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.
I've noticed a few edits by recently created accounts are tagged as being "newcomer tasks". I have read the description of what these are, but it seems that some such edits aren't constructive and are introducing typos rather than correcting them. What would be the best way to handle this? Is it in any way different from an account not using newcomer tasks? RedPanda2503:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, RedPanda25. Newcomer tasks are just automated suggestions intended to draw new editors into active editing. The notifications to other editors are intended to encourage other, more experienced editors to be friendly and helpful to newcomers. But that does not mean that we should tolerate obviouly bad edits from anybody. Bad edits should be reverted and such editors warned if they persist, and blocked by an administrator if their conduct becomes a serious problem. The same general principle applies to student editors. Interact with them in a friendly fashion, but do not tolerate obviously bad edits from students. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Standard colors, fonts, and so on for an infographic
Hello, are there standard font or color preferences for charts and other infographics? Something like a visual manual of style? Or an unwritten standard?
@Rjjiii: Whatever you do, do not rely solely on colour to impart information (as has been done, for example, in this diagram from the article you referenced above). (For example, do not use red to mean "no", green to mean "yes" without also providing another means such as the words "no" and "yes", or cross and tick symbols, as well.) See WP:ACCESSIBILITY and MOS:COLOR (the last of which needs improving on File:Open-source-license-chart.svg). Bazza (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia editing, and I'm working on my first attempt to improve a Wikipedia page. I noticed that the first citation contains a broken hyperlink (this) in the title of a reference paper. I wanted to ask for some guidance on how to handle this situation. Should I remove the hyperlink and only include the title of the paper in the citation?
I've noticed that the referenced paper is freely accessible via the DOI provided in the citation, so users can still access the content. However, I want to ensure that I'm following the correct practices for editing Wikipedia.
Hi @Bubasa and welcome to Wikipedia editing. The general advice is at WP:LINKROT and WP:DEADREF. In this specific case you can definitely remove the URL because, as you say, the DOI works and gives access. In some other case, it may be possible to find the original URL archived at The Wayback Machine, in which case it can be rescued from there. That helps when the DOI leads to a paywall. Looking at the article in question, it would benefit from a somewhat less technical explanation in an introductory section for less mathematically competent readers! Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Michael D. Turnbull and thank you for the timely and comprehensive response. I think I will add the latest working snapshot available on The Wayback Machine. As for the introduction, I agree that it is too technical but I am far from being an expert in finite model theory and would not know how to contribute.
Once again, thank you for your guidance and support. I'm looking forward to further contributing to the Wikipedia community. Bubasa (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've tried putting in {infobox organization/Wikidata | fetchwikidata=ALL}, as instructed on that page, but it still doesn't have a lot of the data that's in the French article. Am I doing something wrong?AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AlmostReadytoFly, the English Wikipedia is stricter about providing sources than is the French Wikipedia. Everything in the infobox should have a reference, either in the article itself, or if not mentioned in the article then in the infobox. Take only the material with sources unless there is a source for it explicitly in the article. I assume much of the unsourced information comes from the organization's website so is available. If there is no reference for a field in Wikidata then add unsourced fields manually to the template with a reference instead of having that field take its data from Wikidata. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping someone could help me out, as I am stuck in an edit request process. Several months ago, I made some edits to the History section of Schott AG (I am an employee and my conflict of interest is disclosed on my user page). With my edits, I wanted to address the warning template "self-published sources" by improving the sources. As you can see on the Talk Page, I then asked if someone could remove the warning template. At this point, my effort to improve the article got lost in the Wikipedia process. After two edit requests and some back and forth, my attempts to discuss the edits with the involved Wikipedians did not go anywhere. It would be great if someone could have a look at my edits to the article and the Talk page, and help me out with this issue. Thanks in advance for your help! Elisabeth at SCHOTT (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elisabeth at SCHOTT I note that Spintendo commented at the foot of that Talk Page about 3 weeks ago to ask that you re-submit a new edit request rather than (I assume) having someone disentangle previous edits/reverts to the article to reach a version all will be happy with. I know that this will be more work for you but it does seem to be the best way forward. There is a template called {{edit COI}} which should be used (instructions a that link). I understand that there is currently no backlog for these requests, so once you have made one it should get actioned quickly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, thank you very much for your quick response! I had hoped to restore the edits I recently made, but if you think the template would be the right route, I can also submit them through that process again. I had just been a little frustrated that the Wikipedians involved on the Talk Page seemed more attached to the process than actually reviewing the content of what I thought were useful edits. Elisabeth at SCHOTT (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cambalachero The simplest way is to navigate to the article's page you are interested in and use the star symbol top right which sets/removes pages from watchlists. If you already have that page on the list, the star will be filled in black (if not it will be unfilled). Toggle to the unfilled star, then when you click to add (or re-add) the page, a menu will appear which allows a time period to be set. On talk pages, there is an alternative method for individual threads (such as this one) where you can click on the "subscribe" option to the right of the thread title. That won't add the thread to your watchlist but will instead alert you each time someone adds more content to the thread. It will also notify you with an alert when the thread is archived and no more alerts from it are to be expected. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have ran into a problem with adding related articles in different languages' links. It is that a page is protected and I cannot add the link for it. I do some editing at the Livvi Karelian side of Wikipedia, which means that I have to make pages for very very basic things. Which are protected under the English Side of Wikipedia, or any side for these basic articles. Any Help with this? NoteAStyle (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For me that is not possible for some reason? Even if it is only semi-protected. Apologies if i was not clear enough in my original message. It only gives me the "View History" option, the whole Wikidata page is protected apparently. Any Help? NoteAStyle (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NoteAStyle, could you be a bit more specific with which page and in which wiki you are trying to edit. Neither Livvi-Karelian language nor its wikidata item appear to be protected. A reminder that on Wikidata, you must press "edit" in the specific section you are trying to change, there is no "edit" button at the top of the page. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈15:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are reference desk discussions archived according to the first, not last posted comment of the discussion? In Finnish Wikipedia, the discussions in Kahvihuone (equivalent of Village pump) are archived according to last comment, and all discussions that have not got new comments over last 28 days are archived automatically. Is the archiving policy of RD also in Village pump? If it is, I don't like that. --40bus (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Village Pump uses a different bot for archiving. If you want to change how the RD is archived, you can suggest it at WT:RD. Read the previous discussion first. RudolfRed (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do the Hyphenator and Findlink tools count as "minor" edits?
I had a question regarding some automated tools. Hyphenator basically formats ISBNs with dashes and upgrades them to ISBN13 if applicable; the actual citation is not entirely different. Findlink essentially adds a wikilink to an article if there is one. My question is whether or not they count as "minor" since they don't change much about an article. I have read WP:MINOR and am still a bit confused about it so I'm asking here. Thanks in advance. Losipov (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page times out for me. Talk:Golden ratio responds normally. I tried to purge it, but although the purge prompt displayed, when I clicked 'Yes' it timed out again.
The history works, and there was an edit on 15 July, but the diff times out. Therefore I think something strange resulted from the last edit. By reverting that edit, I see that {{Circa|1876}} was replaced by c. 1876, which seems innocuous enough (though incorrect by MOS:CIRCA). I did not complete the reversion, in case there is more to it than meets the eye. -- Verbarson talkedits19:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of large mathematics pages have been slow for me recently. I was able to load golden ratio but it took a few seconds. I suspect something in the Wikimedia software, perhaps related to mathematics, rather than any recent change to that specific article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was too quick to assume it was a recent change that made the difference for me; also others have a different experience. I have just done a crude binary search of the history, and it starts timing out (for me) on 22 September 2021. That is assuming that the failure 'happened' at some moment and remained thereafter. I experienced very slow loading of pages before that point, which may indicate that it is the increasing complexity of the page/diagrams/markup/templates that causes timeout. Why it happens differently for other people I wouldn't know enough to even guess; all I can see is that it's not a local memory/processor issue as my aged Linux box is not hitting any limits. I believe there is a way of calculating the complexity of a page, in terms of templates and other high-demand items; would that give a clue? -- Verbarson talkedits21:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Math-heavy pages would not load at all for me yesterday during daytime hours (USA), but worked better late at night (presumably less server load). Something may be wonky with the math rendering plugin / the infrastructure hosting it. –jacobolus(t)16:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, perhaps, I find that previewing all three pages or opening them from the links above is as fast as usual (< 1 sec). I'm in the UK, so maybe the speed has something to do with the path through the interweb your connection takes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on reflection that idea doesn't make sense as anyone loading long non-math pages would find them all to be slow. Maybe it is a browser issue: I'm using the latest version of MS Edge which perhaps handles complex markup more quickly than other browsers? Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of variables here; it could be a caching issue, an issue with certain skins vs others, an issue with your preference settings for how mathematics should be rendered... —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Curiouser and curiouser. Loading Golden ratio (from the UK) on my
Linux laptop (using Chrome, which is basically the same as Edge these days): TIME OUT
Android phone using the Chrome browser: TIME OUT
Android phone using the Wikipedia app: LOADS INSTANTLY
(note that laptop and phone are both using the domestic router, unless the app redirects via phone data for nefarious reasons of its own)
Knowing that Chrome is not identical to Edge, and that I've just loaded one of the regular updates (Version 115.0.5790.102 (Official Build) (64-bit)) perhaps there is a bug in recent versions that has yet to be included in Edge? -- Verbarson talkedits19:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the browser is something to do with it. I've just updated to MS Edge 115.0.1901.183 (64-bit) and although two out of three maths articles still load (a bit slower) the Newton's laws of motion usually times out, although the error message "Sorry, the servers are overloaded at the moment. Too many users are trying to view this page. Please wait a while before you try to access this page again. Timeout waiting for the lock" suggests that Wikipedia's servers are also a factor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly a backend infrastructure problem rather than a browser problem. It's possible with the app you are sometimes getting a cached (possibly stale?) page or that the math rendering goes through a different pipeline than when a browser loads the page. –jacobolus(t)20:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent an inordinate number of hours editing something in a secondary sandbox. I know: Save Early Save Often or whatever. But I've been editing on Wikipedia for over a decade and nothing like this has ever happened. In any case, I wanted to preview my file, so I clicked Preview, and in the midst of my review, the current tab closed. No request for an edit summary. No window with the Leave option. Notta. I'm sure there's not much that can be done to reclaim my work, now presumably lost to the ether, but given the sequence of events, I strongly suspect there's a bug in either Preview or Sandbox. In any case, feedback would be appreciated. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just reviewed the existing file and found I had saved a couple hours ago prior to heading out to cut the lawn. So most of what was lost was formatting, an hour's work. Still, the tab's disappearance has me mystified. A Google Chrome bug is the only other explanation I can think of. Allreet (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW (which is probably not much), three or four times in the past few weeks a Windows tab or entire window I was in has just instantly vanished. I think one occasion was while I was editing on Wikipedia, and another while watching something on YouTube.
This is not something I recall happening before (in recent years, anyway), but being non-technical I just put it down to the sort of random weirdness that can happen in very complicated systems (like my PC, or The Internet), but perhaps there's something going around. I would not be surprised if it turned out to be down to Windows 11 doing something odd while surreptitiously updating. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that you are aware of what you should have done, and I have also lost many hours of work for similar inexplicable reasons: but leaving an unsaved edit box open and going out to cut the lawn really smacks of a blind faith "what could possibly go wrong?" attitude. I know that sometimes there is no point in saving a partially-finished complicated edit on a live article, because it wouldn't make any sense until it was finished. If this happens, I copy the section or entire article and paste it into a .txt file without formatting on my local device/PC, using eg Notepad. Sorry, I have no explanation of what actually happened to you. I usually press Alt-Shift-P for preview, and very occasionally I accidentally press some other key-combo and eveything goes bang like it did for you, but that's on Firefox. MinorProphet (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UFO_Sightings_by_Shape.svg){kind=link}