January 2

The page history at WP:RD/C contains a sequence of 19 entries, related only by timespan, which appear in the page history (and user contributions) as double-struck, with no diffs. What caused that? Did the database lose the data?  Card Zero  (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a server malfunction. Those 19 edits were oversighted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at that link, but then it made no sense. The edits are in different sections, from different people, and in a few cases from a bot. And the results of the edits are in plain sight on the page, it's only the diffs that are concealed. Whuh?  Card Zero  (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Something that was on the page during those edits has been removed, and deemed suitable to be oversighted, so users and even admin cannot see it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand the concept, just not why it manifests as pouring napalm on 19 diffs in a row to hide what might be one phone number or whatever. I suppose the time period reflects the time between insertion and deletion of whatever it was, but aren't diffs, well, differences? Vectors Deltas, I think they're sometimes called. I mean only the insertion really needed removing, surely? The rest of the diffs ought to smoothly follow on with or without the redacted part, if they didn't include editing whatever it was. Well, wiki software is clunky like that I guess, I don't know how it works.  Card Zero  (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"Diffs" aren't what's stored on the servers in the first place; revisions are. When you click "diff" the difference is computed on-the-fly. So if you want to see the difference between revisions A and B, and either A or B were hidden, there's nothing to compute the diff from. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Is that Delta encoding that you're explaining, or something else?  Card Zero  (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what sort of encoding is used internally to compress the database. That's not really relevant, because it's never exposed to users. A "revision" is just the full text of the page at a particular time. A "diff" is not really an encoding. It's a human-readable comparison of two revisions, generation by an algorithm similar to one used in diff or git. Most diff algorithms start with the longest common subsequence or an approximation thereof. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think delta encoding is commonly used when software needs an undo function. Each delta contains only the change from the accumulated product of the previous deltas. I kind of assumed a page edit was a delta. Thus, removing a single delta ought to be fine if no subsequent delta built on what that first delta changed. But, I got my basic answer some time ago and am just indulging in quibbling at this point.  Card Zero  (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

mw:Manual:MediaWiki architecture#Database and text storage talks about what is actually stored. MediaWiki has no way to display part of a page where something was oversighted earlier. You can either see the whole page or nothing. Oversighting hides all revisions where the oversighted material was present. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

- basically, if we didn't oversight the revisions, the offending material would still be visable. This is clearly worse than a phone number, which would be revision deleted, rather than oversighted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply

On an article, in the Authority control section, I'd like to add a link to the National Library of China. Is it possible, and if so, how?

--JulieFr (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply

@JulieFr: The National Library of China isn't listed at Template:Authority control#Wikidata and tracking categories so it's not currently possible. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply

Some articles have External links sections, some articles Bibliography sections whose contents are often links to external sites, some articles have both. What difference is there supposed to be between the two? Mcljlm (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply

@Mcljlm: "Bibliography" headings are used inconsistently. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply

@Mcljlm: and sometimes used when "Publications" is what is meant Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply

Are disambiguation pages supposed to have references? If yes, where should one place the {{reflist}}? Should it be before or after the {{Disambiguation}} template? --217.149.171.189 (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply

Hi there! Wikipedia:Disambiguation#References tells us "Do not include references in disambiguation pages; disambiguation pages are not articles. Incorporate references into the articles linked from the disambiguation page, as needed." GoingBatty (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply

• • • begin quote ***

It was recently brought to my attention, that within a couple months of the FBI raid on our studio last year, the Free Talk Live page on Wikipedia was deleted. The discussion on the page prior to deletion suggests we're not "notable" enough and that one of the hosts "absconded from justice". I know people say that one is not supposed to edit one's own Wikipedia page, so I have no plan to do anything about it except bring your attention to it. Can anything be done? Should anyone bother? That's up to you.

• • • end quote *** — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinkefj (talk • contribs) 18:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply

See the deletion debate here. I can't comment any further due to not being familiar with any of this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply

@Reinkefj welcome to HelpDesk. While you're discouraged from editing the article page directly (which doesn't exist now) you're always welcome to comment/add sourcing/info in the talk page in the form of a {{Request edit}}. Now that the article is deleted, you can either recreate it from scratch using the WP:AfC process and disclose your relation. Or you could request a WP:REFUND, but you'll still need to show how the topic is notable, and clearly an admin saw the current/existing sources and didn't think there were enough reliable/secondary sources. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply

• Reinkefj You are, of course, free to donate or not donate based on whatever criteria you see fit, but donations or withholding donations does not impact content. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply

@Reinkefj: The article was deleted due to lack of notability of the subject, which was not contested by anyone who participated. The "incarceration" comment is irrelevant and IMO should not have been added, but if it were not there, the article would have been deleted anyway since nobody that participated thought the subject was notable. Our ONLY absolute inclusion criterion is notability. Your only recourse is to demonstrate that the subject is actually notable and the notability decision was made in error. Please see WP:AMOUNT. I would have thought that an FBI raid would generate enough commentary from reliable sources to allow you to defend an assertion of notability. We have a process for contesting a deletion. See Wikipedia:Deletion review if you can find such sources. -Arch dude (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply

Hello, I was actually making a wikipedia page on minecraft championship but how do i upload the photo of the logo as it doesnt let it get through. Ur help will be highly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hishamabd950 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply

For guidance on logos, see WP:Logos. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply

Non free files need to be used in an article, so you will have to publish your draft before uploading the logo and adding it to the article. TSventon (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply

When TSventon says "publish your draft", Hishamabd950, I recommend interpreting that as "submit your draft for review and wait for it to be reviewed, possibly more than once until you get it in a form which will be accepted". In my view, writing an article starts with finding suitable independent reliable sources to establish notability. If you starting writing the article before you have done that it is like building a house before you have checked whether the ground is stable enough to build it on. --ColinFine (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)reply

ColinFine, that is, of course, what I meant. TSventon (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)reply