Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 July 29

= July 29 =

Avoiding duplication of external linking on a page
I'm creating a new page that mentions the Connecticut Maritime Association (CMA), which isn't on Wikipedia, so I'm adding CMA to the External Links section of my page. In my first mention of CMA, I could add an external link or link internally to my own page's External Links section. It seems to make sense to do the later to avoid unnecessary duplication. What is Wikipedia's convention for this situation? Also, if I link to a section that is internal to the page, do I merely specify, eg, #ExternalLinks | Connecticut Maritime Association between double brackets? Thanks. Illuminer2 (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Current convention is to do none of the above. Just mention them by name in the prose. If you're using them as a reference, reference them with the instructions at WP:REFB. If they are closely associated with the subject, I'd put a link in the external links and leave it at that. For instance, if a person created a foundation (and the foundation didn't have an independent article), we might link to the foundation's web page in the Ext. Links section. But this is just a guess since you haven't told us what the subject of the article that you're writing is. It would help if we had more information. Dismas |(talk) 17:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you answered my question! The subject of the article (soon to be posted for review) is Albany Maritime Ministry, which participates in CMA. CMA has no Wikipedia article, so I already had it in the External Links list; am pleased to let that suffice, given your answer. (I was just worried that I had sufficiently annotated the article, since this is my first Wikipedia article and I see Wikipedia's articles use abundant references/links. Temperance!) Illuminer2 (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello just in case you haven't seen it yet: WP:External links is the guideline regarding the usage of external links, with links that are usually OK (in an EL section), or may be OK but need editorial judgement, or should normally be avoided. GermanJoe (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Belated thanks for your helpful advice; I'm all set. Illuminer2 (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparent bug in Wikimedia Software
Hi, I am not really sure, what is the cause of this, but I cannot see more recent changes on this very page as well as Reference desk/Mathematics (I have not checked other pages). For me, the TOC of this page ends with "4.8 Spam e-mail" of July 28 and so does the page. In "View history" the last entry I see is "18:30, 28 July 2016‎ MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk | contribs)‎ . . (80,504 bytes) (+1,820)‎ . . (→‎Page view stats: reply) (undo)". If I look at version comparisons, I can step through to see newer edits. If I edit the page and then show a preview I see it presumably in its current version (last point in the TOC being "4.1 Avoiding duplication of external linking on a page" of July 29.

I am using Firefox 47.0.1 with noscript (I tried it with or without allowing javascript, but there is no difference) and https everywhere. However, deactivating both these add-ons did not change anything. Does anybody have similar issues? -- 134.76.84.240 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think non-logged-in users get a cached version of the page.  Try purging the cache to see if it helps.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purge RudolfRed (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Why No Text In Article?
Hi, I've edited the article Citizen science but the text that I've added through the editing page doesn't appear in the article, even though the edits appear on the edited section. It does appear when I'm logged on! The section is: Citizen_science where the text is unchanged from earlier, despite the edits that are there if looking at the editing page. When I'm logged on, the additions are noted in the history page, but disappear when I log off or go to the article 'afresh'. It is a if the article hasn't updated. But why do I see it when logged on? Very odd... Please help. Richard Nowell (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You may need to bypass your cache. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is at our end so a cache bypass in the user's browser doesn't help. Many pages currently have to be purged for unregistered users to see the current version. I have reported it at Village pump (technical). PrimeHunter (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replies. So I can't do anything as it's a technical problem? I'd rather not try purging the article myself if it can be avoided. I've tried clearing caches and using different browsers all to no effect.Richard Nowell (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Purging is what you can do. Without a purge it will eventually show the current version to unregistered users but there is no way so say when. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I purged the page using the purge gadget, which has worked. I can now view the text as normal when not logged in. Another contributor has also edited the article, which might have helped. Problem solved so thanks! Richard Nowell (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When adding new material to the above article and section, I have had the same problem. When logged off, I could only see it when I had purged the page (when logged on). Interestingly, the link to the section in Village Pump/technical only works when I'm logged on. I'm adding a reply to that section to cross-reference.Richard Nowell (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Help with a chart
I have a technical request regarding a chart. I am a steady editor of Kodak Black and today an editor added a chart called "List of singles, with showing year released, peak chart positions and album name". That editor added sources (YouTube videos), but when I looked at the text under the YouTube videos they do not support all of the edits. According to the sources cited, "No Flockin" and "Skrilla" are not from the album "Heart of the Projects", and "Like Dat" is not from the album "Institution". I have no idea how to alter the chart to show that. From looking at it, two more horizontal lines need to be added under "album"; "Heart of the Projects" need to be moved down so it only corresponds with "SKRT", and "Institution" needs to be removed. If someone there is a chart expert I'd really appreciate your help! Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

attributing free content correctly
How do I attribute free content correctly? I've created my first page about an artist. I added copy from her bio, with full permission from her, that's on her website.

Lauradipiazza (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Convenience link:
 * , text from a subject's personal web site is almost never acceptable to use en masse. Or even in limited quantities. That is because it is generally very promotional in tone. We strive for a neutral point of view. So phrases like "...demonstrates a fascinating balance between emotionality and restraint." is overly promotional and not suitable for an encyclopedia.
 * We should basically be getting all of our information about subjects from what other sources have said about that subject. Please see WP:RS and WP:BIO for a start. Dismas |(talk) 21:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We should basically be getting all of our information about subjects from what other sources have said about that subject. Please see WP:RS and WP:BIO for a start. Dismas |(talk) 21:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)