Help desk
< October 13	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 15 >

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.

October 14

Information title is incorrect

On the Middletown Middle School (of Frederick MARYLAND) wiki, it has outdated information as it used to be the high school. I edited what I could but the "header" is still the high school and I can not edit it.

Google directs to Wiki for it information which is wrong.

https://edu.fcps.org/mms/

How can I fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtownrox99 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Middletown High School (Maryland)

As far as I can see, Middletown Middle School and Middletown High School are two different schools.. This is the web site for the middle school and this is the web site for the high school, which is at a different address. The Wikipedia article you have edited is about the high school. CodeTalker (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mtownrox99: You may have been confused because the article Middletown High School (Maryland) contained the coordinates of the middle school. I've fixed that. Deor (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Henri Paul

I am writing a new article about Henri Paul. Henri Paul has significant news coverage and is likely notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. I would like to get help with writing my article. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 00:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BIO1E and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henri Paul. It seems unlikely that such an article would be accepted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Diana's death was a very notable event, and the event continues to receive coverage to this day. Henri Paul played a major role in the event, so an article should be written about him per WP:BIO1E, which says:

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 00:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing the man who triggered the First World War to Diana's chauffeur? A biography of him is only feasible if there are reliable sources writing about his life outside of the crash, but there just isn't anything noteworthy about his life that can't be summarized in a couple of sentences at the Death of Princess Diana article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There exist many reliable sources about Henri Paul. That makes Henri Paul more notable than Howard Brennan. Because Howard Brennan has his own article, Henri Paul should as well. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 00:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Maybe the Brennan article should be deleted. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Brennan survived an AFD, so if we were to keep it we would also have an article about Henri Paul. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 01:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not contagious; do we have an article on the chauffeur who drove the car JFK and Jackie were riding in in Dallas? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Orangemike, the driver was a Secret Service agent, not a chauffeur. And we have an article about him, William Greer. Cullen328 (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAdesdae378, you cannot create a Wikipedia article based on sleazeball gossip rags such as Showbiz Cheatsheet and The Sun. Here is what WP:RSP says about The Sun: The Sun was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject. As for Spyscape, I doubt that it would pass muster as a reliable source. The first sentence of Spyscape reads SPYSCAPE is a contemporary experiential museum in New York City which aims to inspire people to discover their own superpowers through spy and superhero narratives, and experiences. That does not inspire confidence. Cullen328 (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Putting cursor on link to get preview of what the link is.

I don't know what to call this feature, but when I put the cursor on a link in an article, without clicking the link -- say, on the name of a city -- a small box opens while I'm still on the page and gives me a bit of information about what the link is. Like for a city it will say where the city is and maybe the population. And it does this for all kinds of links -- very helpful, often I don't have to click the link at all. But suddenly that feature has vanished and now all I get is the name of the link. This actually has happened maybe 3-4 times in the past dating over many years, so it's been a very reliable and helpful feature. I see no way to make it a preference. Maybe it has something to do with Chrome for Mac? But I haven't changed any preferences there, and wikipedia is the only site I know of that has this wonderful feature. Is there any way to get it back? Wlegro (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wlegro it should be under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering at 'Reading preferences'. Sungodtemple (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wlegro: Registered users have two separate features which make such boxes: "Enable page previews" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering and "Navigation popups" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. I don't know which you used. They cannot be used at the same time. Navigation popups requires JavaScript to be enabled in the browser. I think it breaks easier than Page previews, but Page previews may be easier to disable by accident. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you! It worked. I don't remember ever finding Reading preferences to begin with -- the box was unchecked, yet it must have been checked up until a few days ago, then unchecked itself. Just because. And now I see Preferences at the top of the page -- I must be blind not to have seen it. "Page previews" Yay! An excellent time-saving feature. And thanks again. Wlegro (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Title of Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayfo

United States -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Americans

should be

United States -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States 2601:19D:C000:CD30:587F:A2A0:4463:4111 (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That link is intentional. People clicking on that link would be more likely to be looking at the Assyrian diaspora in the US rather than a broad article about the united states itself. Sungodtemple (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is MOS:EASTEREGG. The last sentence in Sayfo#Exile in Iraq may seem a borderline case after the first link goes directly to Caucasus but it's followed by six piped links to diaspora articles. It would be very clumsy to rewrite it with each link making it completely clear where it goes. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Beatrice Kitson

The link on "Lady Airedale, nee Florence von Schunck" should go directly to the "Kate Lupton (Baroness von Schunck" section on the Lupton family page. Please do this - I cannot. Thank you 175.38.42.62 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try "teaching a man to fish". Here's what you need to do: change [[Lupton family|Lady Airedale, ''née'' Florence von Schunck]] to [[Lupton family#Kate Lupton (Baroness von Schunck)|Lady Airedale, ''née'' Florence von Schunck]]. Easier to do than to describe, I think; but if there's some difficulty, please try to specify where the difficulty is. -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I suspect the OP is "a woman who cannot learn to fish", see Wikipedia_talk:Help_desk/Archive_12#What_is_the_Help_Desk? for background. (I might be wrong, but the signs are all there: English historical biography topic + clear "change X to Y" format + link + a polite "thank you" to end the request.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is just one of a number of discussions in various locations (including Hoary's TP) over the past seven years or so and there was also an inconclusive ANI. The editor has claimed in the past to be elderly and a former teacher. The 'Sr' in the username also suggests a religious order connection of some sort. My personal opinion is that they are using some sort of visual aid software; hence the rendering of my username as Eglish and the 'it is in red' statement in help requests. If we don't help here, the editor tends to find a helpful user and post at their TP and overall very little harm, is dione (If any) and a CIR block (mooted in the past) might be harsh. Eagleash (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eagleash I hope you don't mind; I fixed your link to Hoary's TP. David10244 (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash I have seen requests by this editor before; they weren't actually signed in this time. David10244 (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244: That's fine, (I did not intend to link to Hoary's TP really, as the discussion is now somewhere in his archives, but to 'notify' him) though it's not the only discussion about this editor over now quite a long period of time. They stopped signing in (or so it seems) some years ago now; probably just find it easier that way or forgot password or may think it's harder to identify them. Eagleash (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash Well, I clicked on "Hoary" there and was taken to the page for the letter "U". So I'm not sure he was notified.? I also see that this editor does often edit logged-out. I don't personally get the impression that she wants to be unrecognized; those of us who frequent the TPs will recognize her requests. David10244 (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... you had brackets and not braces. Sounds like something I would do. David10244 (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep bit of a typo there.... Eagleash (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say "They stopped signing in (or so it seems) some years ago now", but the user signed in less than a month ago, only 3 minutes before this IP address continued editing the same article. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And? It's been quite some time since they signed in on a regular basis (*or so it seems*) AFAICT but perhaps you have the time to go searching to see? Eagleash (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I really think that all of these Lupton articles are "too much", but maybe doing this gives the editor some purpose in life... All I have are first-world problems... David10244 (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:ศักดา กุลนาแพง

This userpage requires attention of the willing, established editors. The user appears to use the page to host its own profile that links to external website (the subject's own), which does not have potential of encyclopedic value and does not appear to be permitted under Wikipedia's userpage guidelines. As new/unregistered users, the abuse filter pretty much prevents any nomination for deletion be made (or any edits for that matter). Having not found other venue, I have decided to refer to issue to Help Desk. Regards. 124.120.107.5 (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been tagged for speedy deletion now. Madeline (part of me) 12:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi,

just to let you know User:Lupin/popups.js has a message above thier page that says:

Code that you insert on this page could contain malicious content capable of compromising your account.

thank you so mutch

A1ex26 (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A1ex26 - That's normal for any page ending in .js ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

okay thank you A1ex26 (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

blocked as sock Sungodtemple (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. FYI @Bbb23: who blocked the earlier account that this was a block evasion for. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble with the ISBN template

I've used the ISBN template (twice) in User:Misha Wolf/Ronit Kark#Published works and must have made a mistake as I'm getting "Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: Invalid ISBN." Please could you advice what I'm doing wrong. Thanks!

Misha Wolf (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Misha Wolf. I've done a quick check, and you're right that the ISBN is valid. The issue seems to be somewhere in the validation module that handles ISBNs. Let me investigate further, poke some people, and I'll see what I can find out. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Misha Wolf (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both isbns begin with U+200E LEFT-TO-RIGHT MARK which is not an allowed character. Remove that.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed them. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Misha Wolf (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to make the underlying Module:Check isxn that the {{ISBN}} template uses more verbose in its output? At the moment it returns the same error if the ISBN is mathematically invalid or if it's an issue like this where there is a hidden unicode character in the string. It would probably be more helpful to users if they got a little more feedback than just Invalid ISBN when there's an issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the template needed? Doesn't MediaWiki automatically link a sequence of numbers that comes directly after the letters "ISBN"? 175.39.61.121 (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such "magic links" are deprecated and no longer work. – SD0001 (talk) 07:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Misha Wolf (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted link

Crawling (human) had a somewhat spammy link to a site that hosted a useful YouTube video, so I found the YouTube video itself and replaced the existing link with a direct one to YouTube. I used YouTube's provided link syntax, https://youtu.be/f3xWaOkXCSQ, saved, was prompted with a captcha as is normal when adding a new link, and then found that the link was blacklisted. (I was able to add the URL from the browser address bar, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3xWaOkXCSQ, so clearly the problem was with youtu.be instead.) Why does this happen in this sequence, and can it be changed? It's mildly annoying to have to do the captcha and then find that I can't use the link. I feel like it would be easier if the blacklist were checked first, and after verifying that the link could be used, then the site gives me a captcha. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captcha is triggered on IP user adding a new external link. Edit filter is triggered afterwards. Sungodtemple (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But this wasn't the edit filter. It was the spam blacklist; the message began with Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that "https://youtu.be/something_something" would be a mere redirect to something or other on https://youtube.com/, and that Wikipedia disallows links to domain names (tinyurl.com, etc) that are redirecting services. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. URL shorteners (including youtu.be) are globally blacklisted since they can be used to circumvent local blacklists. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to include links to reviews of a person's work in a Wikipedia article about that person?

What is the correct way to mention articles discussing an academic's work in a Wikipedia article about that academic? Presumably, they should appear in a dedicated section. What should such a section be called? Thanks!

Misha Wolf (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize what they say, and work this into the text, of course scrupulously referencing all of this. (Example: the article Morris Bishop, passim.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The approach taken in the Morris Bishop article strikes me as suitable for cases where the subject of the article has written a number of books (or plays or music compositions, etc), each of which has received distinct responses. This allows responses to be grouped with the description of the work they relate to. In the case of an academic, reviews of their work may well range over many pieces of work, created over many years, so that approach would be difficult to implement. Looking at the Noam Chomsky article, I see that section Noam Chomsky#Reception and influence does the kind of thing I'm looking for. I now see that a section of that name has been used in a number of other articles. So I'm inclined to do something along those lines.

Misha Wolf (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]