Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 November 22

= November 22 =

Cite within cite?
I wish to cite an old journal article (which has Google Book link) for whom the author is not explicitly stated. However, the identity of the author is apparent from another source for which I have a Google Book link. How can I include this info in the cite? (I'd use the quote field, but it adds quotation marks.) Humanengr (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . This is tricky but there is some support. See Help:Footnotes which I think is up to date. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx . I see refn puts ref inside a note. What I was thinking of was the reverse — a note inside a ref. I can make refn work, but think the reverse makes more sense here. Humanengr (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I made it work well enough. Thx for your help. :) Humanengr (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Images in a navbox
Could someone please help arrange the images so there is no white space?


 * Template:Heroes and villains

Many thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Improving draft article: Draft:List of India international footballers
1. How to add automatic numbering in the table?.

2. How to do left alignment in table in visual editing ?.

3. Source editing not working (only able to view). row-indexer not working in visual editing.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Curnews (talk • contribs) 08:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The response was here.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing my own edits under pending changes.
I am a pending changes reviewer so I ought to know the answer to this. I saw an edit to Selfie which I felt wasn't vandalism but which I didn't think was an improvement. So, rather than accept or reject it I simply made my own edit undoing the earlier one and making another change at the same time. To my surprise I saw both changes flagged as "pending review". I therefore "accepted" the earlier edit and now just my edit is under review. I am reluctant to review by own edit although I suppose my edits are being auto reviewed quite a lot without me realising. Should I have accepted my own later edit? Is this allowed (maybe it wouldn't work if I tried)? Would it have been far better if I had accepted the other editor's edit first before making mine? Thincat (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * when there's a pending edit, any further edits are also tagged as pending. As far as I'm concerned, it's fine to review your own edits.  It's easier if you accept/decline an edit, then edit the article (if necessary).  Sometimes I forget to accept an edit before I fix any issues, which means I have to review both the pending edit and my fixes.  My fixes would have been auto-accepted anyway, so it's not really "cheating". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That seems right to me even though it does go rather against the grain. Thincat (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Laszlo Bartok page
Hello,

I recently edited Laszlo Bartok's page (the Olympic rower) and added some biographical information. However, I was unable to cite it because it is information that was given to me by his nephew (along with permission to use it). I would be more than happy to provide information to the administrator of the page about how this information came to me. I would also be willing to give her/him? pictures of Laszlo rowing, but I don't know how to contact them.

Sincerely, A Bartok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anibv (talk • contribs) 13:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All information in articles must be verifiable to a reliable source that is documented somewhere; we cannot accept personal knowledge as a source, no matter how accurate it might be. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you own the copyright of the images, or if you have reason to believe the copyright has expired in your country, you can upload them here]. If they are still copyright, and not yours, we can't accept them Jimfbleak - talk to me?  11:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Same article twice in a navbox
Hi, I just edited a Navbox with multiple sections. There was an article listed under one section that could also belong in another section. I added the article, and removed the link from the second mention, like you would do for article links. My question is, is that correct, or should I have left both mentions of the article within the Navbox as wikilinks? Or maybe I shouldn't have added the second mention at all, and left the article in the section to which it was more relevant? Thanks, ARR8 (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a matter of editorial judgement, and you are an editor, just like the rest of us. Do what makes the article look best in your own judgement. The default guidance is "link the first instance", but if all the other entries in the second list are links, then you may decide that not linking the second entry makes the second list look funny and decide to link it anyway. -Arch dude (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That makes sense; I thought there might have been some policies for navboxes or similar templates, but evidently not, so I'll leave things as I put them. ARR8 (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Contents Panel
I am correcting a colleague's Wikipedia entry. I cannot find where the contents panel is located in the source code and would be grateful for help. PaulBirkett (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The table of contents is generated automatically from the section headings, see H:TOC. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)