Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 February 20

= February 20 =

How do I edit the template?
How do I edit the template? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are not familiar with template coding, I suggest you post at Template talk:Infobox film awards with a general description of the change you'd like to make. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no traffic whatsoever on that page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There may be even less traffic in your own brain. >MinorProphet (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to apologise for my unnecessary and unhelpful comment above. Sorry. MinorProphet (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But what prompted that?  There is no traffic on that page, correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by traffic. If you post a question, someone may well be listening. >MinorProphet (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But, doubtful.  No edits on the page in a year or more.  And no watchers of the page.  So I figured I had a better chance here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is the article title in italics?
This is referring to the following article (Red Ben de Lisi dress of Kate Winslet), and all similar articles. Why is the article title in italics? How can we change that? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you see something and you can't find it in the wikitext always check the templates that are used on the page. Per Template:Infobox artwork, all articles that use that infobox will also have an italic title. You can turn it off with a parameter. --Majora (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I never know how to fiddle with templates.  They are very confusing and not user-friendly at all.  The documentation is notoriously difficult to comprehend.  Why would the words of that type of article "demand" to be italicized?  I don't know how to shut it off, or even if it should be shut off.  But I cannot imagine it is accurate that the "name" of a dress should be in italics.  So, I am asking.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * At the top of Template:Infobox artwork is a box explaining its use of the "italic title" feature: "If this is not required, add |italic title=no to the list of parameters". I have done this to the article with this edit. The template defaults to italics because MOS:ITALIC says that the names of most artworks should be set in italics. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Then, I guess that a dress is considered a "work of art"?  Oh, brother ... Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Not necessrily, . Somebody has decided that infobox artwork is the most appropriate one for that article. That does not constitute considering it a "work of art", since that phrase does not appear in the visible text. If you think it is inappropriate, you are quite at liberty to edit the article to use a different infobox, to propose that the infobox be renamed, or to create a new one. The fact that somebody has provided "italic title=no" as a parameter suggests that somebody thought the infobox would be applicable more widely than titled works of art. --ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Info boxes and templates are notoriously difficult to edit, unless one is very tech-savvy and "good" with that type of computer language (HTML or whatever it is). The documentation is also very difficult to understand.  These are rarely user-friendly.  As a result, I "stay away" from editing info boxes and templates.  I would cause more harm than good.  Needless to say, I find it quite silly that dresses are considered "works of art" (at least for info box purposes).  And, quite frankly, I am stunned that we even have articles on dresses like these!  These are notable?  Oh, brother.  I somehow just happened to stumble across these.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There isn't an infobox for every type of topic so editors sometimes find one that can be used without being a perfect fit. We actually do have Infobox clothing item for dresses but it was created after the article. I have converted to it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I just fixed the hideously contorted lead in this article. The others listed in Academy Award dresses probably need looking at too if anyone is interested in helping.--ukexpat (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested_moves
Could someone fix this section Requested_moves. There's some spurious text right under the header:

Thanks --76.14.85.215 (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That was fixed at Requested moves/Technical requests a few hours ago. I have just purged the Requested moves page, so the display of that page should be correct now. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:V; Things to source??
The things it says that are acceptable sources seems like a labyrinth to me. I'm seeing stuff that says to specifically refer to academics and then other tangible, but do all references have to be tangible? Are web-based news sites allowed? This confusion with the policy is why I'm shy to add facts or make new articles. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, web-based sources are allowed, . In fact, all other things being equal, web-based sources are preferred, because it is easier for readers to check them. What is crucial is that they are reliable, i.e. have editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Some web-based sites meet this test; others don't (and it's not always an all-or-nothing test: it may depend on just what information it is being used to support). --ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Strange gap in reference text
If you look at ref 1 in User:Penbat/So (sentence opener) it says:
 * "SO wrong! Why John Humphrys is in a rage at such a little word after..........it invades everyday speech Sam Creighton Daily Mail 20 Jun 2015"

Any ideas ? --Penbat (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * asks for the reference text to be displayed in two columns. This does give strange results when there are only one or two references -- John of Reading (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK thanks :-) --Penbat (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Minor formatting problem in infobox film
Hi, In the infobox for The Miracle (1912 film), there is an unwanted empty line between the release dates for Germany and Argentina. I have tried several times to get rid of it, but I don't seem to be able to fix this very minor problem. Any ideas, please? >MinorProphet (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what is happening there. The gap appears between the last two items in the list of release dates. The actual items, and their order, does not affect this. Maproom (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @MinorProphet: I tried pulling the Argentina start date back to the prior and then using an html break and that did work – except that it moved the same spacing problem back to the prior start date. So I pulled back the next, and it fixed it there too, but that once again moved the space problem to the prior. So I just replaced all the hard breaks with html breaks, and that worked. I have no idea of the cause though. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The extra vertical space results from improper (read missing) list markup. The original markup caused MediaWiki to wrap the UK–Germany release dates in a  tag; Argentina was not included.  The proper solution to this problem is to use some form of list markup.  Per WP:VLIST use of  is probably the best option.  Rewrite the list like this:

December 21, 1912 (UK)

February 17, 1913 (USA)

March 24, 1913 (Netherlands)

December 29, 1913 (Australia)

May 15, 1914 (Germany)

January 29, 1916 (Argentina)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you're supposed to use film date, and, according to WP:FILMRELEASE and WP:FILMDIST, not include release dates or distributors outside of the original one for the film's nationality. In this case, that would mean only the British release date and distributor should be listed.  I can go through an clean this up, but it looks like it would be kind of time-consuming to sort it all out.  I'll get to it later if nobody else does. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you to everyone for your timely accumulated responses. I have moved almost everything down to the 'Performances' section, leaving info for the originating country only in the infobox. Thanks all, >MinorProphet (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Essential Mix episodes
I am trying to clean up the List of Essential Mix episodes article to remove massive amounts of spam links. Other editors keep adding spam links into the article, after I remove them, and so it's difficult to make any progress in the cleanup. What is the best way to get help with this? Teh ( talk  •  contributions ) 17:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The spam links I see there are to download sites, offering material that is, I assume, copyrighted by the BBC. If what those sites are doing is illegal, that would be an excellent reason for deleting the links, and maybe blacklisting the sites. Maproom (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Update a Picture
Hi there, Could anyone update the first picture on the University of Bristol page? The crest used currently on the wiki page is not the official one (it is for the alumni). Could anyone do this?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bristolian00 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This question has also been asked at WP:MCQ and responded to. ww2censor (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

What will you do to pages that get too big
This is not a question on how to use or edit Wikipedia, but just out of curiosity, I just wanted to know what will you do to pages that have too much coverage of the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocus47 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of it might be deleted; or the articles might be split into two or more. Maproom (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, now I know what to do with articles. Eurocus47 (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your question may involve one of at least two situations. First, the article has too much coverage of the topic because it contains unnecessary information, contains an indiscriminate collection of information, contains trivia, contains irrelevant material, et cetera.  Second, the article is too long because the topic requires a great deal of information to be fully encyclopedic.  In the first case, the excessive information can be removed.  In the second case, the article can be split.  In either case, you should discuss on the talk page before taking action.  If other editors disagree with you, read the dispute resolution policy and follow one of the procedures for resolving content disputes, such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You may also find it useful to read WP:SPLIT. ww2censor (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific page you are concerned with? Tiggerjay (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrongful use of information
Ok, so on this page Calcium nitrate I noticed their was something missing under the uses section. So I added another use and cited my website. My citation was deleted, but my information was kept. Why is this and/or how is this allowed? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.87.160 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You added a sentence to calcium nitrate, with a poorly-presented reference. Then Mysterious Whisper rewrote what you had written, making it more accurate, and replaced the reference you had given by a correctly formatted reference to a more reliable source. Such actions (both yours and MW's) are not only allowed, they are encouraged. That is how Wikipedia gets better. Maproom (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposing Additional Twinkle Warnings
If I have seen certain types of disruptive editing more than once that do not have their own Twinkle warnings, and I would like to have new Twinkle warnings added, what is the proper place to make that request? (In particular, the two offenses are the removal of MFD templates (AFD template removal and CSD template removal have their own warnings) and the removal of AFC comments.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk:Twinkle?--ukexpat (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)