Help desk
< January 26	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 28 >

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 27

Six Million Articles

I see that the English Wikipedia expanded to and slightly beyond six million articles this past week. What article was added that incremented the count to 6,000,000? If there is an automated way to query this, what is it? In any case, what article was number six million? (And what article was number five million, and when?) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WT:Six million articles and WT:Five million articles#Thread for determining 5 millionth article. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sum

I look at the revision history of a page. It shows the most recent editor to have made changes to the page. The editor made multiple consecutive edits. After clicking on "Prev", I can click on Rollback, which will revert all those changes without an edit summary, mark my edit as minor, and tag it as "Rollback". There is also something called "Sum" I can click on. It does all the same things as Rollback but allows me to write an edit summary explaining the revert. Where does "Sum" come from?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: This tool adds a "Sum" link: User:Gracenotes/rollback.js. Do you have it installed?

(ec) @Bbb23: Maybe User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js, run by your User:Bbb23/common.js? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to sign, RudolfRed, but you're correct, it's the Gracenotes script. My god, I installed that back in 2010! So, I have a few questions. Is there a parameter I can use on the script that will prevent it from tagging my reverts as Rollback? From marking it as minor? If no, is there another tool that will accomplish the same thing, i.e., only one click, but without the collateral baggage? Is there a setting in Twinkle that would do it? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I (can I?) reuse a book citation but with a different page number?

I'm working on a draft and I need to cite the same book twice, but different page numbers. I currently have text something like this (I've used nowiki here so you can see the formatting):

> Montier reportedly added two rear seats hanging over the back of the rear axle to comply with the ACO regulations;<ref name="Spurring">{{Cite book|last=Spurring|first=Quentin|date=2015|title=Le Mans 1923–29|location=Yeovil|publisher=[[Haynes Publishing]]|ISBN=978-1-91050-508-3|page=76-7}}</ref>

> Montier returned to Le Mans in 1924 with his modified Ford special, now fitted with 4-wheel brakes. Again Montier drove it himself with his brother-in-law Albert Ouriou.<ref name="Spurring110">{{Cite book|last=Spurring|first=Quentin|date=2015|title=Le Mans 1923–29|location=Yeovil|publisher=[[Haynes Publishing]]|ISBN=978-1-91050-508-3|page=110}}</ref>

I was hoping I could avoid the redundancy of the second citation by using something like <ref name="Spurring" page="110"/> but I can't find a way to do it. Is it possible?

Please ping me if you reply. Thanks! --kingboyk (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Referencing for beginners#Page references. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rp makes for interesting reading... not widely used, soon to be deprecated by built in functionality for book referencing, but appears to do the job I need. Presumably if it's deprecated a bot will come along and clean up the mess... I'll give this a go, thanks for the pointer. --kingboyk (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does the job. Thanks very much indeed. --kingboyk (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingboyk: {{Rp}} (or {{R}}) is what I use. Just a note, though, it can look confusing if you have multiple references. Normally, this looks like:

blah blah blah.^[1][2][3]

But if you use {{Rp}} on cites 1 and 2, it can be tough for readers to parse:

blah blah blah.^{[1]:23[2]:1[3]}

My solution to this is to put the Rp'd cites at the end of the stack and put a space after each complete cite, like this:

blah blah blah.^{[3] [1]:23 [2]:1}

or maybe with commas?

blah blah blah.^{[3], [1]:23, [2]:1}

This may have been discussed somewhere, but I don't think my few uses have been reverted. It's certainly better than having to maintain duplicate cites. There's also the "two-hop" method using {{Sfn}}, which is probably more often used, at least in articles that already employ that style of referencing. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this page have only 500 objects?

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutube.com

toolforge:linksearch has the same feature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imabouttonut (talk • contribs) 08:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has thousands. It only lists 500 at a time. Click the next 500 link. - X201 (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Imabouttonut: And if you want more than 500 at a time, you can modify the URL to change the "limit=500" to a larger limit. -Arch dude (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a breif about a very well known public figure "Sheikh Mahmoud El Tohamy"

Dear Wikipedia Team,

please I need to send you a brief on Sheikh Mahmoud El Tohamy to publish on Wikipedia. Can you please advise how do I send you the info that I need you to publish.

thanks, Nada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.65.78.81 (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First you need to read WP:Notability (people), then (if you are confident that the subject is notable by Wikipedia's definition) you can read the guidance at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you are in the right place? Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is and is not. Wikipedia is not just another news, forum, blog/webhost, promotional/advertising/directory, or social networking site. It is a place for serious, collaborative, scholarly assembly of knowledge about notable subjects into a high-quality encyclopedia, with verifiable references to independent, reliable sources. Many people come here with other expectations and have a difficult time as a result.

Just sending a "brief" to someone is not really the way things work here. If you want to publish an article, and feel like you have the skills to write one that meets Wikipedia's criteria for content and style (it's one of the hardest things to do here, especially for someone new), then you may create a draft, and submit it to WP:AFC, where it will be reviewed by experienced editors, usually in 2–12 weeks. It is expected to be substantially complete – we are all volunteers here – there is nobody whose job it is to fill in/correct/expand on a stub article. That's not to say that nobody will take an interest in it and help it along, but it's not something you should expect.

That brings up the last point: a Wikipedia article about you is not necessarily a good thing, which you may also want to read (along with the other blue links above). If you have a relationship to the subject of the article, paid or not, you should read WP:COI and WP:PAID and must make the required disclosures as required by the terms of service. There are also other platforms, like those listed at WP:OUT, which may be better suited to your purpose. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page name incorrect

Please check the page Draft:International_Bakery_Magazine

Could you assist in removing the word draft from the title — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darmy1983 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. Wikipedia is not for promotion, so you would need to remove all the advertising wording, and the draft would need to include references to coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject to demonstrate notabilty in Wikipedia's terms. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Darmy1983: I'm afraid not; that is a draft article which needs to be submitted for review. This is done by placing {{subst:submit}} at the top of the source. Hwoever, if you do so, it will be declined as (in accordance with the articles for creation comment already left by a reviewer) it is promotional and therefore outside the scope of the encyclopedia. It also has little, if anything, in the way of references. Please see WP:GNG and more specifically WP:NMAGAZINE. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has now been deleted. Maproom (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most frequently looked up - UK

I saw a (worldwide) list of the top 25 most popular searched articles. Is there an equivalent for the UK? Thanks Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl LV Logo

What No Super Bowl LV Logo Still (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question about using Wikipedia we can help you with? --Jayron 32 17:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly set a talk page to the wrong title

I meant to 'move' the main title to correct a typo, but accidentally set the talk page instead. How do I revert, and start over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blauschwein (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: All Saints' Church — Ashmont. Blauschwein intended to move this to All Saints Church — Ashmont but accidentally moved Talk:All Saints' Church — Ashmont there instead. I haven't tried to sort it out, but I think it needs an admin. --ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~ I have managed to correct this by setting the main page to the entity's legal name, Parish of All Saints - Ashmont. So this is request CLOSED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blauschwein (talk • contribs) 17:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Blauschwein: Not completed, because the talk page is sitting at All Saints Church — Ashmont. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: That's because I originally moved the talk page to that link, not the article. Now I think I blew up the small discussion on the talk page. Blauschwein (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me with exact instructions if you need admin help with this. --kingboyk (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a talk page associated with the original All Saints' Church – Ashmont (note the apostrophe) and I mistakenly assigned talk to All_Saints_Church_—_Ashmont. It should be the talk page to Parish_of_All_Saints_—_Ashmont Blauschwein (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Blauschwein:

Done Parish of All Saints — Ashmont now has it's talk page back. I'm not sure about the use of '—' in the title though. How does one even type that? --kingboyk (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingboyk, Generally, they don't. Tempted to move it to Parish of All Saints Ashmont or similar moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonythedwarf: That would be acceptable. (On the mac the em-dash is option hyphen) Blauschwein (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blauschwein, For me, with the Compose Key set up, it's Alt + - + - + -. If I didn't have compose set up, I couldn't type it at all. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a moment please before moving anything--kingboyk (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Kingboyk, Oh, foo! Too late. Sorry! moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks I like I was too late with my request to wait :) Anyway: According to WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)

The MACRIS link calls the establishment "All Saints Church". The parish site says "All Saints". I'd contend that "All Saints Church" is the natural name choice here.

All Saints Church is of course already occupied. The style used on that disambiguation page appears to be "All Saints Church, Placename". So, by my reckoning, the name you are looking for is All Saints Church, Ashmont.

I have to go out now. --kingboyk (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The most important word in that organization name is Ashmont, and many in the area refer to the place as simply that. website is https://allsaints.net and I am affiliated with the organization. Blauschwein (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are looking for Parish of All Saints Ashmont (with or without the em dash). The organization does not use the word 'church' in its name. Blauschwein (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

but the comma would be appropriate; it's on the website Blauschwein (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Blauschwein: The article infobox uses the name All Saints Church. It is on the national register as All Saints' Church. It is on the The Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS) as All Saints Church. The correct page name must surely be All Saints Church, Ashmont, or all these resources wrong?

That you are "affiliated with the organization" is of no interest to me. As I've already explained, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). And let's be clear: The article is about the church building, not the organisation you represent.

I'm sorry if my tone has turned a little harsh, but I am here to ensure that we implement Wikipedia editorial guidelines not pander to the whims of external organisations. Issues like this are exactly why conflict of interest warnings get issued.

@Moonythedwarf: Do you have any further thoughts on the article name? --kingboyk (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingboyk and Moonythedwarf: You've been quite helpful. We'll be adding updated content and photos soon. Officialdom has been contacted. Blauschwein (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I visited the COI page and the concern is well noted. I trust Wikipedia (and contribute) and I want to keep it trustworthy. The intent is to provide some brief updated factual information regarding the architecture and some history, and add some photos. It will not be promotional in character, and no names mentioned. Feel free to put a tracker on the page if you haven't already. ADDENDUM: I will be doing the submission and will do it through a talk page for Wiki admins to evaluate. Blauschwein (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would likely be far more helpful to Wikipedia, and appreciated, if you worked on articles you are not connected to, and left the subjects you have personal connections to be edited by neutral 'uninterested' editors. If you do go ahead and add history, please ensure it is backed up by reliable sources and that citations are provided. [ADDENDUM belatedly noted: that sounds like a better idea, thanks]

That said, a better quality photo, suitably licenced, would definitely be welcome. --kingboyk (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorting through images, including my own, to make sure we have a suitable one (or more?). I have posted the one suggested change with a reference to an outside publication. You will note it's a modest edit. In this geographical area and in the arena in which it most well-known, organists, it is 'All Saints Ashmont' (much in the same way All Saints Beverly Hills is referenced). The word 'church' is rarely used in reference to this, um, church...but it's your website. My association is intermittent and not professional, and I am not a member. Blauschwein (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blauschwein (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints' Episcopal Church (Beverly Hills, California)?

Anyway: Thanks for the reply. I think that's more than enough pontificating from me. Good luck with your edits. --kingboyk (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pontificating... cue rimshot. Blauschwein (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of games with Gold

We are asking to put back the article of the list of games with Gold. It would really help especially us who are an avid fan of Xbox and also a gamer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.1.174.30 (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. I have no idea what you are talking about, but it sounds as if you are asking for a deleted article to be restored. You need to give us the correct name of the article to find that. I have no idea what "Gold" might mean, and Gold (disambiguation) doesn't seem to have any relevant entries.

Deletion normally happens after a discussion, which you can read if we can find the deleteion log; but no article called "List of games with Gold" appears to have been deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: I'd wager they're referring to this. --kingboyk (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Games with Gold games (2nd nomination). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to write an edit summary when using rollback?

How to write an edit summary when using rollback?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, this is not possible.
Dominic035 Talk Contribs My Sandbox 21:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SharabSalam: There is an alternative approach which achieves what you asked for, but takes longer than using rollback: you can go the history tab, click on the version you want to roll back to, and click Edit. Enter an edit summary, and save the page. The old version will be restored and your edit summary will be in the page history. --kingboyk (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try using Twinkle. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References not appearing correctly when using reflist

File:Image 2020-01-27 at 5.48.10 PM

I am using named references with a ref list on this article (screenshot provided) but for some reason a number of the references aren't appearing in the reference section at the end. The first 4 have worked, but the rest of them do not appear. There is no difference (that I can see) with the way I've written these references from the first four.

The page is on my sandbox, I'm not sure if it is accessible to anyone but the link is here: User:Aidandiprima/sandbox

I'm following the reflist reference style listed here: Help:List-defined_references

Any help would be appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidandiprima (talk • contribs) 22:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aidandiprima: On all named references from the one following the text Mirella gave birth to Hagar that year. to the end, you have used different quotation marks. I'm not sure if the difference will show up properly here, but you will need to replace all instances of ” with ", which have been used in the first four references. Easiest thing to do would be to copy/paste the whole article text from the edit window into Notepad or something similar and do a Find/Replace on all instances of ”, replacing them with ", then paste back into the Edit window and save. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 23:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wkipedia doesn't use curly quotes. Ref names are surrounded by straight quotes, not curly quotes. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]