fill in the relevant parameters; set |access-date= to today's date

no – inspect article history to locate an insert date; see if you can find an archive of the source from on or before the insert date that supports the article; if an archive is found, wrap the bare url with the appropriate cs1|2 template and fill in the relevant parameters including the archive and use insert date as the value for |access-date=; if there is no archive, either: remove the bare url and add {{citation needed}}, or find a new source.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trappist the monk, The original question was about just day and month missing and just you to start talk about bare url. If there is no page archive and current version was not supporting the content, either it was {{failed verification}} or permanent dead link. For the latter the bare url may slanted to remove it, but generally if just missing one or two parameters, it should not be removed. For live link, if other parameters such as title, author and date were the same as the live webpage, it is no different to use the date from page history of the wikipedia article or the current (today) when refilling the parameters. Matthew_hk t c 14:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You see? We are not communicating. Your second post in this topic contains: people sometimes inserted url as citation which I interpret to mean 'bare url'. I asked you about that: Why would you assume that a bare url as a reference .... Your answer discussed vandalism and did not dispute my use of the term.

You are correct that it is sometimes not possible to find an archive so such references should be marked appropriately and if possible replaced with a new source. In those cases, |access-date= errors might be corrected by using the cs1|2 template insert date as an indicator of the approximate time that the now dead source is alleged to have supported the article. When attempting to 'repair' |access-date= errors, as I described above, it is a good plan to proofread the source; you're there anyway, might as well make sure that the source still supports the Wikipedia article because you do not know if the real 'access-date' matches the insert date (cs1|2 template might have been copied from another article written at another time). When the source supports the Wikipedia article, use today's date for |access-date=.

I do not think that you can or should rely on other template parameters as an indication that the source still supports the Wikipedia articles. Without looking for actual support, you do not know that it exists.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never mean url as bare url, some people just insert url with seem legit title parameter that end up as fake, or it was meant for trans-title. For most of the good faith editor, digging out the insert date is enough. But if have time to read each citation and verify, insert a new date should be a good practice, but it would be another kind of practice that already out of the scope of filling date and month to fix the CS1 error. Matthew_hk t c 15:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've gone back to vandalism again. The question isn't about vandalism. Such edits should be reverted or discarded. |trans-title= never holds a url; how is that pertinent to this discussion? How is verification out of scope? Were we to invent a bot to 'fix' this kind of |access-date= error, we would require it to do the right thing not just accept that the template's insert date is identical to the actual date that the source was accessed (and so determined to support the Wikipedia article text). The bot cannot know and neither can a human. A bot can't be relied on to verify that the currently linked source, or any archive of that source, supports the article so a bot cannot make that evaluation and set |access-date= to a meaningful date. A human editor can do these things. By setting |access-date=, the editor is affirming that on that date, the source identified in the cs1|2 template supported text in the Wikipedia article. For ephemeral sources, this is the Raison d'être for |access-date=. See also Template:Cite web#csdoc_accessdate.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People can use {{cite web}} for Japanese/Chinese source with English in |title=, without trigger the CS error by actual data for |title= was missing which was misplaced from |trans-title=, or a url and the template with meaningless data in |title= (such as "web site", 1, 2). I would just say, if have time to recheck the citation to fix the CS1 error, just do it, instead of leaving the checking and fact check task to other, but assuming good faith on other editor by inserting the date (to fill the missing date and month with the present of year) of the template and url was added to wikipedia, seem find to me. Matthew_hk t c 00:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-Thanks Trappist the monk and Matthew_hk ! Nat965 (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third Rutte cabinet

Hello,

Someone deleted on Commons all the Third Rutte cabinet pictures; can someone re-upload them please?

Thanks WhatsUpWorld (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WhatsUpWorld. From the deletion log at Commons for the first picture I looked up I see "Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - non-free at source" which, assuming it was not mistaken, means we cannot re-upload them.

What is possible is either to use new, Commons-free-license-compliant pictures (either from the existing stock at Commons or by uploading new ones), or to use pictures uploaded locally (i.e. to en-Wikipedia, not to Commons) under the non-free content criteria. However, it must be noted that criteria #1 is usually interpreted to forbid using pictures of living people (since someone could always go and take a picture of that person and release it under a free license, barring special cases). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sample image from this collection. The files were marked as CC0, because CC0 is prominently stated at https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/copyright. However, it turns out that the smaller text ("Voor foto's is...") translates to "The CC0 does not apply to photographs." So I'd say that it was a good-faith mistake by the uploader, who does a lot of portrait uploading. Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So there is no way we can re-upload them? WhatsUpWorld (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not until rijksoverheid.nl release the images in a way that we can use them. I've restored the old images. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Creation

I have just created an account and tried to create a page. But it is declined. I have to know why it is declined and how to create a page in Wikipedia, so that I dont make mistake in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelJayakarOffl (talk • contribs) 13:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JoelJayakarOffl. As the decline rationale provided indicates, your draft is not adequately supported by sources that meet our standards for reliability, and in fact, includes no sources at all. All content on Wikipedia needs to be supported by sources so that it is verifiable for readers, and to help demonstrate that the subject meets our standards for notability, which is what determines in large part whether a subject is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. You may want to read through our tutorial on writing your first article, which can help explain Wikipedia's policies in more depth. GMG ^talk 13:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to be aware that Wikipedia is not the place to publicise your own website. As explained above, you will need to wait until your database has been written about elsewhere in independent WP:Reliable sources before you can have an article here. Dbfirs 13:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JoelJayakarOffl, as you stated in your own sandbox, you are the founder of the website. Even the website have independent reliable source to mention and in-depth reporting it, per WP:COI, the wikipedia article about the website should not be created by you. Matthew_hk t c 14:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 December 8

Contents