Help desk
< January 15	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 17 >

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 16

Article Redirected Again :(

The article I created (2/2nd anti-tank regiment (Australia)) has again been redirected to the wrong page. The 2nd Anti-Tank Regiment (Australia) and the 2/2nd Anti-Tank Regiment (Australia) are two different units and the article I created has been redirected to 2nd anti-tank which is wrong. could someone please help and undo this?, it would be nice if the page could be protected from this happening again. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiTankReg (talk • contribs) 00:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was apparently moved to the wrong place when moved from Draft to mainspace. I've moved it. Protection would only be necessary if there were persistent vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks david! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiTankReg (talk • contribs) 00:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AntiTankReg: If you think this could happen again, why not leave a helpful explanatory note on each article's talk page? Thus, any well-meaning but misinformed person who might think a redirect is in order would be pre-warned of the distinction. Others might also feel better guided in making a revert, should it still happen. (Oh, and don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~.) Regards from the UK, 11:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Fischbach

Hi,

Please take a look at Michelle Fischbach and tell me if the last 8 edits (reverts) were pertinent b because I do not think so and I want to block that user for vandalism. Thanks.

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a matter that should be discussed with the involved editors on the article talk page: Talk:Michelle Fischbach. Rmhermen (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced fishing advice

What would you say to completely unsourced fishing advice in an article about a species? I don't want to chop it all out but alot of it is well... fishing advice and probably not encyclopedic? Appreciate any thoughts. Gabriel syme (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are, in no particular order:

Advice on fishing/hunting do not belong in articles on specific species
Wikipedia is not a How-to guide
Unsourced content will be removed
There's no such word as alot (my primary thought, to be honest)

nagualdesign 05:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well sweet hot damn my friend that was fast! I'll chop that baby to pieces in the morning and see if there aren't any little encyclopedic tidbits I can find sourcing for, much appreciated! Gabriel syme (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was hiding in the sidebar disguised as a list of languages waiting to pounce. nagualdesign 05:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To expand a bit on Advice on fishing/hunting do not belong in articles on specific species, this isn't always the case. If there's something specifically notable that's described as such in reliable sources with regards to the way a particular species is hunted/fished, it can sometimes be justifiable to include it—e.g. Wikipedia's Red fox and Pilot whale articles correctly mention hunting with hounds and drive hunting respectively. ‑ Iridescent 12:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the further points. I'm looking at the article Common roach, and from what I'm reading there's nothing inherently notable in the way they're fished. Thanks. Gabriel syme (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I make suggestions about improving Wikipedia's usability?

For example, the "Save changes" button has become "Publish changes". Who decides and implements decisions like these? Is this an open process that anyone can contribute to, or be involved in? I have lots of professional UI design experience and I'd love to be part of it. Popcornduff (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Popcornduff, such things are chewed over at the Village Pump, which has several sub-areas for technical stuff, policy etc. New ideas are best floated in the Idea Lab section. Please do participate! Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that particular (confusing and poorly implemented) change was made by the Wikimedia Foundation, without any consultation with editors. Maproom (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornduff: as Maproom says, it came as a surprise to most of use here on en.wiki, but is being implemented across all language wikis on the advice of the WMF legal team to ensure everyone appreciates that every single edit made here is actually published online somewhere, even if it looks like its just to one's own sandbox or draft article. You can see that discussion here, and it may also give you a few names of key WMF players you could contact, if you wished. I maintain my own list of suggested improvements which I add to when I encounter things that can be enhanced. Helpful to then be able to point others to a raft of suggestions. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies, everyone. I actually am not looking to make any suggestions about that particular change - just used it as an example of the kind of thing I was talking about. Popcornduff (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Wading in with a related observation): after one hits the "Publish changes" button there is a pop-up saying "Your edit was saved". Should that have changed to "published" too? Dorsetonian (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

my edit reverted

i have edited a page but someone reverted that edit. who is that person?!.. is he more powerful than me? why they can put up wrong information and others can not edit that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasra tcme (talk • contribs) 10:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mess with Ken or he'll wipe the floor with you! That guy can bench press over 256 kB. nagualdesign 11:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant links: Special:Contributions/Kasra tcme, Revision history of "Aryan", User talk:Beyond My Ken#Aryan people

Hello, Kasra tcme. That is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Your next step, if you wish to pursue the matter, is to open a discussion with the other editor on the article's talk page. Please read about the bold, revert, discuss cycle for context. --ColinFine (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The advice given above was to discuss your changes on the talk page of the article, not to make accusations of racism on the talk pages of editors who disagree with you. Wikipedia reports what is written in WP:Reliable sources, so if you want to put forward an alternative point of view then you need to find sources that support your view. Dbfirs 16:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kasra tcme: You can see who has edited the page (and undone your edits) by clicking 'history'. For example, Aryan: Revision history.

Nobody on Wikipedia is 'more powerful'. There are admins with extra buttons, but that's just to clean things up; they do not have more authority than anyone else.

If people disagree about an edit, they have to discuss it - and can ask what other think, to reach a 'consensus' about whether the edit is OK or not.

As long as people discuss things in a civilised way, that's fine. People with 'more power' are only needed to prevent disruption - for example, if a person keeps posting what they think is correct without discussing it. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut for Show changes

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

This is a minor edit Watch this page

By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Publish changes Show preview Show changes Cancel

alt-shift-v used to be the shortcut for Show changes, and that's still what the tooltip says. But now it switches to visual editing mode. I don't see a setting to change that in my preferences. Is there another shortcut, or do I need to file a bug? I haven't done that in years, how is that done nowadays? — Sebastian 11:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For me in Firefox, alt-shift-v is "Show changes" when I'm editing. It's only VisualEditor when I'm not already editing. What is your browser? If I disable VisualEditor at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing then alt-shift-v is the Firefox view menu when I'm not editing. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For me, using Windows,alt-shift-v doesn't Show Changes in Chrome or in Opera, but in both browsers it does indeed switch to Visual Editor. Doing the same Edit Source task in Firefox, then alt-shift-v cycles the screen round from the bottom of the page to the top. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]