Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 January 20

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 20

New look is awful how do I revert it so it's usable again?

see title I can't use it like this in just the middle 1/5th of my screen.

Are you asking about a sudden change to Wikipedia's appearance? It is because the default skin has changed from the Vector legacy (2010) skin to the new Vector (2022) skin. If you would like to change back to the old one, you can, as a registered user, click on the in the top-right corner and choose Preferences. Once there, go to Preferences → Appearance → Skins → Vector legacy (2010).
If you would like to leave feedback, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. Cullen328 (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, @Cullen328: I also just logged in for the first time this week and I was shocked; I thought I had broken something. But it sounds like somebody did this intentionally? And they decided not to let the users know about it? Is there a process where users can give feedback, and perhaps get this change reverted to something more usable for editors and readers?--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, you can comment at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022 if you want. It looks unlikely that the new default skin will be reverted at this point, but all registered editors have the option of selecting a different skin as described in multiple threads above. Vector 2010 which I use is still available, as is Monobook, a favorite of some senior editors. The situation is more problematic for casual readers who use Wikipedia without an account and without advanced technical skills. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

If WMF really does refuse to listen to their users and insists on this horrendous forced downgrade, it's time to fork the project. Hope they've enjoyed all the free money over the years. They sure enjoyed some cozy sinecures. But no one should be giving them any more money and should be diverting it to a project fork. The power has clearly gone to their heads and it's time to move on. Still holding out hope that they will do the right thing, but if not - fork it. 2600:1700:1471:2550:4920:A572:D62A:79E4 (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggested languages list too long

It seems that the Wikipedia interface has changes. Earlier I could switch between languages simply be clicking on the left. Now I have to select the language from the box in the top right corner (at least 2 clicks).

The problem is that in that box I have 11 suggested languages if I'm logged in. How can I remove languages from that list? I would like to select which languages are my suggested languages and I would like to choose the order of the suggested languages. Usually, you would like to have the languages you use often in the top of that list. Now there is a language, which I don't understand and won't use.

The system should not add new languages if you just check one article by other language. 2001:14BA:2BF7:F700:DEED:3CF1:ABF7:4582 (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

A better place to put suggestions on Vector 2022 is WT:VECTOR2022, where the skin's designers will be looking. One of the key 'benefits' of Vector 2022 is supposed to be the prominence of the language switcher.

I don't know how to exclude languages from the language switcher, again ask at WT:VECTOR2022 and you are probably going to get a better answer. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

OK. I'll ask there. 2001:14BA:2BF7:F700:B26:BF56:169:9663 (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Delete My Account

Is it me or Delete My Account has disappeared? Iamfeature (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Iamfeature There has never been an option to delete an account, because that is not possible, for technical and legal reasons. You may just abandon your account, or you may be able to request a vanishing. 331dot (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Iamfeature You aren't able to 'delete' your account, however as above you can request your account be be vanished, or you can simply stop using it altogether. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 01:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Articles

How do I access articles??? Jesse Lee Lawson (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

You can access articles through the search bar or following wikilinks. If you're using New Vector (the new default), the search bar is in the top of the screen.

Are you asking about a sudden change to Wikipedia's appearance? It is because the default skin has changed from the Vector legacy (2010) skin to the new Vector (2022) skin. If you would like to change back to the old one, you can, as a registered user, click on the in the top-right corner and choose Preferences. Once there, go to Preferences → Appearance → Skins → Vector legacy (2010).
If you would like to leave feedback, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. Happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 08:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The new look...

DON'T LIKE IT!!! Especially annoying are the following: No warning was given nor user input solicited -- especially disappointing for a site that claims to operate by consensus rather than by top-down fiat; no "Switch to Classic View" option is provided; and you missed a golden opportunity to make some changes that would be truly useful, such as, say, reformatting edit histories so that information is in easy-to-search columns. Much less ham-fisted would have been to provide a link to a mobile-device-friendly view.--2603:6081:8040:E92C:6472:3CDB:7734:2B37 (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

while I cannot help you with most of the above, registered users can change back to the old look (or to Monobook for a more classic look). additionally, there was and still is (even in the updated design) a link at the bottom of the page to switch to mobile-friendly or not. happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 08:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you asking about a sudden change to Wikipedia's appearance? It is because the default skin has changed from the Vector legacy (2010) skin to the new Vector (2022) skin. If you would like to change back to the old one, you can, as a registered user, click on the in the top-right corner and choose Preferences. Once there, go to Preferences → Appearance → Skins → Vector legacy (2010).
If you would like to leave feedback, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

how to unhide contents

On the new look Wikipedia, there is an option to hide the contents on the left hand side of a page. I did that, but I cannot find a way to get Wikipedia to show me the contents again! 95.147.76.19 (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

When the table of contents is hidden, an icon appears just to the left of the page header. Clicking that shows you the table of contents, with an option to move it back to the left sidebar. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

I don't understand what you mean by "the page header".

A haven't seen any icon appear anywhere on the page where I now really regret choosing the option to hide the contents.

Could you be more specific in your reply e.g. an image of what the icon looks like and where it is actually supposed to appear please? 95.147.76.19 (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It should appear like a bulleted list next to the page title. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.

I tried it on another page, and yes, when I hid the contents, a bulleted list did appear to the left of the page title.

However, on the original page, no such bulleted list has appeared 95.147.76.19 (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

What is the page name? Generally, though, a table of contents is only generated (regardless of the currently active skin) on pages with 4 or more subheadings. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Section linking shenanigans

I recently added a new rfc to {{centralized discussion}}. However I later found that clicking on the link to section of a page while on that page would not jump if it has spaces. Is there a reason this is so? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: I have no trouble being brought to the relevant section when spaces or underscores were used.

ETA: I should add that I'm using Google Chrome and the Vector 2022 skin. (Added 16:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

For me, if I go to WP:VPR and click on the first link I don’t get jumped on chrome or Firefox. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: Same for me, a link with underscores opens the page scrolled to the section, while a link with spaces opens the page at its top. Tested with Google Chrome, logged in (with the MonoBook skin, if that matters) and MS Edge, logged out. --CiaPan (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I also reproduced this in Waterfox. I’ll add underscores for now. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a new bug reported in phab:T327467. Underscores do not fix it. I fixed it by omitting the page name on the page itself.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Aaron Liu (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library worked then stopped working?

Two months ago I got a notice that I am eligible for using the Wikipedia Library. That's terrific since I was/am unemployed and can no longer get things like JSTOR via a university library. Today I went to read a JSTOR library and I am getting a screen saying I am not eligible? Any ideas why this has happened? I did use it on and off, but have not for a few weeks. Thanks for any help/advice! gobears87 (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

You have to access through https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url=http://www.jstor.org/ , the link on Wikipedia library Aaron Liu (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

denied!

Yup. I did. gobears87 (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, what happens when you go to https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ and log in first before scrolling down and pressing JSTOR? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I get a message to log out and log back in. I did that three times now. Also saw to clear cache etc and have done that too! gobears87 (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I can see an email for help so I guess I will try that next! It's bizarre though that it worked, that it still tells me I am eligible, and yet I get denied. :-( gobears87 (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gobears87: I believe one of the requirements for TWL access is to have made at least 10 edits to Wikimedia projects within the last month. That may be the issue. DanCherek (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure once you fulfill the requirements you can use the library forever unless you’re blocked Aaron Liu (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It's on a rolling basis – see Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library/Archive 7#10+ edits in the last month, for instance. DanCherek (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Well that makes some sense. Guess I'll go and edit. (Now wishing I hadn't passed up all the small edits I saw needed recently. Sigh.) gobears87 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

p.s. interestingly I am an occasional editor only, though for many many years... I don't even remember doing that many edits in a week. I suppose people can cheat the system though? If I see three edits needed on one page I can go in and out and do separate edits. I would agree with the person on the link you added - after 23k edits they should be eligible. I don't know if they take suggestions but maybe it should only block people if they are inactive over something like two weeks? Just a thought. gobears87 (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok UPDATE and questions. My notifications show that I was eligible for the Library "2 months" ago. And I know I used it then.How long does the eligibility last? One week on a calendar or a week from the date you become eligible? I would swear I used it past then but no proof, too hard to check.

Second question: I just looked at my contributions list (you can check) and I didn't actually make many edits at all in the past few months. Certainly not 10 in a week. So was it some weird goof that I was made eligible? Or do they actually count ONE edit session that includes several changes? (doubtful but looking at my history it is perplexing at best!) gobears87 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gobears87 You'll get more expert help if you ask at WT:The Wikipedia Library. That's a specific place for Library questions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, looked for something like that but didn't come across this link. Appreciated. gobears87 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Can I get an outside view point

I removed this content [2] which to me seems to very advertisement, plus the user has a COI with the content. Today RearzJacob restored the content, did I do correctly removing the content? Also is this the correct place to ask this? BeckyAnne(talk) 17:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I will remove it again, and warn him again. BeckyAnne(talk) 17:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hehe jinx! Aaron Liu (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems correct especially on COI. Similar info could maybe added but not by the COI person. (I probably shouldn't answer though, MANY more folks here are far more experienced with all this.) :-) gobears87 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

random article?

what happened to the "random article" link on the left of the main page? KellyACox (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@KellyACox, Wikipedia is using a new skin. The random article link is in the dropdown main menu, accessed by clicking on the little symbol at very top left which looks like three horizontal lines. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@KellyACox - On the left side bar, I see "Random article" as the fourth link:

• Main page
• Contents
• Current events
• Random article

Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It isn't there if I'm not logged in. Once I logged in I could see it. Thanks! KellyACox (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@KellyACox: As a tip, if you want to quickly read a random article, you can also use the key combination Alt+⇧ Shift+X! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that is SO cool! KellyACox (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia for actor MICHELLE BERNARD

Happy New Year to you and yours!

I am trying to create a Wikipedia page for actor MICHELLE BERNARD to track her career in Hollywood, awards, websites, and other achievements.

I have already created the article in your format and saved it as a PDF.

How do I upload the article and add a photo in order to create a page for her?

Thank you so much. Looking forward to hearing from you soon- Mishyred40 (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like you have tried this a number of times but because you have copied and pasted content from elsewhere they have been deleted you can try again here Draft:Michelle D Bernard but ensure that all content is written in your own words and reliably sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

and now you have copied and pasted again, so it will be speedy deleted again. Theroadislong (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mishyred40 The sentence "The warm weather in Los Angeles appeals to this South Florida girl though, and so she keeps moving forward through patience and persistence." is completely unacceptable for an encyclopaedia article and would be laughable even on most social media sites. Your draft is full of such WP:PEACOCK wording. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mishyred40 Why would you say "her", when the subject is you? That's misleading. I see that there is a note about autobiographies on your Talk page already, so you'll know why writing an autobio is so hard and strongly discouraged. David10244 (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Change in website format

Did someone hack your website or did you change the format so it is no longer user friendly? 47.149.19.114 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you asking about a sudden change to Wikipedia's appearance? It is because the default skin has changed from the Vector legacy (2010) skin to the new Vector (2022) skin. If you would like to change back to the old one, you can, as a registered user, click on the in the top-right corner and choose Preferences. Once there, go to Preferences → Appearance → Skins → Vector legacy (2010).
If you would like to leave feedback, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. IP users are stuck with the new skin for the moment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

unwanted bold characters

I cannot, for the life of me, "unbold" characters in a journal reference in my draft article on the AIEO. I have tried deleting and retyping several times. Any suggestions for how to solve this problem? WEPfeffer (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@WEPfeffer Draft:Association internationale d'études occitanes looks fine to me. The only bolded bit is (correctly) in the first sentence with the repeated article title. It is just possible that you have an issue with the new skin, so I suggest you try to revert to the old one (link on the left menu on PCs) and see if the problem disappears. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

How do I duplicate a citation for different content

How do I duplicate a citation for different content? I searched for the answer and it gave me this: but I don't think it's working as the citation shows up as "Content 1" in the references.

I attempted it with this citation

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks so much Landplane123 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)landplane123 Landplane123 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I've had to fix some of your text to remove an error. You started correctly by using a WP:REFNAME which you called "foo". Then you created a second one called "Broadway World" but you repeated the content1 bit, instead of just going straight into the citation template. I can reuse foo here and the other one here. The best way to see how to do things is to look at the content of this thread in the source editor. Note that you need the template {{talkref}} as well, or the citations will go to the very bottom of the page even when another section is started.

References

Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the new website design

Dear Wikipedia Web Designers,

I will personally donate to you monthly if you just make the left side-bar grey-blue. Don't get me wrong I like the idea of the table of contents on the side, I really do. But the grey-blue side-bar was just so pleasing to the eye! 130.63.202.236 (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This isn't the forum to communicate with the designers; please use the talk page of WP:VECTOR2022. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia web designers are not influenced by monetary donations. More generally, for web designers everywhere it's better to use cookies. -Arch dude (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

How do I make a small correction?

I think I may want to make a small correction to a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia says a particular historical person had 4 children - according to Ancestry.com he had 5. How do I do that? 2601:281:C500:1B50:A90E:7AF7:5746:1687 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to make the edit yourself, but Ancestry.com isn't necessarily a good source to use, depending on tbe circumstances. I would suggest using the relevant article talk page to discuss your proposed edit as a formal edit request. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Generally, most pages (including encyclopedic articles) have an "edit"-link (jump to it on this page). Hovever ancestry.com isn't considered a particularely reliable source here so you wil probbably have to find a better source. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Question

If sources that URLs are still online can you remove the archive to them, I just assume the archive is only for dead URLs. Aaron106 (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Aaron106 Think about it - if the online URL disappears tomorrow, you will have deleted the link, and such deletions are of no benefit to Wikipedia, they just add to our server usage / storage - Arjayay (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron106: No. Instead, set the "url-status" parameter to "live", if appropriate. See Template:Cite web for details. Separately, some web pages get updated and the cited information gets changed or removed. In these cases, the specific archived page for the specific date is actually a better link. -Arch dude (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Info on URLs are also liable to change. We need achieves where possible. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

New layout change sucks where to send feedback

Too much white space and it's not immediately clear that the side bar are the contents as well as it feeling inconsistent with the rest of the design. I can see the benefit of the the contents being on the side, but I feel this only supports a small amount of work flows. I don't like reading based off of content links and instead like skimming the article and the title of each section helps remind me where I am and only like looking at the contents as an overview before and after I read. The new layout seems to assume that I will navigate the article by the content links and it reduces how much article can be read at once as a consequence. In addition, "Contents" is not bold like it used to be and, with my workflow, I'm left with this useless thing on the side while I'm trying to read the article before I remember or focus my eyes on that area rather than the article I'm trying to read and see that it's contents. I can hide it, but then I can't see and overview of the article when I'm done reading to make sure I didn't miss anything without moving my mouse and clicking something or moving my hands to my keyboard in case I'm missing that there's a keyboard shortcut for this. This is inconsistent because the description box on the right side is shaded and separated and made clear that the information and links there are separate and serve a different purpose than the rest of the article, but this context box doesn't and relies on the user seeing and judging white space to mean separation rather than a tangible, meaningful shade and/or separator. This change to the default layout is horrible the more I think and write about it. I think the amount that could be read at once being reduced could be mitigated by a visible separator, but there is still a lot of article that is truncated. Before you say that hiding the article actually increases the words on the screen compared to the previous layout, the aforementioned problem of not being able to see an overview of the article by scrolling up and not clicking anything or moving my hand persists. I can see an argument for this design change for power users as control + F existing and hiding the bar increases the words on the screen, but people with workflows similar to mine are being left out. I am sending this here as I can't seem to find a general place for general users to give feedback for this. Neverletitbe (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Neverletitbe The article text can be expanded with a toggle in the extreme lower right corner. Please read more about the new skin at WP:VECTOR2022, and use its talk page to give feedback. Please keep in mind that the designers have the very difficult task of attempting to design something for millions of different people to use. You may return to the old skin in your account preferences. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that button. I also don't see what was broken in this part of the interface in the first place. Neverletitbe (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I too don't see such a button at the bottom right. Perhaps someone in the know can explain what settings you and I may have which disables the visibility of that button? Something which may or may not be connected is that the edit button for each section is only half-visible. I see only the bottom half of each [edit] link. The [subscribe] link to the right of (and half a line below) each edit link is completely visible. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

David Biddulph I don't know why it wouldn't appear for some users, maybe a preference setting, or a glitch. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: What I've found is that the tends to disappear if the zoom level is past a certain point. Usually zooming it out will cause it to reappear (I had to go to 90% zoom in Chrome for it to appear). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I've tried 50% and I've tried 200%, but neither affect it. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, that's odd. It might also have to do with your device's resolution, so the threshold is probably different. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Neverletitbe: Are you asking about a sudden change to Wikipedia's appearance? It is because the default skin has changed from the Vector legacy (2010) skin to the new Vector (2022) skin. If you would like to change back to the old one, you can, as a registered user, click on the in the top-right corner and choose Preferences. Once there, go to Preferences → Appearance → Skins → Vector legacy (2010).
If you would like to leave feedback, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Undersanding a reference

Hello, I am having trouble undersanding a reference in an article. In the article Perlman, Paula (2004). "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor: The Economies of Archaic Eleutherna, Crete". Classical Antiquity. 23 (1): 95–137. doi:10.1525/ca.2004.23.1.95. JSTOR 10.1525/ca.2004.23.1.95., there are some references that look like "See infra, pp. 123-24."; from the context I think it might be a source of ancient Greek, probably Cretan, inscriptions. It does not appear in the bibliography of this article or anywhere else in this volume, and I didn't find a general bibliography in the volume. Does anyone know what does "infra" refer to? פעמי-עליון (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know, I had to look it up. Info Google told me is Internal cross-references begin with the signal "See." "Supra" is used to cite prior material while "infra" is used to cite subsequent material. - so it's citing to itself, in this case page 100 is stating that the info is covered in 123/4 where it's better cited. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't think about it. It makes sense. Thank you! פעמי-עליון (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@פעמי-עליון and Lee Vilenski: Interestingly, we have an article on Supra (grammar), but no article on Infra (grammar). -Arch dude (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

True. We do have Infra, but it's just a disambig. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I added it to Infra, is it OK? פעמי-עליון (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)