Help desk
< May 9	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 11 >

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.

May 10

Redirect blocking publishing article

Hello. I asked this question at the Teahouse, but I think I may have worded it wrong and was misunderstood. I have written a draft on special interests. I would like to publish the draft, but I can not because special interests is a redirect to special interest groups, and the redirect says it is there as the result of a merge and the page needs to stay to preserve the history, so I do not think it can be deleted. What is the best way to proceed here? -- NotCharizard ^🗨 06:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without any opinion on if the article is WP-good or not, have you considered naming it "Special interest (autism)"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea, thank you! I was unsure of a way to disambiguate it with brackets (I was thinking "autistic trait" but was clearly overthinking it) -- NotCharizard ^🗨 16:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a requested move. But it may be a good idea to discuss it first on Talk:special interest group, as you might be seen as "hijacking" the redirect. ColinFine (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to report a possible Wiki software bug

I'm editing an article entitled Canoe. For the last day or so, when I go to publish edits, I click on "Review edits" and I see a blue progress bar going back and forth but never stopping. So I've just given up and done direct publishing without reviewing, as I'm pretty sure I remember everything, now that I'm publishing more after smaller edits than I used to.

I first planned to mention it at the Village Pump in the Technical area, but there it said software bug messages should be done with something called Phabricator. So I clicked on that and got totally bewildered by what seemed endless red tape to write a simple messaage about the above situation. After spending 5 or 10 minutes trying to understand what to do, I suddenly remembered the Help Desk.

So I'm back to ask if someone would make a small edit, then try to publish it, and see if the same I described above happens. Assuming so, then notify a Wiki tekkie.

But I'd also like to understand if software bugs are really supposed to be reported in Phabricator (I hope not!) or can't we just come here to do it? Augnablik (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik It sounds as though your issue is with the visual editor which I rarely use, finding the source editor more reliable and functional. Do you get the same problem when previewing edits in the source editor? WP:VPT is indeed the correct Help location for technical issues. Someone (not usually the editor who raises the issue) will subsequently do the necessary reporting via Phabricator if they can confirm the bug is real and seen by several users. Don't be put off reporting bugs. Just make sure you give enough information that the experts are likely to be able to reproduce them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: Assuming you're using the "Visual" diff option, this has since been reported, see phab:T364635. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Visual" diff option you mentioned, @Suffusion of Yellow, something different from just the Visual view — which I'm using? Augnablik (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After you click Publish Changes -> Review your changes, you should see two buttons in the upper right corner. The one labeled "Visual" is broken for everyone, but should be fixed soon according to the linked task. The one labeled "Wikitext" should work now. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull, I could have sworn I replied to you a few days ago ... but apparently not, because I don't see that reply here. So I'll try again.

What I wanted to reply to your reply was that I don't use the Source Editor, so I can't say whether the same problem would come up for me there. Why I don't use it is that the coding is a little daunting for an editor at my level, though I'm getting increasingly comfortable with it while at the same time making my way through the huge amount of Wiki whatnot to get familiar with — rules, regulations, templates, etc.

But from what @Suffusion of Yellow said earlier today, maybe my issue has been solved. Augnablik (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change information

The current Minister of water resources and sanitation is Nigeria is Engr. Prof. Joseph Terlumun Utsev. FNSE, FNICE, FNIWE. Please effect this correction 105.112.228.188 (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor. Please make that suggestion on the Talk Page of the article in question, together with a reliable source that confirms this fact. We have lots of articles on Nigeria and I'm not sure which one you are referring to. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a mess - very inappropriate

How come all german flags has been converted to Nazi flags in this article ?

Here is the link and screenshot .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_Grand_Prix_results 2601:644:8D80:B510:45A7:4AA8:848E:1055 (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the official flag of Germany at the time of the events 1935–1939. See Flag of Germany#Nazi Germany and World War II (1933–1945). That's the flag they represented. This is normal practice in the English Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say because from 1933–1945 it was in fact the flag of Germany. You can also see that the Italian flag is the flag from that period and not the contemporary tricolor. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You claim it's all German flags in the article but the later years don't show the 1933–1945 flag for me and I can find no sign it has previously shown that flag for wrong years. PrimeHunter (talk)

I'm seeing what you are seeing as well. I don't see an issue here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's no issue with the German flags. But the UK flags on that page are the "at sea" version of the Union Jack, with a 2:1 aspect ratio. The "on land" version with a 5:3 aspect ratio would be moer appropriate. I don't understand templates well enough to risk trying to correct it. Maproom (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Union_Jack#Specification and the reference in the "proportion" field of the infobox. The use the terms "normally" and "commonly" respectively, theree is no fixed ratio. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

update

Would someone please update my wikipedia page: Timothy Archambault. thank you! Here are some new references: Here's some more updated sources: https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/event/timothy-archambault-the-silent-echo-architectures-of-the-void/ https://www.blankforms.org/journal/brontomancy https://carnac.ideologic.org/ https://www.ideologic.org/release/soma042-timothy-archambault-chisake https://oppenoffice.com/people/timothy-archambault/ https://www.cyjostudio.com/aboutthecreativedestruction https://subtropics.org/ST25/creative-destruction/ https://subtropics.org/2017/12/01/raven-chacon-andtim-archambault-the-creative-destruction/ https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Native-American-Music-America/dp/0313336008 136.28.63.9 (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request would be better placed at Talk:Timothy Archambault using the {{edit coi}} template. Actually it looks like maybe you already trtied that but without using the template? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reposted this there with the template. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Readability - "Balkans" page

Hey team! On the page for "Balkans," section "definition and boundaries," subsection "criticism of the geographical definition," there's a paragraph which needs to be edited for clarity:

"Since the late 19th and early 20th-century literature is not known where is exactly the northern border between the peninsula and the continent, with an issue, whether the rivers are suitable for its definition. In the studies the Balkans' natural borders, especially the northern border, are often avoided to be addressed, considered as a "fastidious problem" by André Blanc in Geography of the Balkans (1965), while John Lampe and Marvin Jackman in Balkan Economic History (1971) noted that "modern geographers seem agreed in rejecting the old idea of a Balkan Peninsula". Another issue is the name because the Balkan Mountains which are mostly located in Northern Bulgaria are not dominating the region by length and area like the Dinaric Alps. An eventual Balkan peninsula can be considered a territory South of the Balkan Mountains, with a possible name "Greek-Albanian Peninsula." "

I am not an experienced wiki editor, and in some places I'm not sure what the writer meant anyways, so I wouldn't feel confident making suggested edits. I hope this is the right place to raise the flag! 2003:D4:6F0B:1E00:7C52:48AB:A714:889B (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prospective editors of the article Balkans are told "This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse." Well, kind of: that suggestion is about editing in general, not about editing the article Balkans in particular. So what about this particular article? The orthodox suggestion is to ask at the article's talk page; and therefore Talk:Balkans. But in my experience complaints, however justified, about obscurity rarely lead to improvements. I've fiddled with the article. I hope that it's slightly less obscure now. However, it remains obscure (and, I suspect, unnecessarily wordy). Perhaps one or two other editors here would care to take a look. -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best course is to consult the sources that are cited in the references. Since the sources are published, one can normally expect that they've been copyedited and are lucid. (The effusions of Professor Žižek, quoted at some length later, are among the conspicuous exceptions.) The obscure passage you ask about is, or says it is, based on sources in Croatian. That's entirely legitimate, but unfortunately not so many editors here can read Croatian. -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]