Help desk
< April 2	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 4 >

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 3

Updated external link does not show up if logged out

Hi, I just updated Rene Ritchie who became independent and got his own websites a few days ago. I wanted to update it on wikipedia, but the changed link only shows up if I am logged in. Is there another confirmation step? What do I do? Thanks! Flotillæ (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flotillæ, your edit was reverted by MB, as our policy on external links prohibits having external links placed in the body of an article without a very good reason.

An official websites can go in an infobox or an external links section, but not in the text itself. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 08:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm slow to answer, but I see that the link was finally inserted by somebody else, in the body text. This is a pattern that I see in countless wp articles, so the external links policy should probably be updated to reflect what people are actually doing. Flotillæ (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beside this rollback there is a general cache updating problem for anonymous users, see phab:T169894 Flotillæ--Pierpao (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart College, Geelong

The info box is way too bib. i cannot fix it. Please assist if able. Thanks 175.33.49.35 (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Eman 235/talk 03:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St Bede's College (Mentone)

Hi, I just updated a file and it is way too big - an old school photo. Please make it smaller and add the caption underneath St Bede's College, Mentone. Boarder's Matron in white, seated I cannot fix it. Thankyou 175.33.49.35 (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done MB 03:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mater Christi College

Please make the map in the info box a bit smaller. Thanks 175.33.49.35 (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done MB 03:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hello,

I was wondering what the difference is between Gallery and Multiple Images? When is each one's use appropriate?

Thanks --HillelFrei ^{• talk •} 03:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the article you want to edit. For those articles that have many illustrative pictures, for example I wanna add famous works of Van Gogh to the article, I'm not gonna litter them across the entire article, but instead, like an appendix, add a gallery at the bottom and display a collage of pictures with their respective descriptions, making it a gallery for users to know more if they want. However, if I wanna add multiple images to the same section to make the readers know better since one picture isn't enough, use multiple images so that it stays in the right-hand-side of the section. I hope this answers your question. WikiAviator (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAviator, thanks. --HillelFrei ^{• talk •} 15:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

De La Salle College, Malvern

Refs 1, 3 and 4 are all in red. Not done by me. Please fix. Thanks 175.33.49.35 (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but there is no need to report these here. Such errors are tracked in maintenance categories and will eventually be fixed. MB 04:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel College, Warrnambool

Please remove the "permanent dead link" seen in the External Links - at the bottom of this article. Thanks 175.33.49.35 (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is there because the link is no longer working, probably because the url has changed. It seems likely that the page still exists somewhere, so leaving the link may trigger someone to find a working url and update the link. MB 04:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there are Wikipedia bots that trawl through deadlinks and look for archive URLs for them. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget: Move section [edit] links to the right side of the screen

Hello I'am sysop at Italian Wikipedia. Which is the code for the gadget "Move section [edit] links to the right side of the screen". Thanks a lot. Regards--Pierpao (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pierpao: The code is at MediaWiki:Gadget-righteditlinks.css and the label for the preferences list is at MediaWiki:Gadget-righteditlinks. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general, gadget pages are determined at MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition and automatically linked at Special:Gadgets. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Girls' Secondary College

Ref number 4 is in red and I don't know why and cannot fix it on my device. Please fix if you can. Thanks 175.33.49.35 (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Done As above, you don't need to report these here. (You've been told this before in the roughly five years you've been editing). 300 April is not a valid date but having said that you don't need an access-date for an offline source. (Also something you've been told before). An editor asked you recently, on this page, what device you are using that enables you to make quite substantial edits but not to fix simple errors; I'm sure other editors would be interested to know too. Eagleash (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please place ref. number 4 as a "Further reading" at the end of the page. But leavdont remove it as ref number 4 as well. Thanks 175.33.49.35 (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done If in use as a ref it should not go in 'external links' or 'reading' as well. Again, as you've been asked countless times, please do not start threads here with the same heading. Eagleash (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please double check that it's all OK. Thanks and sorry. 175.33.49.35 (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK but I'm not sure what adding 'Miss Kate' and 'Opus' at the end of a quote is meant to achieve... but. These lengthy quotes are seldom necessary and can be counter-productive, per the note at your talk page. I've noted at least one editor removing them as copy-vio too. Eagleash (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More notifications in Talk pages

I want to receive notifications from all answers related to my comment in a Talk page. I imagine two overlapping approaches but couldn't find information in Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk pages: 1) a notification for all section updates; or 2) a notification for all comments hierarchically-indented under my comment. Thanks, Cheater no1 (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheater no1, sadly not possible. You can add the whole page to your watchlist, but this'll show all changes, or you can ask users to ping you - {{u}} or {{bcc}}, but there is no guarantee they actually will. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 13:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categorized articles by size?

Is it possible to discover the longest article within a certain category, for example "American Presidents by article size" kind of thing...? ——SN 54129 13:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: WP:PETSCAN is a good tool for most any category-related queries. Unfortunately, I can't verify at the moment that it does this because I get 504 timeout, but have a look later. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 13:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, AlanM1. Can you imagine staff at Google getting bad gateways whenever they fire up basic programs? But yeah, if you could bear me in mind, that'd be much appreciated :) ——SN 54129 13:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129, Google is a multi-billion dollar business. The Wikimedia foundation is a non-profit. Also, PetScan is hardly a "basic program". --ColinFine (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that would hold more water if almost everything at toolforge didn't repeatedly crash/time-out on a literally daily basis. The WMF is indeed a non-profit, but it's hardly on its skates. In any case, my comparison was less literal and more a rumination on different philosophies of approach, using the example of a company who clearly ensures that it's staff get tools that are guaranteed to work when they are needed to work! :) All the best, ——SN 54129 13:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Park

Hello:

In the article East Coast Park how do I get the convert template to produce "acre" in the output? The template does not recognise AC as the abbreviation for acre.

Many thanks,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: The unit code for acre is...acre :) see Help:Convert units for further info. ——SN 54129 14:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed {{convert|185|ha|acre}} it's already sed in the IB :) ——SN 54129 14:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: The text convert|185|ha|acre}} reads "185 hectares (460 acres)" not "acre" which is my problem. I need to force the text to produce "acre". Any thoughts? Thanks Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I've just spent over an hour perusing Template:Convert—thanks for the break :) —and the only thing I found was entirely unhelpful to your needs: Template:Convert#Plurals: 1 inch, 2 inches, which says The unit symbol is singular always. On the other hand, I couldn't find anything wrt to plurals output at all. I see, however all may not be lost as I see, that, coincidentally! RexxS has been active on the talk page there...any chance...? ——SN 54129 15:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The |adj=on (adjective) parameter does this. MB 15:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it does! .1-hectare (0.25-acre). I even hit on the |adj= parameter, but for some reason thought it was |adj=yes, which of course does bugger all :) pinging Twofingered Typist in case they haven't seen this, and many thanks to ye MB. ——SN 54129 16:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: @MB: Thanks to you both for your efforts. Problem solved! Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CD PROJEKT RED

CD PROJEKT's game division "CD PROJEKT RED" requires a separate Wikipedia page. It will become much easier to read if this becomes a separate page since we have so many information cramped into CD PROJEKT's page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimate Olympian (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Olympian I answered this question here. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like some advice / authoritative intervention, please ... perhaps from an administrator?

I'd like some advice / authoritative intervention, please ... perhaps from an administrator? There are many articles that contain a geographic location within the title. For example: 1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting ... and 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting. Those are just two examples; there are many more. My understanding (and interpretation of the MOS) is that these titles should have two commas ... a first comma before the name of the state ... and a second comma after the name of the state. Some people disagree. They basically say "Yes, the MOS does indeed say that. But the MOS only applies to article text, and not to article titles". (In my opinion, an absurd interpretation. To argue that the MOS implies the exact opposite of what it explicitly states.) As a result, we have inconsistency across different article titles (some with only one comma; some with two). I made the changes at one of these articles ... I believe, the 1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting article. It was reverted. I raised the issue up above on this Help Desk. Here [1]. I was referred to the Talk Page of the MOS. You can see the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Use of commas in article titles with city and state geographical references. The suggestion, there, was (in paraphrase): "No problem. Easy solution. Just pointing to the MOS will be dispositive of consensus in this matter". So, my question: How can I (or, better yet, someone with "authority" -- like an administrator) change these article titles so that they comply with the MOS? I don't want to have to "start a fight" and/or "achieve consensus" at each individual page ... and I don't want to have to "reinvent the wheel" at each individual page. The problem, as I say, is that some people (in some articles, but not in others) eliminate the second comma and claim that the MOS does not apply to article titles. Hence, inconsistency. How can we get a consistent result for all article titles, in this regard? I've run across this "issue" for many years; and I finally decided to address it head-on. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator and here is my informed opinion: You are wasting your time with trivial pedantry. Whether or not a comma appears after a state name is a stylistic matter of no significance, and your time would be better spent doing some useful task that actually improves the encyclopedia for our readers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Both the text and the tone of your reply indicate that my 13+ years as an editor and my 85,000+ edits have been unhelpful (i.e., not useful, no improvement) to Wikipedia. Am I interpreting correctly? Please clarify. What a piece of work. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment much more carefully, Joseph A. Spadaro. My opinion was based entirely on this commas in titles matter, and not on your entire body of contributions, which I have not reviewed. I told you that in my opinion, you were wasting your time and I have since learned that you are wasting other editor's time as well. Other editors concur. Now, you are starting to rant and attack others and your behavior is growing more disruptive. So, let me offer some more advice for you. Drop the stick and move on to something that actually improves the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: You can also (please) read my comment more carefully. What I said was: Both the text and the tone of your reply indicate that my 13+ years as an editor and my 85,000+ edits have been unhelpful (i.e., not useful, no improvement) to Wikipedia. And, then I asked if I was interpreting your comments correctly. When I said: Am I interpreting correctly? Please clarify. So, I am trying to clarify a (somewhat) ambiguous section of the MOS. You know, the MOS that dictates how Wikipedia stylizes things. And the question is precisely about stylization. And that is wasting everybody's precious time? Who, exactly, concurs on this matter? And -- better question -- if I have a question about the MOS and seek clarification ... what am I supposed to do? Answer: to do exactly what I did do. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I'm afraid this is WP:FORUMSHOPping: Joseph A. Spadaro started a discussion at MOS regarding this very issue a few days ago; it has now consumed the time of about seven other editors who almost to a body disagree with JAS and which has had ~3,500 words spilt on it. On a lighter note, your answer here rather sums up that entire discussion. ——SN 54129 16:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Hmmmmmmmm. What, pray tell, does "forum shopping" mean? And, under your theory, what exactly am I "shopping" for? Consistent application of an established consensus rule? As if that's a bad thing? Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also an administrator and agree wholeheartedly with the opinion of Cullen328 above. Unless you're seriously claiming that readers are incapable of understanding that "2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting" refers to a shooting that took place in Aurora, Colorado in 2012, this is just pedantry for the sake of pedantry. ‑ Iridescent 17:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Also, your post implied (to me, but perhaps I misinterpreted) that there was general agreement with you at WT:MOS, but that discussion looks like there is no consensus for either side. So it would be a mistake to start doing this en masse with a justification of "per MOS". This is #431 on List of things on WP to worry about by order of importance. Please come back to this in 5-10 years, when it might crack the top 400. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a consensus on either side? Isn't the MOS itself already a consensus? It can be changed, yes. But -- at the moment -- isn't that the state of the consensus? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To all of the above editors. (I will come back, later, and add the specific names.) (I am starting, here, but not yet done: User:Cullen328 and User:Serial Number 54129 and .) Your comments are flippant, rude, and disrespectful. (Surprise, surprise.) I have worked 13 years on this encyclopedia. I have 85,000 edits. I am "ranked" in the top 800 editors of the world (or so). I am simply trying to improve the encyclopedia, where I see a need for improvement ... and ... I am going about it the "right way". And that is how you treat me / react? If I were in a bad mood, I'd tell you to go "F" yourselves. But, rather, I will say "you're welcome". What pieces of work. Unreal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, very rude comments. Really. So, then, why have an MOS at all? What's the point? I don't care if there is a comma or not. As I have stated 800 times, I think it should be consistent ... one way or the other. That's an unreasonable request ... that similarly situated article titles be treated in a similar and consistent manner? That's an unreasonable request? Really? Especially when the MOS already directly addresses the issue? Unreal. The ludicrous alternative (supported above) is: let's interpret the MOS so that it "silently implies" the very exact opposite of what it "explicitly states". LOL. Just unreal. Yeah, Joe ... try to improve Wikipedia ... translation: wasting my time. I'd appreciate -- but don't anticipate -- substantive replies. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro, I think the point that people are making is that consistency in punctuating article titles is a "nice to have" but not worth the investment of time that you're having to put in to dispute it with editors who object. There are many other things that improve articles and have a greater impact on the readers' experiences that you could focus on that are more important. Schazjmd (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, if there are errors ... and you have someone (i.e., me) who is willing to take the time to fix them ... what's the problem exactly? People above cite stupid "essays" as if they are Gospel ... but out-of-hand dismiss the MOS. By the way, did not the MOS come from some consensus somewhere? Or did the MOS just magically drop out of the sky? What am I missing here? Wow. Just wow. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro, I've no idea why some editors are objecting to the correction, but there's a difference between a true error (something that is unambiguously incorrect) and a violation of an MOS rule on punctuation that is merely a stylistic choice that some editors at one time decided on. Your time is too valuable to waste it fighting a battle that doesn't matter. Schazjmd (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I "get it". (The average IQ is a "whopping" 100, after all.) I guess my question is, why have a MOS at all then, if people can just "pick and choose" when to use the MOS? The MOS comes from a consensus (I am guessing). And -- if it's "wrong" -- change the MOS. This ain't exactly rocket science. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You make a mistake when requiring 'someone with "authority" -- like an administrator' - admins are more a cleaning service here than a government. Their emblem is a mop, not a codex, a sword nor a scales. Their role is cleaning and preventing disruption on the project, not telling people which punctuation habit is correct and which is wrong. --CiaPan (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good point. So, I will ask the question another way. If I have a question about the stylistic rules of the MOS ... and their application ... where is the correct page for me to go to? (Hint: let's play Wikipedia "bureaucracy".) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose MOS talk pages is the correct place to discuss MOS. Like aby other subject at Wikipedia. But I agree with other participants that neither discussing which punctuation is correct nor discussing how to enforce it is worth your time. --CiaPan (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS Talk Pages. Yes, was already sent there. As I indicated in my original post. This excerpt: You can see the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Use of commas in article titles with city and state geographical references. The suggestion, there, was (in paraphrase): "No problem. Easy solution. Just pointing to the MOS will be dispositive of consensus in this matter". I found that "dispositive" solution a little too "iffy" ... so I came to this Help Desk ... looking for, you know, "help". (You can see the "help" that I received here.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the help desk is a good location for this conversation. If you are suggesting that titles in this style should be moved, potentially at WP:RM, or if it's a policy/MOS issue, Village Pump would be better. It looks like it has already been discussed at other locations however. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I will post at Village Pump. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate name of Dr King’s famous speech

Hi. Someone has been up to no good and edited the name of Dr. King’s famous speech here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960s

My 8yo actually copied it down. 🤦🏽‍♀️

Can someone fix that? Wiki editing makes me nervous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3780:F650:3048:F13F:31F7:1DE0 (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was fixed about 15 minutes before you reported here. Perhaps you need to clear you cache (computing). MB 17:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reporting the vandalism, which has been reverted. MB, it may have taken an inexperienced person more than 15 minutes to find the Help Desk and figure out how to post. Friendly responses are better than brusque ones. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improving viewability and internal links for a new article

COVID-19 drug development was initiated on Mar 21 with 60k+ visits since, but the article info reports that there are no WP links to it. Feel like I'm missing a code to improve its linking and viewability, so would appreciate some guidance, with thanks. --Zefr (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: There are lots of incoming links: [2]. Can you clarify what tool you are using that says otherwise? RudolfRed (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RudolfRed - thanks for checking and replying. When I checked last hour, the "what links here" report was that no pages linked to the article. Maybe it was my cache. This looks ok now. Is there anything else one can do to enhance viewability? Many thanks. --Zefr (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: I guess you referred to "Number of redirects to this page 0" at Page information. This only means there are 0 redirects to it. The link in the quote goes to a page which uses &hidelinks=1 in the url to omit non-redirect links from Special:WhatLinksHere/COVID-19 drug development. There are many articles linking to it, mostly via a link in the "Issues" box of {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic}}. The search linksto:"COVID-19 drug development" insource:"COVID-19 drug development" also finds a few articles linking directly to it. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity and for future reference, how does a link occur from existing pages to a new article, and can the new article creator seed links to better integrate the new article in WP? There are several linked articles having little to do with the drug development article. I'm unable to detect any editor code for the linking in those articles. --Zefr (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zefr, a Wikipedia article links to another one by a wikilink, ie by putting the name of the page in double brackets (at its simplest). As far as I know, there is no automated process to link to a new article: it is up to the editors who brought that article into being to make sure that other articles link to it as appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic}} is called a navigation template or navbox. It links to COVID-19 drug development so every article which displays the navbox at the bottom will also link to the article there and be listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/COVID-19 drug development. That's currently 546 articles. The link was added 24 March.[3] You could also have done it. WhatLinksHere cannot distinguish between links in navboxes or other templates, and links directly in the source text of a page. User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js searches for the latter but has some limitations. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=58208050

En el artículo alojado en la URL https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=58208050 dentro de las referencias, la número 7 tiene una errata, ya que no están todos los autores del artículo científico como pueden apreciar en el documento original http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62252-z En él se recoge el siguient texto:

Jeffrey D. Stilwell, Andrew Langendam, Chris Mays, Lachlan J. M. Sutherland, Antonio Arillo, Daniel J. Bickel, William T. De Silva, Adele H. Pentland, Guido Roghi, Gregory D. Price, David J. Cantrill, Annie Quinney, Enrique Peñalver

por lo que comprobarán que falta el nombre de Enrique Peñalver como uno de los autores.

Agradeciendo su ayuda,

Prensa IGME — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGME1849 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias IGME1849, and thank you for pointing that out. You could have edited it yourself. I don't know why Hemiauchenia only listed 11 authors. --ColinFine (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the autocitation software in visualeditor based on Zotero, it must just not have registered the last few authors and was completely unintentional on my part, sorry about that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure seems like a good opportunity to use |display-authors=, though. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlanM1: I'm pretty sure the person who requested the change is the last author on the paper, and probably got to the article via the papers Altmetric section so having his name cut off as an "et al" probably isn't something he'd prefer, haha. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: I understanding crediting people in the original paper, but not sure I get why our cites need to do so in exhaustive detail. I thought the only purpose of the cite was to be able to find the original source. I doubt the first author (let alone 12) appear on anything else with the same title in the same journal issue. I don't have any problem with three or four names, just because it's reasonably painless, but there ought to be a limit in what's rendered at least (like making the default |display-authors=4). The "et al." could have a hover-over tooltip with the rest, too). Some help in collapsing long cites in source editor would be nice, too. ObRidiculousExample: CoRoT-7c (yes, 40 authors; the cite takes up more than half my editing window; I replaced the second cite as a dup of the first, too). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref NOTE: The addition that I added pertaining to when the first students were admitted in 1960 is because I was one of the first employees,having been hired in August of 1960.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.115.128.242 (talk • contribs) 2020-04-03T20:41:53 (UTC)

this is regarding edits to History_of_Tampa,_Florida. Any information added to Wikipedia must be from published reliable sources. You cannot use your own memories to add to articles, because no one would be able to verify it. RudolfRed (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. Your edit to History of Tampa, Florida did not contain a reference to a source, but did contain thirteen opening reference tags and six closing ones, so it is not surprising that the software got confused. Unfortunately, since your comment was unreferenced, it was swiftly removed by Theroadislong: Wikipedia requires that all information can be found in published sources: personal recollection is simply not accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I delete items that appear in the drop-down list in the search wikipedia box?

How do I delete the items that appear as a drop-down list when I left click in the search wikipedia box on the upper right corner of each page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.11.218.160 (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't display such a list until you start typing (when they match the letters you have typed). If you are seeing a drop-down before you start typing, it is your browser that is putting it there. --ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What species is shown ?

Here What species is shown ? (disruptive images redacted)

2003:6:13D3:F133:615D:ED00:9E14:2CA4 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how this pertains to Wikipedia. This is not a general question asking forum. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2003:6:13D3:F133:615D:ED00:9E14:2CA4, please repost this at Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Science. JIP | Talk 22:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing vandalism by multiple IP addresses

Hi,

There's an IP user here that is currently blocked for spamming [4]. I came across one IP address who is spamming the same info here: [5]. There is another IP address here: [6], which could be related. Here is an instance of one of those IP addresses spamming the "Global Elections UN" YouTube page: [7] (which seems to be their main purpose). What's the best way to handle this? Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David O. Johnson: This has been a long-term problem; Impru20 is familiar with this spammer. I've been trying to track their edits at private filter 1026 (hist · log), but it didn't even catch most of the edits you linked. I've made a few tweaks to the filter. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the prompt response. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David O. Johnson: No problem. I'll also set the filter to disallow if no one objects at WP:EFN#Set filter 1026 to disallow?. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St Bede's College (Mentone)

Please remove the "warning" in the Alumni section of this page as there are refs beside every name. Thanks 175.33.49.35 (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done You've been editing for about five years now. You should be capable of doing this yourself. You just need to click on edit source and remove the template. Eagleash (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses can be shared or reassigned. That address might not have been always used by the same person. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eagleash is well aware of that, but this editor is clearly recognisable. The editor concerned is notorious for plaguing the help desk with unreasonable requests. Sometimes the editor uses a registered user name, but also appears under a variety of IP addresses. The editor steadfastly refuses to learn from the answers given, so many help desk regulars have lost patience. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I kind of assumed it was likely an address assigned to the school. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As are you David! Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]