June 4

How do you change the name of you private sandbox?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamerkillerz (talk • contribs) 00:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gamerkillerz: you change the name of any page (article, sandbos, whatever) by using the "move" function. click on the "more" tab near the top right, then select "move", then fill in the new page name. for User:Gamerkillerz/sandbox, you might use a new name like User:Gamerkillerz/Talji. Don't try to move that page into article space yet as it's not yet ready and it would get deleted for lack of notability (see WP:N). Please read WP:YFA to get some hints. -Arch dude (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

If you want to move User:Gamerkillerz/sandbox to another title in your userspace, you can do that with the move function (once your account is autoconfirmed), but you mustn't move it into mainspace as it can't be an article without references to show notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

While working on the page Kamikita Expressway I added a map to its infobox, but when I saved the edit the infobox and image below it overlaps the text instead of the image and text shifting down to make room for the infobox as it normally would. ∻ℳcCunicano 00:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Mccunicano, I don't see any issue with the infobox or map. Has the issue been fixed?. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ammarpad, yes, another user corrected the issue. ∻ℳcCunicano 06:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see this edit – the link →Edit summaries links to the wrong section on the talk page when I click on it. It directs me to another (earlier) section also titled 'Edit summaries', but not the section under which User:Flyer22 Reborn posted her message. Could something be done about this? JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 04:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:JackintheBox. Use User talk:Jaywubba1887#Edit summaries 2 to link from external discussions. As for automated links within edit summaries, that seems to be a bug. Maybe someone more familiar with the issue can comment. Rehman 04:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

Thanks. Yes, that seems to be a bug. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 05:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

When there are two or more identically-named sections on a page, any section link pointing to either will go directly to the first section. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

This is phab:T4831 from 2005: "Links in autogenerated summary in page histories may point to wrong section or to nowhere". If you know there is an earlier section with the same name then you can cadd " 2" in the edit summary before saving, e.g. changing /* Edit summaries */ to /* Edit summaries 2 */. The generated link will fail later if the first section is removed or renamed. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

Noted. Still I hope this linking issue would be fixed sometime in the future. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 09:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

Recently, I have adopted the habit of regularly putting the month and year on my section heads. This makes them unique, and might help in your situation.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)reply

Draft:Mary Immaculate Church, Annerley Error message- Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). I'm not able to locate the error and wish to have it removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeMoloney (talk • contribs) 09:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

@LukeMoloney: It was the first item of code on the page.  Fixed. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the reply button, which automatically signs posts.) Eagleash (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

Can anyone resolve the italics/bold in the lead of Annika Ström? - I've tried re-typing it, and copy-pasting it, but it still appears - Thanks - 11:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Arjayay: I added another "nowiki" and the problem has gone away. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

Thanks - I was concentrating on the first two words - Arjayay (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

Hi there, I submitted an article in March which took 2 months to review. When it was reviewed I had to correct some problems which are now done. What happens now? Do I have to wait another possible 2 months for it to be reviewed again? Samcherry5 (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

Quite possibly. As it says in the box on the draft: "This may take more than two months, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3949 pending submissions waiting for review." --David Biddulph (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

@Samcherry5:reviewers are actual people. Since a reviewer already took an interest in your article, a polite note to the reviewer on that user's talk page might (or might not) inspire the reviewer to take another look, and if you successfully addressed the problems the reviewer identified, the re-review will likely succeed. -Arch dude (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

Can anybody here provide further assistance regarding this issue? Thanks in advance. Greetings--Hildeoc (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

It looks OK to me but could be more clear. The first "if not" refers to wstitle=. The second "if not" refers to title=. This could be clarified with: Set to wstitle= if set; if not, then to title=; if title= also not set, then left blank. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

I notice that the some wikiproject boxes on the talk pages have a section below the article's class that shows what more is needed the B-class assessment, for example on Talk:Estonian vocabulary. This is something I'd like to use as well, but I can't get it to work on other types of wikiproject boxes; is this piece of syntax only applicable to certain types of boxes?--Megaman en m (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

@Megaman en m: The B-class criteria parameters only work on wikiproject templates that support it, this is a choice made by individual wikiprojects. Templates that support the checklist can be identified by the presence of the B-class checklist. Danski454 (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

A reviewer has to understand the article's sources, but what if I can't access some of them? For example, a recently-released magazine with no online mirror. Is the only way to use WP:REX? Is it an option to ask the nominator to directly quote what is said in the magazine and accept it on good faith?--Megaman en m (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

Megaman en m - As a rule, we should really just use WP:GOOD FAITH, sources only need to be verifiable, so we don't need them to be online.

However, you can review in any way you want. The only real guidelines are that they meet the Good Article Criteria. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

i asked regarding route map before, but this is different. i created a routemap using BSicon icons Template:Kolkata metro line 1 new, and when i uploaded it in Kolkata Metro, the whole page just changed. idk what happened, although i undid it. can anyone plzz check what happened in the article and also the mentioned routemap template, and help me with the edits/changes required. Saha 06:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnabsaha2212 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

Hi Arnabaha2212, I've edited your template to match the previous template that was in use - some missing brackets at the bottom. It seems to have fixed the issue. Mikenorton (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)reply

Mikenorton thank you for helping me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnabsaha2212 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)reply

I have a wiki page but I want the picture of me to come down. I own a business and I do not want this picture popping up when people search for me. How do I get this picture off my Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realdill70 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

@Realdill70: I would correct your word choice in that you do not "have a wiki page"; there is an article about you on Wikipedia. It's difficult to help you specifically without knowing the article or picture involved(which I'm guessing you don't wish to reveal, which is fine) but guidance can be found in the Image Use Policy, specifically the section on privacy rights. As I understand it, as long as the image of you was taken in a public place, and is not inappropriate for some reason(an image that ridicules you, or was taken with extraordinary means like a long lens) there isn't much you can do to get it removed. If the image in question violates the image use policy, it could be removed, and you would need to discuss this on the article talk page.

I would add that you should email the address written at the end of the paragraph located here to confirm your identity with Wikipedia should you choose to comment on the article talk page, to verify your identity. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

I would add that we cannot control what comes up in search engine results, that is up to the search engine. Once an image is on the internet, it is very difficult to scrub it off. It is just the way it is. 331dot (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply

@Realdill70: One alternate suggestion is to upload a photo of yourself that you prefer, and overwrite the current photo. Here's info about providing permission for an image of yourself. Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. It's also possible that the image of you that shows up with a Google search isn't in an article. If that's the case, you have to report this to Google by clicking on Google's feedback tool. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)reply