Help desk
< October 24	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 26 >

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 25

Simple inline audio, mostly for pronunciations?

Hi,

Is there any way to insert short inline audio (mostly for pronunciations) that will play inline when the user clicks it (1) without switching to another page with the audio and (2) without a large player? I am looking for a simple loudspeaker icon and perhaps a "listen" link, but without the current page shifting to a player page or any large player. Just a simple inline playing of the audio. It should be quick and easy for the user to play a pronunciation inline, and it shouldn't take up a lot of page real estate like the current player does.

Does that exist? I have been looking around the audio templates but failed to find a simple inline template.

--Jhertel (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jhertel, one option could be to use the <ref></ref> to insert templates as follows: <ref>{{listen |filename=Accordian chords-01.ogg |title=Accordion chords |description=Chords being played on an accordion }}</ref>. The audio file will play inline when the user clicks on the reference number (and then clicks on the play icon), provided the user has a compatible browser and media playing software. The audio file will be displayed along with your references; therefore, you might consider using Notes or any other separate sections for documenting audio files used within the article separately. With respect to inserting loudspeaker icons and link the same to the audio file, an example can be found in Gérard Depardieu, where the loudspeaker icon and audio file is inserted using the ({{IPA-fr|ʒeʁaʁ dəpaʁdjø|lang|fr-Gerard_Depardieu.ogg}} template. But that does not seem to play inline and seems to take you away from the page being read. You can see Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files#Audio usage for further information on the same. Lourdes 01:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Lourdes, for your reply and for your suggestions. The problem is exactly that the audio does not play inline (like in the example with IPA-fr); the user just wants to hear the name but doesn't really want to go to a whole new page and have to press Back after that and then reorienting themselves on the page they came from. The trick with the reference has the same problem of the user being unnecessarily taken away from the text they were reading just to hear a pronunciation. I am surprised that there is no simple inline audio player template, as it is technically possible to make one, but it seems like that is actually the case. Thanks again, Lourdes. --Jhertel (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki signature help

How can I keep my orange background and put this flower: ✿ in my signature? It gives me errors every time.

Also when I check an edit history, it shows my orange background on the timestamp. I would suspect this isn't normal. Thanks --Jennica^Talk 06:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jennica:The css code in your common.css is what causes the orange background on timestamps and other places. This is only visible to you, so please clear it before you set your custom signature. Your signature can be set at Special:Preferences →Signature. Make sure the Treat the above as wiki markup box is checked. Replace the existing --[[User:Jennica|Jennica]][[User_talk:Jennica|Talk]] with one of the following codes, tweaking it according to your preference.

--[[User:Jennica|''Jennica'']][[User_talk:Jennica|Talk]] ✿ which produces --Jennica ^Talk ✿

--[[User:Jennica|''Jennica'']] ✿ [[User_talk:Jennica|Talk]] which produces --Jennica ✿ ^Talk

--<span style="background-color:orange">[[User:Jennica|''Jennica'']] <sup>[[User_talk:Jennica|''Talk'']]</sup></span> ✿

which produces --Jennica ^Talk ✿

--<span style="background-color:orange">[[User:Jennica|''Jennica'']] <sup>[[User_talk:Jennica|''Talk'']]</sup> ✿ </span>

which produces --Jennica ^Talk ✿

--<span style="background-color:orange">[[User:Jennica|''Jennica'']]  ✿ <sup>[[User_talk:Jennica|''Talk'']]</sup></span>

which produces --Jennica ✿ ^Talk

Hope this is what you were looking for and let me know if you need any help. - NQ (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jennica: - NQ (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NQ: thank you! it's lovely!--Jennica✿ ^Talk 07:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ﺁب JUS I WANT TO KNOW HOW I CAN FREE FROM STRESS

ﺁب JUS I WANT TO KNOW HOW I CAN FREE FROM STRESS AND — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.224.218 (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having sex is usually a great way to relieve stress. Just saying. ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 08:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to cats purring... Fylbecatulous talk 12:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have I done "Original research" in one section of Retrospect (software) article?

Thinking further, I've started wondering about whether some Retrospect problems mentioned in the second paragraph in the "Documentation" section of the article may be "Original research". Problem (2) with the How-To Video Tutorials is definitely not "Original research". As a result of a post that I wrote in early March 2016, a thread in the Retrospect user forums became wildly popular (962 views as of early in the morning of 24 October 2016) because I was the first person who had dealt with the problem that "certain tricky key concepts, such as how to do 'seeding' in 'Changing paths Cloud Mac', go by so quickly that many users have not been able to grasp them without multiple viewings." However I'm not so sure about problem (1). If—in the course of researching the WP article—I noticed an obvious massive discrepancy between two sections in the Retrospect Mac 13 User's Guide discussing the "Dashboard", does that constitute "Synthesis of published material"? I'm also not so sure about problem (3). If—in the course of trying to figure out in mid-September 2016 how the newly-announced Retrospect Mac 13.5 handled Dropbox—I noticed an obvious missing UI step in the "Cloud Backup - How to Set Up Dropbox for Cloud Backup" Retrospect Knowledge Base article, does that constitute "Synthesis of published material"? If both of them do, then deleting them would cut the article by another 0.3 screen pages.

       DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

DovidBenAvraham (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

mistake in front page

in your welcome page there is one pie chart in that pie chart the total percentage is little bit high actual total should be 100% but in your pie chart the total is 101%

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.15.158.213 (talk)

Please give a link to the page you refer to. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; surely there isn't a pie chart on the front page? Unless it's something my phone is hiding from me. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about what somebody might call a welcome page. The top of Main Page says "Welcome to Wikipedia". Wikipedia is not a welcome page or front page but it's linked shortly after the word "Welcome" on the front page. It has 12 pie charts which is a poor match to "in your welcome page there is one pie chart", but one of them does add up to 101%. This usually happens due to rounding of multiple numbers. For a simpler example, consider something split in three with 20.7% 30.6%, 48.7%. The sum is 100.0%. If each number is rounded to the nearest integer then you get 21%, 31%, 49%, with sum 101%. It's common to round percentages such that the sum becomes exactly 100%, for example 21%, 30%, 49%, where 30.6% is rounded down against normal rounding rules. In the case of File:Wikipedia content by subject.png the source [1] (not made by us) uses the same percentages as our image, with no decimals and adding to 101%. I think it would be against our verifiability policy to arbitrarily pick one of the percentages and change it to get 100%. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers in columns

It always puzzles me as to why might Wikipedia be so seriously antipathetic to the convention to right justify any numbers in columns. To my mind right justified (its almost as strong a convention as —in Europe— to begin reading in the top left hand corner of any page) they are quickly and easily understood without the counting of commas or zeros. Best of all if the numbers were right justified but in the centre of their column.

Here is an interesting case with the unfortunate difficulty in comprehension I refer to. Look at the numbers beneath "Values" Vector Limited#Electricity distribution. Why is this not done? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's that table, with the numeric values right-justified.

Vector network statistics as of 31 March 2015
Parameter	Value
Parameter	Northern (Rodney, North Shore, Waitakere)	Southern (Auckland, Manukau, Papakura)	Total
Total system length	9,136 km	9,130 km	18,266 km
110 kV	27 km	47 km	74 km
33 kV	464 km	320 km	784 km
22 kV	–	174 km	174 km
11 kV	4,279 km	3,038 km	7,317 km
Low voltage (230/400 V)	4,366 km	5,551 km	9,917 km
Street lighting	177 km	243 km	421 km
Customer connections	218,420	327,548	545,968
System maximum demand	656 MW	1,182 MW	1,755 MW
System electricity delivered	2,810 GWh	5,950 GWh	8,760 GWh

It was not easy finding out how to do it, and it was not easy actually doing it. This may explain why many editors don't bother. Laziness is a more plausible explanation than serious antipathy. Anyway I'm not convinced that the result is an improvement, when some of the "numbers" are really numbers, some are kilometres, some are megawatts, and some are gigawatt hours. Maproom (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know of the right-justification convention, but I guess the idea is to be able to better compare a column of comparable values (assuming the same number of trailing digits). In the case mentioned, the most relevant comparison is probably across rows, though. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help with merger

I have come across two articles, High Cockalorum and Buck buck, which are clearly referring to the same children's game. How do I go about proposing a merger of the two? I've never done it before. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge, have you read WP:MERGEINIT? (notice also the part which says to be bold if the merge is obvious)

If it does not answer your questions, do not hesitate to come back. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I suppose Matthew 7:7–8 applies here. Thanks and please watch this space :-) Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the deed is now done, hopefully correctly. Thank you for your kind assistance. Alansplodge (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no key

≤±←→§·103.248.118.194 (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)^[1][reply]

Please provide a link to the page where you are encountering a problem. The only edit by the IP address shown was to Iron and Steel Industry in India on 22 September. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^{<references/>}

Article Title Change Request

We would like to change the title of our Wikipedia page as it is currently incorrect. We are no longer Ker’s Winghouse. We would like to change our title to The WingHouse Bar & Grill.

Our page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ker%27s_WingHouse

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winghouse (talk • contribs) 13:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winghouse, I have performed the page move after a few basic checks, as it seems a legitimate change. However, I should warn you that:

Multiple persons editing from a single account is not allowed. (I see no edits under your account though.) See WP:NOSHARE.
That is not "your" Wikipedia page, it is Wikipedia's page about your company. Consequently, you have no more control over its contents than another Wikipedia contributor, except for a few cases (e.g. asking the removal of copyright violations).
Editing on a subject with which you have a financial connection must be disclosed, per Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. See WP:PAID for the details, if you are an employee at The WingHouse Bar & Grill.
The naming convention of pages is WP:COMMONNAME which says Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. That means that in the (unlikely) case the local press keeps calling you Ker's Winghouse, the page move will be reverted.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Wikipedia article names should be what the subject is usually called, not its "official name" – see e.g. Newt Gingrich, United States. Of the references at Ker's WingHouse, two call it "Ker's WingHouse" and none call it "WingHouse Bar & Grill" (the others all give a 404 message or go to a page about "Acccess My Library"). So I believe the change you request is against Wikipedia policy. Maproom (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: Those references predate the name change. Most of today's internet hits, although unreliable sources, use the new name, hence why I made the change; I am not sure what proportions of policy and WP:IAR get into it but it seems the right thing to do. If you disagree, we can revert and discuss it (but let's do that on the TP). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan:: If you've checked recent hits, then I agree the change is justified. Maproom (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More attention

Hi,
what can I do to attract more editors' attention to an article that badly needs it? Preferably some who know what they are talking about and are not POV in a potentially controversial subject?
The article I am talking about is this one, obviously one that can easily attract the wrong kind of editors, as this discussion shows.
I don't think the article is a candidate for deletion, but I do think it's intolerable to have an article with serious doubts as to its factual accuracy sitting in here for years. --84.190.90.147 (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I find odd is that the article has a template "This article's factual accuracy is disputed", while the dispute itself is about the statement "There were up to 1.2 million Tibetans killed by the Chinese invasions", which is no longer present in the article. I will delete the tag myself unless you persuade me not to. Maproom (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I found this template a bit odd too, mostly because I couldn't find the dispute at all. That's why I asked on the talk page.

I saw enough other unsourced stuff in the article though and strange discussions on the talk page to make me suspicious of unsourced POV content, so I guess we should make sure we haven't got too much of that left in there. --84.190.90.147 (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template was put there in June 2013. Also in that month, the latest of the items currently in the talk page archive was written, about the Tibetans supposedly killed in the invasion. Maproom (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I see it requires some detective work to follow up on certain tags. I did check the archives but I did not go so far as to compare the date of the tag with the dates in the article's or talk page's history. --84.190.90.147 (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Save or publish changes?

The phabricator ticket seems to be resolved and changes implemented. Why does the button still say "Save changes" instead of "Publish changes"? Have the English Wikipedia decided against the systemic change? --Pxos (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pxos: phab:T139033 was split off from phab:T131132. T139033 was implemented first and its name therefore became misleading. It's only about having different labels for creating a new page and modifying an existing page. Before T139033 both said "Save page". Now it says "Save page" for creation and "Save changes" for modifying. This is "git #347ec335 - EditPage: Show a different label for the button on create vs. modify (task T139033)" at the end of mw:MediaWiki 1.28/wmf.17/Changelog#Core changes. The still open T131132 is about saying "Publish" instead of "Save". After T139033 this would mean "Publish page" for creation and "Publish changes" for modifying. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue?

Hi once more,
I am really unsure if this would be considered a copyright violation, and if one should go through the whole procedure. A number of sentences seem to have been copied from the company website, but I am not sure if it's enough to justify this whole fuss. (Most likely a company person put that stuff up on WP in the first place, but I guess that doesn't justify a copyright infringement.)
There seems to have been a copyright check right at the beginning of the article's life, but the article looked very different back then. --84.190.90.147 (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I've used Earwig's copyvio tool to check on the article. A significantly large portion was cut and paste from the website of the company. I have deleted the same. Thank you for bringing this to our notice. Keep up the good work. Lourdes 16:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref re Kelly Hoppen MBE page.

Have tried to alter her Father's country of origin, from Lithuania to Estonia, but cannot understand how to overcome the Cite error complication detaail you show. I am only 88 and would appreciate help as how to overcome this problem in plain english with a possible run through in plain English of what to do!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gertz Man 27 (talk • contribs)

You are only 88? Very young indeed! I fixed error - you inadvertently added a couple of empty citation tags. Ruslik_Zero 20:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on The Rasmus

Reference help requested.

Page is included in 'Pages with citations using unnamed parameters' - what does this mean and what needs to be done?

Thanks, 92.18.212.178 (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a hyphen instead of an equals sign in "accessdate=2016-10-21". I've fixed it. Deor (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of wedding guests of Prince William and Catherine Middleton

Please fix references number 78 and 80 - they do not look right and I did not do these refs. Thanks so much Srbernadette (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with either of them. If you have an issue with them please fix it yourself as you have been asked to do now for months. Or at the very least give more details than the vague "they don't look right". --Majora (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :What is it that you think is wrong with them? Eagleash (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am wrong - but ref number 36 looks ridiculously wrong to me. Thanks again Srbernadette (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific than "it looks wrong". RudolfRed (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with ref 36. It's just been used so many times that the sequence 'a,b,c' etc. has been extended into 'aa, ab, ac etc. Eagleash (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go so far as to say there's nothing wrong. It's a dead link, which is a little troubling for a link that is used over 50 times. I realize that's probably not what Srbernadette meant but I hope someone will address it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 02:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right it wasn't what they meant. It wasn't tagged as dead until after their (& my) posts. So there was no obvious reason for saying 'it looks wrong' at the time. Eagleash (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that it was tagged after your comment.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on University of Minnesota

Reference help requested. Hi, can you help me understand what error you detected? Thanks, Ella Baker (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC):[reply]

Resolved

Ref errors appear to have been fixed in several subsq edits. Eagleash (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] {<references/>}

[1]