Help desk
< February 5	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 7 >

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 6

Review the code

Hi could you kindly help with this as to what this code does exactly

var dateRegExp=new RegExp("-","g");
var timeRegExp=new RegExp("\\.","g");
var nodeList=tw.local.tableXML.xpath("variable/fields/item[not(isSerialized='true') and xpath]");
var baseXpath="variable";
//if(tw.local.resultSet.getAttribute("recordCount")>1){
if(tw.local.objectXML.getAttribute("type").indexOf("[]")!=-1){
      baseXpath="variable/item";
      while(tw.local.objectXML.xpath(baseXpath).length<tw.local.resultSet.getAttribute("recordCount")){
            tw.local.objectXML.xpath("variable")[0].appendChild(new tw.object.XMLElement("item"));
      }
}

You can ask at WP:VPT. Cheers. Eurodyne (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VPT if this code is anything to do with Wikipedia, or the Computing Reference Desk if not. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

this cite error message appeared when I made a minor edit to the article on Kenneth French I'm afraid I have no idea what "section title" means Theodosius21 (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Theodosius21: You can see what you actually did in your edit here, which included adding <ref></ref> to the page with nothing in between those citation tags. That is what caused the error. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a "section title" is also known as the "subject/headline", which shows up at the top of a section. --Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 10:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Help:Cite errors/preload to use "subject/headline". -- Gadget850^talk 14:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help me

Ryanlee78creativebugs (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC) i recently create a article under sandbox under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ryanlee78creativebugs/sandbox[reply]

i intend to post it but im getting noted saying Created a introduction abt REDtone) (current) (Tag: Possible self promotion in userspace)

Please help

Answered at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#trying to post a article. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed for new entry

(header added to avoid confusion with previous section. GermanJoe (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Hello,

Could you possibly help? This whole process is unduly complicated, and whilst being moderately computer-savvy, most of your instructions are way beyond me. I'd like to place an entry for an author friend of mine. It is already written, and being a new member I'm now in the 4-day waiting period before I can proceed. What I don't understand is how I place her name at the top of my entry so that people looking for 'Maureen Carter' will be directed to it.

There are numerous hints on WRITING an entry - but both she and me are experienced writers! - what you don't explain is how to get her entry under her name.

I would so appreciate your help on this !

Regards, Adrian Juste (aka Morriss Man) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morriss Man (talk • contribs) 10:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Morriss Man: There is no 4-day waiting period before you can proceed. You must be thinking of autoconfirmeded users (who also need to make at least 10 edits), but that is not required to write an article. For new users, especially when they have a connection to the subject, it is recommended to use Wikipedia:Articles for creation. It may initially get a name like "Draft:Maureen Carter". If the article is accepted then the reviewer will automatically give it an appropriate name which will be displayed at the top. Maureen Carter is currently a redirect to List of EastEnders characters (2000)#Maureen Carter so it's possible the reviewer will choose a name like "Maureen Carter (author)". Note that everything in the article must already have been published by a reliable source. You cannot use unpublished personal knowledge. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

image info box

I am trying to put an image into an info box - but keep getting just PCOLogo.png appearing as text in red. What am I doing wrong please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthingscoastal (talk • contribs) 11:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Allthingscoastal: The logo would have to be uploaded before it can be used in an article. I see no sign of such a file being uploaded. There may also be a problem in your infobox code but I would have to see the code to tell and it doesn't appear you have saved it. Can you give a link to the logo? Logos usually have to be uploaded by an autoconfirmed user with a fair use claim but if it's http://www.channelcoast.org/images/07/logoSW.png then it may fall under Wikipedia:Logos#Copyright-free logos. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added {{Infobox}} shortly after my post. I have changed it to the more specific {{Infobox organization}}. The linked page has documentation for the parameters. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information to an existing page.

Good afternoon, I have just updated the Sunderland Symphony Orchestra page by adding a new paragraph at the beginning and modifying some of the contents.

My typing was all within the left and right margins, but when viewing the finished article, it has spread widthwise to more than twice the screen width.

Where have I gone wrong? Help will be appreciated. Thank you,

David E. Mills, Orchestra Chairman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Edward Mills (talk • contribs) 14:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@David Edward Mills: Leading spaces cause special formatting. Wikipedia starts a new paragraph by making a blank line. I have done this a few times at Sunderland Symphony Orchestra. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accidently created page: Irradiation Mantle

Hi I accidently created a page that I meant to save in my sandbox. It is for a class and I still need to make the page but didn't mean to make it go live. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robnarmour1018 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it for you, and removed the speedy deletion tag which had been placed on it. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realised that I had erroneously moved it to User talk:Robnarmour1018/sandbox, but I can't move it to User:Robnarmour1018/sandbox because that already exists; I've placed a move request, which will hopefully soon be actioned for you. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC) ‎[reply]

Sadly, it seems that the speedy deletion got actioned before the move request. Maproom (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page was almost empty from the beginning. It wasn't deleted and is now at User:Robnarmour1018/sandbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free reduce tag

A 640x480 image was uploaded to en-wiki yesterday for use in the infobox of TransAsia Airways Flight 235. Since then, the non-free reduce tag has been added twice by two different editors, and neither will respond to a ping for explanation or clarification. The rationale for the size is clear and clearly explained. What should I do? The related discussion is the second section at File talk:TransAsia Flight 235 crash.png. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

‎Fuhghettaboutit has removed the tag with a very impressive sounding edit summary. So fixed, I hope. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I've hopefully nudged BRD to take place.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox stops responding on large pages

Does anyone know about any conflicts between our software or gadgets/js and any add-ons for Firefox? When I edit large pages (entire large pages as opposed to just sections of pages), Firefox locks up almost immediately and has to be killed from the Windows 7 Task Manager. I'm pretty sure that it's an FF add-on causing the problem because it doesn't occur if I start FF in Safe Mode so that none of the add-on's load. I know the right way to diagnose it by disabling my add-on's one at a time until it goes away, but I run a lot of add-on's and that's a PITA, so was hoping that someone here might know of a usual suspect or two to try first. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No clue, but your best chances of success would likely be at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Numerous computer geeks to be found there. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been doing this to me too, but I haven't investigated. --ColinFine (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-editing a draft article

I am expecting a request from an editor for help in copy-editing the draft of an article he is working on. I have never heard of copy-editing another editor's draft article. Is that permissible, or wise, even? ~ P-123 (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey P-123. Drafts are copyedited all the time – yes, it's permissible. Wise? Well, maybe not if you think the topic has no place here (because no amount of copyediting will help a subject become notable) but if that's not an issue then there is no issue I see.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit: Thank you. I have no idea about the notability of the article, but fear the editor might hack it about mercilessly before uploading it so that much time and effort spent copy-editing (translating!) would be wasted. This has happened before with articles I have carefully copy-edited (translated!), where editors have changed their minds drastically about what should be in the article, so am somewhat chary about getting involved at the early stages of an article! ~ P-123 (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that the draft is still in the editor's sandbox. I don't suppose that makes any difference to what you said, though does it? ~ P-123 (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that makes a big difference. I freely edit drafts, as I regard them as "public property", like articles. But I have very rarely edited anything (except for talk pages) in a user's space, and then only with their explicit permission. Maproom (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom: I thought anything in a sandbox was a "draft". Are drafts formally distinguished from final versions in "public" space, or am I seeing a difference where there is none? ~ P-123 (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@P-123: Nope, no difference. It's hard to talk about this in the theoretical and your time is your own. If you feel it's not worth your effort given what the actual draft looks like, or you think the person is going to radically change the content anyway, making early efforts to turn it into acceptable English prose mostly a waste, declining such a request is your prerogative. Guard your time jealously for efforts that matter (easier said than done of course). As to notability, it's an important consideration because why bother if it looks like the topic is unsuitable for an article no matter how polished and neutral the prose? The issue is whether there are sufficient reliable and independent sources writing about the topic in detail to show that the world has taken note of the topic and that the information content can be verified. BTW, I might mention that there is one potential implication of editing a draft: when there's a later improper copy and paste move to the mainspace rather than a use of the move function. Though a move is almost always better, when a draft that has only one editor is copied and pasted somewhere else by that same editor, there's no copyright problems because the pasted locations history still lists the sole author as the author. But if a draft has other substantive editors, then a copy and paste move severs the new location from the history of the draft, which provides the copyright attribution.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit: Help! There is more to this than I thought. Thanks for taking the trouble to give such a full answer! I will pass this on to the editor concerned, who I understand is a newbie. ~ P-123 (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, did you say that the author of the draft has requested your help in copy-editing it? If so, has the author confirmed that they are finished with it, or do they also plan to "hack it about"? My own advice would be not to bother to copy-edit the article until the author states that they are finished with it, but that it is just a matter of avoiding rework. Second, although all of a draft in a user's sandbox, a draft in named user space, and a draft in draft space are available to anyone to edit, it is generally assumed that a draft in draft space is there for review by other editors, and a draft in a user's sandbox is there only for the originator, and a draft in user space with an article name is in between. I would not advise copy-editing an article in a user's sandbox, even if that is requested, and would not advise copy-editing in article with an article name in user space unless it has been requested. Those are my thoughts for now. I wouldn't waste time editing if the author also plans to continue editing. Also, if the article appears not to be capable of passing notability, I would advise so advising the author and leaving it alone, regardless of what space it is in. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coming at this from the other direction – if I create a draft, in draft space, it is because I would like it to become an article some day, so I hope other editors will improve it. If I create a subpage of my user page, I know that other editors can read it, but I "own" it and I really don't want anyone to edit it. Maproom (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to everyone for their clear and full answers, it is much appreciated. ~ P-123 (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Old Text templates?

I see Old Text templates used when there does not seem to be a need because 1) The article does not "incorporate text," it only uses the source as a source 2) The use of the material is already footnoted.

For instance, at Christianity in China among the list of Old Text Templates is This article incorporates text from The Chinese Repository, Volume 13, a publication from 1844, now in the public domain in the United States., which is referenced in notes 13 & 14.

There is no explanation at Old Text template.

Am I missing something? Is it OK to delete these templates?

Cheers, ch (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The general answer is that if a work is used only as a source (i.e. it is not copied verbatim or closely paraphrased) then it does not need a PD-old-text template. Determining to what extent the work is used, however, can be somewhat tricky. The article history shows that much of the material from Vol 13 of "The Chinese Repository" was added to the "Christianity in China" article by User:Labnoor (e.g. citing it and adding the PD-old-text template) so you might try to contact this editor at User talk:Labnoor to ask whether the source was used for more than just a source. Another way to handle it would be to use an online tool such as the WikiMedia Foundation's Duplication Detector or a third-party tool like Copyscape to compare the text of the Wikipedia article to the text of the source of which portions are alleged to be incorporated. A full text of Volume 13 of "The Chinese Repository", for example, is available here. In general it's a good idea to be very cautious about removing these templates as they relate to copyright and if there is any substance to their claims then it is important to notify readers of Wikipedia's claims to their free use. I hope that helps. -Thibbs (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]