Help desk
< December 31	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 2 >

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.

January 1

Christian Darnton and James Kitson, 1st Baron Airedale

Please note that refs. 5 and 6 on the above Christian Danton page are incorrectly formatted. There is also a bad ref. on the James Kitson page 101.182.146.167 (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Thanks[reply]

Done Replace the url in the title parameter with the actual title of the source. Or click the tiny blue 'help' link by the error message where all is explained. Eagleash (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Ikeji

Can you please delete my Wikipedia page?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyra82 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Linda, as it was explained already here, you will need to contact the Volunteer response team so your identity can be verified. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 03:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ashton, 1st Baron Ashton of Hyde

This article has enough citations now - please remove the "warning" at the end of the page. Thanks Mike101.182.146.167 (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are still parts of the article which need in-line citations as the sources are not immediately clear. The tag has been moved to the normal position at the top of the article. Any editor can remove it if they so wish, but should ensure the issues are addressed. (Also tweaked up the refs headings etc.) Eagleash (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the banner from refimprove to lacking inline cites to make clearer. Sliven2000 (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different versions sorting

I was wondering how one could sort the versions of an article in the history section by the amount of text in each version, and how one could do the same for different language versions of an article's current revision. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.84.28.198 (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely impossible; it's not possible to re-sort anything in the history section. That's quite an interesting idea, however, and it might be a nice feature: make a proposal at WP:VP/Pr, or ask someone else (including me, if you want) to do it if you're not sure how to do it. Implementing this idea would require a software change, and while our software developers probably wouldn't make such a change in response to one person asking alone, they'd be more interested in performing a change that a lot of people support. Nyttend (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon

Reference number 3 is all wrong. Please help if you are able and please include the quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.182.146.167 (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Done. 31.52.138.243 (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make articles "drill-down"?

Different readers of a wiki article may want a different level of detail; some may be casual readers, others more expert. Is there a way that you can construct an article so that it gives an executive overview in each section but if a reader is interested in more they can click on a link to expand the content?

I thought you could use sub-pages but having just read Wikipedia:Subpages it seems that using them to break up an article is not allowed. Sliven2000 (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sliven2000: Wikipedia articles are supposed to be an overview on a subject. They aren't supposed to be like a textbook on it. Collapsible content in articles presents a problem for certain screens and our manual of style says they should never be used to conceal article content. Our very best articles are able to give an excellent overview of the entire topic without going into every little detail. We even have a cleanup template, {{Technical}}, that should be used on pages that are too hard for most readers to understand. --Majora (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: I'm not talking about really complex things that are difficult to understand. I'm thinking mainly about 1) having good readability and 2) providing the reader choice. One of the best things about wiki is that a reader can go to a topic and then decide whether to find out more or not. Having a high level executive summary that can be expanded on if the user wants to is very much in the spirit of wiki, imo. Long topics do not have good readability and benefit from being split up somehow. Sliven2000 (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of an article is intended to give an overview of its whole content. The idea is the reader reads the lead for a brief account, then goes to the sections that the lead has indicated may be of particular interest. For larger topics, each section may itself act as an overview of a more detailed account given in a separate article: e.g. the History section of the article on Spain is headed by a link to History of Spain, and subsections within that also link to articles on more specialised topics. Admittedly many articles do not adhere closely to this structure of lead, sections, links; but this is part of the huge task of article improvement that will keep many of us busy for years to come: Noyster (talk), 12:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Summary style contains some useful guidance, when and how to move longer sub-topics into their own stand-alone articles (with a concise summary being kept in the main article). Those sub-articles are not "sub-pages" from a technical view of course, but they serve a similar purpose. GermanJoe (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For further details see the references. (Good articles will have references both to support the information provided and to tell the reader where to find further material.) RJFJR (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the best answer so far is suggested by User:GermanJoe: the answer is yes, articles can be constructed with links to more detail in related articles. For example, see the George Washington biography article. Under several of its section-titles are "main" links (using the {{main}} template) which go to the "main" article on the topic of the section, one of which is Military career of George Washington. Each of the linked articles has to be an individually legitimate article on its own, however. --do ncr am 04:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks to you all for the ideas. Will mull them over. Sliven2000 (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use the template 'finedetail'.

Do people know to hover their pointer over the green text produced by Template:Finedetail? I've never seen this b4 so probably wouldn't have realised there was more text to be seen. Seems to be similar to using Template:Efn to make explanatory notes like used here Logic Theorist. When would you use finedetail and when efn? Sliven2000 (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Coronial Inquiries/Inquests/Reports?

I want to cite the findings of this Coronial Inquiry. How should I do it to follow Wikipedia guidelines? I checked the courts citation template, but was unclear on what to do. --Toomanyaccountsargh (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could add something like the following to the Bibliography section.

Deputy State Coroner HCB Dillon (State Coroner’s Court, Glebe 28 September 2015).

Depends on how the references are set up on the page you are editing. Which page is it?

Sliven2000 (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to just use Template:Cite web?? Sliven2000 (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by its parameters (e.g. "volume" and "litigants"), Cite court is for judicial rulings, and it might produce citations that aren't appropriate for this kind of document. Per WP:CITEVAR, use a citation template on the page you're editing if the page already uses them, but otherwise it would probably be easier to write a normal citation. "The state coroner's office found that the fire destroyed 166 buildings in Warrumbungles National Park".<ref>Inquiry into Fire at Wambelong Camp Ground, Warrumbungles National Park, New South Wales, January 2013, Coroners Court of New South Wales, 28 September 2015, 8. Accessed 1 January 2016.</ref> Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Living Person

Hi,

I want to add the images from my wikipedia page "Josh Agnew" to the little widget box that comes up when you google my name

Kind Regards, Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuajnet (talk • contribs)

@Joshuajnet: The box is made by Google and not Wikipedia. We have no control over it. See Template:HD/GKG for a stock answer to requests for corrections to it. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncollapsing tables

How do I uncollapse all of the tables at Excision discography#Mixes. Please ping me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: Do you mean you'd like to display uncollapsed by default? Add the parameter "expanded=true" to the template:hidden invocation. Rwessel (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]