Help desk
< May 28	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 30 >

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.

May 29

Yorkshire Symphony Orchestra

Please help with ref number 6 - I am using an Apple air Mac and only just learning how to do refs. all over again. So please execuse me. 175.32.24.11 (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Your ref was missing the obligatory |title= param. I have added it. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to "Yeadon Town Hall" in the 21st century revival section should be linked correctly to the West Yorkshire page, are you able to do this please? Sorry again. 175.32.24.11 (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Eagleash (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear message from an IP

I want to discus with concern person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.111.71.41 (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you tell us what it is that you want to discuss, we may be able to direct you better. --ColinFine (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2023 NFL Draft

Can you Fix an error on the reference i made on a trade on Jared Goff For Matthew Stafford Please. 70.179.216.206 (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a {{reflist|group=trade}} to remove the cite error, although I'm not sure a separate ref group is really needed here. CodeTalker (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

I am looking to edit the page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/History_of_the_Philippines_(1898%E2%80%931946) as part of a History project I am completing. I cannot get access to edit as my account is not old enough yet, is there any exceptions that can be made regarding this, as I need to have it done by next week, thank you.Maireadlyons (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maireadlyons You may make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page. Wikipedia, to be frank, is not concerned with any deadlines you are under. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walk overs and retirements in tournament brackets

I'm working on User:Nettrom/sandbox/Women's El Gouna International 2021, which uses {{16TeamBracket-Compact-Squash5}} to create the brackets with the results. One thing I haven't been able to find documentation for is how to write up walk overs and retirements. Both can be seen in User:Nettrom/sandbox/Women's El Gouna International 2021#Section 1, where there are walk overs in the second and third round, and a retirement in the third round. Are there conventions on how to do that, or an example you know of that I can use as a basis? Regards, Nettrom (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nettrom: Unfortunately Wikipedia:WikiProject_Squash is inactive. However, some of the members listed on that page are still active. If you don't get an answer here, you may want to reach out to one of those editors for help. RudolfRed (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In tennis, 2020 US Open – Women's Doubles shows a walkover as "w/o". "W.O." looks rather odd. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same practice seems to be used in squash: Squash at the 2009 World Games – men's singles (at the bottom/3rd round). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That article also uses "r" for retirement. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend : Thank you so much for finding those examples! I agree that "w/o" is an improvement, so I'll be updating the article I made to also use that. I also like that the tennis article had a key with links to more information, so I'll adopt that as well!

@RudolfRed : As you mention, WikiProject Squash is inactive, hence why I asked here. Excellent suggestion to check if any of the listed editors are still active, though, I'll be sure to do that next time, thanks! Nettrom (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alt

I'm planning to make userboxes upon request, and to not flood my talk page with requests, I want to create another account just for that. Because Wikipedia can be a bit strict with its policies, I just want to ask, is it some form of socking? --Necctaylor (chat) 17:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, if it is declared. Ruslik_Zero 18:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Necctaylor, Please see WP:MULTIPLE, which, in addition to noting it is good practice to identify, also lists some activities that are prohibited. S Philbrick (Talk) 20:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About deleting Draft:The Talking Tom and Friends Movie

I am considering deleting a draft for The Talking Tom and Friends Movie because it is unsorced, and has no description about the upcoming film.

Drafts are work-in-progress. No reason to delete it at this time. If it has not been edited for 6 months, then you may ask for it to be deleted as abandoned. RudolfRed (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please help me understand the apparently biased criteria process of patrolled and admissible articles on Wikipedia.

Hello dear colleagues, hope you guys are having an wonderful weekend.

I came here as a last resort of a sort, to try and understand some why's and how's about the process of accepting some poorly constructed articles with very few to zero reliable references and the instant deletion to articles heavily referenced and very well constructed just because it comes from new users, like myself.

First, let me be clear, I understand very well the WP:N guidelines, and this is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I´ve done my homework, studying over and over those.

Now, let's discuss what's been troubling me. Help me understand why such articles like Jennifer Friedlander and Lubomir Mykytiuk which i took from the top of W:NPP right now, articles that has no reliable sources, Jennifer has ONE source, from the college that she is currently teaching (inadmissible as reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines) , has ONE sentence, poorly constructed and Lubomir has 2 sources , a website really suspicious with no secure internet connection and the other source from Wikipedia itself (not admissible as reliable, according to Wikipedia guidelines), BOTH of them have been patrolled and admissible on Wikipedia Mainspace, on the other hand articles like this Foxel, which has multiples references from multiple type of sources (as requested by WP:N) and its very well constructed , are neglected and even scheduled for elimination with a blink of an eye.

What seems to me, that the process its very biased, neglecting new users like me, with no consideration if the article is good or not , have references or not, its well constructed or not. The rules should apply to everyone and every article, in my humble opinion.

Again, this is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I just need to understand why this happens. I need an honest response, because so far i have not been able to find one. And yes, i checked all the references and all the articles mentioned here before coming here.

Sincerely, ArzakMululu (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ArzakMululu: Both of your example articles are from Autopatrolled users, they did not go through any review or patrol. RudolfRed (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foxel is not nominated for deletion. If you disagree with the tag at the top that says the subject is not notable, you can discuss it either on the article's talk page or directly with the editor who placed that tag. When looking at sources, focus on quality, not quanity. RudolfRed (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it? So if the person has the autopatroll ranking, he is above the general rules and guidelines? Creating aN atmosphere which they and only they can create articles no matter how poor and neglecting users like maltaroset and myself who is wanting to contribute, creating articles with all the guidelines in mind and well constructed. Also, you said focus on quality not quantity and i agree, but all of the sources in Foxel are widely respected magazines in the field of the subject (electronic music) in Brazil and none of the sources of the articles i gave as comparison are reliable, and you did not managed to explain why it is so biased? Let me be specific, this Jennifer Friedlander is extremely poorly constructed, the first and only reference is from Pomona University (where she is hired as a professor) so not reliable. And Lubomir Mykytiuk , which again, very poorly constructed article, two sources, one is a very suspicious website with no relevance what so ever (yes, i´ve done my research), even with no secure connection and the other source is from Wikipedia itself (which clearly contradicts the WP:N guideline). Could you help me understand? Sincerely ArzakMululu (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment on if the two articles you found would survive at WP:AFD. If they are as poor as you claim, and if you think they should be deleted, then you may nominate them. If you think that Foxel meets the criteria at WP:NMUSIC, then you can discuss it at that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would not recommending anyone sending articles to WP:AFD to prove a point or because they're disgruntled about their own article.

So, User:ArzakMululu, regarding "if the person has the autopatrol ranking, he is above the general rules and guidelines?" Yes, that is correct, if you want to put it that way.

Maybe think about it like this: if you're running a business and you have someone who's been with your company for 15 years and has done good work, you might want to give her a longer leash than a new hire. If your new hire complains "How come I have to pass all my work across your desk before sending it to the client, while Smith doesn't", you might start to wonder if you've hired a malcontent. And the Wikipedia is (among several other things) a business engaged in encyclopedia-publication.

So, I have been here 15 years and have published 400 articles, almost all of them OK. A handful were deleted, and fine. This organization has decided that a policy of letting me publish directly (all my articles are of course subject to scrutiny after publishing). That's reasonable. It'd also be defensible to not do that and make everyone subject to the same scrutiny. We have decided not to that, is all.

OK, the Jennifer Friedlander article is just a stub. However, we don't delete articles for not having sufficient references, but for being unable to have sufficient references. Different things. Some articles are born fully formed, but others start as short article and are built on. We would not delete Jennifer Friedlander but instead look for more references. Well, a quick look shows that Jennifer Friedlander has published three scholarly books, one published by Oxford, and has published the usual slew of articles in academic journals. That doesn't make her Wiki-notable, it just shows that she's a typical accomplished professor, but it does make my ears perk up. Mnmh, she just won a Fulbright Fellowship to cross-pollinate in Australia. That's something. However, this is still not enough to hang an article on, usually. what we want is articles about her, interviews, extensive reviews of her books in notable publications. Not seeing those right off, but a deeper dig might find something. If not, we may -- may -- sadly feel compelled to delete the article.

This is the proper attitude to articles like Jennifer Friedlander rather than grousing about them or using them to grouse about your own articles/

Similar deal with Foxel. Nobody here hates Foxel, we all want the article to succeed in being or becoming a good article. As it now stands, Foxel has a stronger case than Jennifer Friedlander as there's an article about him in Eletrovibez and a (short) review in EDM House. That's a good start, starts to move him toward border of Wiki-notability already (depending on how notable Eletrovibez and EDM House are). We're likely to need a bit more to support an article, but if we can find one more good ref we ought to be OK. The Soundcloud and Beatport refs look like bare listing of his songs. They're fine for using in the article to prove specific facts, but they are of zero use in establishing Wiki-notability. For that, we need people talking about him -- articles, interviews, like that.

That's all the tag is saying: "Hey, somebody want help out this article by finding some more refs?" Don't take it as an attack. Find one more good ref and you can remove the tag. Herostratus (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArzakMululu, it is interesting to review the history of Jennifer Friedlander which its author Sdkb admits is a stub that needs to be expanded. In the summary of the first edit, Sdkb says that she meets WP:NACADEMIC Criterion 5, namely that "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research . . ." Another editor, DGG, disagreed and moved the article to draft space. Sdkb moved it back, citing a very similar situation about Tahir R. Andrabi, another article about an academic holding a named chair that started out with a single reference. In less than two weeks, that article has been expanded and is more informative, though still a stub. As WP:NACADEMIC says, "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers, and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." In other words, that special notability guideline is an exception in that it does not contain a presumption that a topic that passes the SNG will also pass WP:GNG if enough research is done. Entertainers, on the other hand, must pass the GNG. The community has decided that a different standard applies to biographies of academics than to biographies of other people.

Worth noting is that even though the Friedlander stub was created by an editor with the autopatrolled right, it was still draftified briefly by another editor. The autopatrolled right is not a blank check, and editors who abuse it can and do lose it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was the answer I was looking for, thanks for the time and patience to explain it to me @Herostratus: and @Cullen328: , much appreciated! Will work hard towards my next(s) articles! Wish you all a happy sunday! All the best, ArzakMululu (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help, that's what we're here for. Happy wiki'ing, and drop me a line if you need anything. Herostratus (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ArzakMululu: Lubomir Mykytiuk does not have a source from Wikipedia itself. The second source says:

"And the Gemini winners are ...". Ottawa Citizen, March 3, 1997.

The source is the actual newspaper, not the Wikipedia article about the newspaper. It can be looked up by a reader with access to their archives. Sources don't have to be linked. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]