Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2025 February 9
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 8 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 10 > |
| 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. |
February 9
update confirmed-protected edit request ?
I have a pending c-p edit request on the Alison Weir (activist) page which consists of a request to move a large segment of text from one section to another. As my edit request has languished there so long, the text in question has gone through some editing including some deletions. Am I permitted to edit the request to update it to the current version? Kenfree (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Kenfree: I would think you should probably strike or withdraw your initial edit request as no longer relevant and create a new edit request. A more experienced editor in edit requests may correct me, though. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Skarmory, thank you for your reply. I would happily follow your suggestion if it were the case that the new edit would receive prompt action, but you see, if that were the case then this problem would never have arisen in the first place. In point of fact the edit request was submitted a month ago, and has happily worked its way up to sixth place in the backlog. I really don't want to add another month+ to the waiting time to get this edit acted on, so unless you have another idea, I guess I'll just have to leave things as they are, and let whichever editor acts on it when it finally reaches the front of the backlog queue sort it out... Kenfree (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Kenfree: your 11 January 2025 request has been discussed at length since 14 January and two other editors disagreed with it. It could probably be closed as not done. You could also add a reply withdrawing the request and continue the discussion about individual claims in later sections. TSventon (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- They may have disagreed with it, but neither formally acted on their disagreement, and one of them demurred in deference to other editors who might have a deeper understanding of the issues involved. I still feel that these contentious allegations about Weir properly belong in the "Controversy" section, so why would I withdraw the request? At some point it will reach the front of the backlog queue and hopefully a fresh observer will take some action on it... Kenfree (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Kenfree: your 11 January 2025 request has been discussed at length since 14 January and two other editors disagreed with it. It could probably be closed as not done. You could also add a reply withdrawing the request and continue the discussion about individual claims in later sections. TSventon (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Skarmory, thank you for your reply. I would happily follow your suggestion if it were the case that the new edit would receive prompt action, but you see, if that were the case then this problem would never have arisen in the first place. In point of fact the edit request was submitted a month ago, and has happily worked its way up to sixth place in the backlog. I really don't want to add another month+ to the waiting time to get this edit acted on, so unless you have another idea, I guess I'll just have to leave things as they are, and let whichever editor acts on it when it finally reaches the front of the backlog queue sort it out... Kenfree (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Is it possible to transclude an article lead but not the hatnote at the top?
The lead for the article Torino scale starts with a hatnote:
This article is about Torino scale concept. For current ratings, see List of objects with non-zero Torino ratings
When the lead is transcluded in to List of objects with non-zero Torino ratings the hat note is bogus. Can it be excluded? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- I've not really played around with this, so my apologies if I'm just showing my ignorance, but would putting
<noinclude></noinclude>round the hatnote do the job? It's going to be unwanted wherever it's transcluded, I'd have thought. (There's information at wp:PARTTRANS.) Musiconeologist (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)- Thanks! As it turns out another editor removed the source hatnote, so I don't have the problem now. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Links to websites without content
Is there a template for indentification of links that go to websites without any content? (e.g. this link and its mirror on the Wayback Machine, which are used as references for the article on The Coffin of Andy and Leyley) Yyannako (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- That link does load for me, after a very long wait, and eventually produces a page with the right title. So it's not a {{dead link}}, which is what I'd use if it really did go to an empty page. But there might be a better template that I'm unaware of. (There's a list of related ones in the See also section of the {{dead link}} page.) Musiconeologist (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't go to an empty page per se, but the content is "Error Reference: Store_9511701_undefined
- Loading chunk 4268 failed.
- (missing: https://store.fastly.steamstatic.com/public/javascript/applications/store/events.js?contenthash=6ee5147628ca625579b3)" which isn’t exceedingly useful as a citation. Yyannako (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- Ah. I got a cookie popup which I rejected, then actual content about the subject, but after a very long wait. It appeared just as I was about to leave the page. There was a heading The Coffin of Andy and Leyley, and some text about it that I didn't read in detail, all on top of a large background image. It was a very graphics-heavy page. Anyway I think it's an unreliable link more than a dead one. Musiconeologist (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)