Help desk
< August 22	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 24 >

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.

August 23

How To Make a Article

How Do You? EggzBeatsGamez (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EggzBeatsGamez: start by choosing a subject that meets our notability requirements (WP:N). If your subject is not notable, then there is nothing you can do to create an article for Wikipedia. After you are sure your subject is notable, come back here for further instructions. -Arch dude (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And via an apprenticeship of carefully thought out, beneficial edits. (Not like this third edit of yours.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on notability of these three academics?

I am not particularly experienced with writing biographies, or WP:NACADEMIC, so I thought I'd ask for second thoughts here on if these three people are notable, because in an editing field I work in often (esotericism/cults) I run into them a lot and use them for citations very often, and I like having the fields in my citations have blue links.

Jesper Aagaard Petersen (or just Aa) (university profile here) (Google scholar)
Henrik Bogdan (university profile here) (Google scholar)
Benjamin E. Zeller (website here)

I don't know how the finer details of NACADEMIC work or if they'd pass it - would they? It says something about h-indexes but I don't even know where to begin with finding that out. All three of them have multiple books (either written or edited, though sometimes co-edited. Not sure how that affects NAUTHOR) that they wrote that themselves pass NBOOK with several reviews, though I think of the three we only currently have an article on a book Petersen wrote (Contemporary Religious Satanism). In any case even if they are notable by a technical SNG pass I'm not sure I'd even write the articles because I'm not sure if I could make it good enough for my own standards, but I'm curious if I could. Thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA, the links you offer aren't usable for much. For each of these three academics, has his work been discussed at any length by academics other than, and independent of, himself? Or has it been summarized in textbooks on the subject? Choose the most promising (from this perspective) of the three, and here (in this thread), link to what you consider the three best sources, quality being a combination of reliability, independence (from each other as well as from the subject), and depth. -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary I know they're not independent, they just show citations and works which I have been told matters for academic notability. I don't think textbooks exist for this subject. I mean, their works have plenty reviews and citations and there are other works that recount their arguments.

Bogdan's books are reviewed here:

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

There's some more but I got bored of looking for them when I feel that established the point. Several authors in books recount his arguments on the topic. I don't really know what helps here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed an impressive-looking list of reviews. (I didn't even skimread any of them. I plead laziness.) Even in academic journals, reviews can at times be petty, superficial or wrongheaded; and sometimes the reviewer seems to want to summarize the book that they wish they'd published on the same subject; but more often than not academic reviews do have content that can beneficially be summarized. If you based a draft on Bogdan on such material, I imagine that you'd get a worthwhile article out of it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA Just to point out that we have an article on the H-index which you may find helpful. Bogdan's value of 15 would not be considered very high but he is working in an esoteric area (pun intended). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

article cant be published

hey there, ive recently writen an article under the title of sadat people but out of some reason my article isnt published yet Sheikh Said Heshmatullah ibn Ashraf al-Mohammadi (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Said Heshmatullah ibn Ashraf al-Mohammadi If you are referring to the content of your sandbox, it is "published" in that it is on Wikipedia's computers, but it is not yet formally part of the encyclopedia, as you lack the information to submit it. It's better to create drafts via the article wizard, which makes it easier to submit them. We can edit your draft to permit you to submit it, but if you were to submit it, it would be rejected quickly, as it is completely unsourced. You need to source the information that you are providing, please see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but how do i even list the sources? if i list the sources then my article will be published? Sheikh Said Heshmatullah ibn Ashraf al-Mohammadi (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are other issues as well(see the below comment) but sources are a must. Again, please see Referencing for Beginners.

If English is not your primary language, you may feel more comfortable editing the Wikipedia that is written in your primary language. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the other answers, I will point out that "An Exploration" of anything is almost certainly original research, which is not permitted in a Wikipedia article. An article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources have said about a subject, nothing more. It should not contain any analysis, argumentation or conclusions (except possibly a summary of the analysis, argumentation or conclusions in a single cited source). ColinFine (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for replaying, i have all the sources but the problem is that i dont know how to list them on my article the only reason i published my article was the it was kind of urgent situation, but i can read the beginner guide and also i speak several languages but i feel my feel most comfortable writing the article in english because it would be the most accurate with what the sources say. Sheikh Said Heshmatullah ibn Ashraf al-Mohammadi (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gems from User talk:Sheikh Said Heshmatullah ibn Ashraf al-Mohammadi/sandbox: "rich", "unique", "noble", "esteemed", etc. Such awestruck language is not suitable for Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what kind of words arent allowed to use in wikipedia

what are the words you cant use Sheikh Said Heshmatullah ibn Ashraf al-Mohammadi (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean when speaking to others on talk pages? WP:NPA has what you are looking for. Logoshimpo (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be related to this comment in an earlier discussion here. I believe what that person meant is that Wikipedia articles should not attempt to promote their subject – they should not contain subjective judgments like "esteemed". Tollens (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh: WP:PEACOCK would be relevant. Logoshimpo (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Said Heshmatullah ibn Ashraf al-Mohammadi, please also read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Cullen328 (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name change of otherwise non-notable transgender person in another article

I am a transgender person who is mentioned in a Wikipedia article under my deadname. I was a significant participant in events described in the article, and several sources for the article describe me under that name. I would like to correct the name, as

1. it was a significant accomplishment of mine, which I now have to hide to avoid people looking it up on Wikipedia and finding my deadname, and

2. friends of mine have (without my prior involvement) tried to correct it and they get frustrated when their correction is reverted.

Unfortunately, as the events described in the article are passed, nobody is likely to write about my connection to them under my new name in a public source which can be cited on Wikipedia. Is there any way to update the name, that meets Wikipedia's policies, so is less likely to be reverted? 77.11.43.185 (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is your current article name? If you were not notable until after your name change, your deadname doesn't have to be mentioned per MOS:ID. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you say this event occurred under your deadname, this passage of MOS:GENDERID seems to be the relevant one: "Former names under which a living person was notable should be introduced with "born" or "formerly" in the lead sentence of their main biographical article. Name and gender matters should be explained at first appearance in that article, without overemphasis. In articles on works or other activities of such a person, use their current name by default, and give another name associated with that context in a parenthetical or footnote, only if they were notable under that name. In other articles, do not go into detail about such a person's name or gender except when directly relevant to the context.". If this event occurred under your deadname, it's going to be difficult to keep your deadname out completely.(see Chelsea Manning as an example) 331dot (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My question is about how to get my new name in the article at all as well as reducing the appearance of the old name. Basically I'd like to know what my options are. 77.11.43.185 (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may be slightly wrong but I believe the correct thing per policy would be to use your current name followed by a "born as" or "formerly" with your deadname, such as "John Doe (formerly Jane Doe) did XYZ thing". 331dot (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm correct in my reading of MOS:GENDERID, if reliable sources state your preferred name, there is reason to move (rename) the article and have the lead sentence say "Name (formerly Name, born May 1, 1980) ..." or something similar to that. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, this user seems to be talking about an existing article where they are mentioned, not writing an article about themselves. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, which is why I mentioned moving a preexisting article. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either you are misunderstanding or I am. I don't believe any page move is necessary, since this person is not the subject of any article. They are mentioned in an article that is not primarily about them, and they are looking to remove the use of their deadname in that article.

By my reading of GENDERID, I think the "only if they were notable under that name" clause is controlling here. If this person was notable under their deadname, we should use the parenthetical/footnote option presented by 331dot. If not, we should just use the current name, provided we can reasonably prove that one name is correct and the other a deadname. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood the message as them having an article about them, rather than being mentioned in another article. My apologies. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If people here are not sure, or if it is a question of clarifying a policy, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard may be a better venue. TSventon (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, a problem that the above replies have not addressed is the lack of reliable sources mentioning the name change. MOS:GENDERID says Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words ... that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. Is the lack of reliable sources with the new name a total bar, and if so, is there something I could do myself that would count as a reliable source? Or is my only option to try and get the existing reliable sources to issue corrections? 77.11.43.185 (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable" depends on context, and we typically find credible self-published statements reliable for identity claims like this. If you have a verified website or social media account, a statement there would probably suffice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a curious "notes" section on a Wiki page

On the main page on the artist El Greco, the notes section, El Greco#Notes, is displayed in an odd vertical format instead of the normal line-by-line format. Is there a way to edit this format so that it reads in a more normal manner? Thanks. What fun would there be if we already knew all there is to know? (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is because of the huge Timeline next to it. (It looks OK to me, but I imagine it would be problematic with a narrower screen width). I don't think there's a technical fix, apart from moving the timeline. I suggest raising it on the article's talk page. ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Is it possible for wikipedia to include a more readable guide to pronunciation for each item. The current symbols are unreadable/incomprehensible to the layperson. thanks john 2604:3D08:5A8A:6900:8CBE:97C5:9315:5237 (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with using a more "comprehensible to the layperson" scheme is that laypeople from Birmingham, Birmingham, Boston, Bloemfontein, Brisbane, Bangaluru or Dunedin (couldn't find a major B in New Zealand) will understand it rather differently from each other. That's one of the main reasons for using IPA.

Having said that, MOS:PRON does say The Wikipedia respelling system, using the {{respell}} template, can be used in addition to the IPA, so you're welcome to add pronunciations using that scheme wherever you wish. ColinFine (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those incomprehensible strings of symbols are in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). There are several IPA readers on the Internet. I use IPA reader. if you paste the IPA into the IPA reader it will pronounce it for you. -Arch dude (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine I suggest Bucklands Beach population of 9,360 or Botany, New Zealand. Botany is large enough for a semi-professional Ice Hockey team, Botany Swarm, which is one more Ice Hockey team than Bangaluru has. :)Naraht (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help! Accidentally deleted Heading "Gyroklystron" in article "Klystron"

I was editing the article "Klystron ", by adding a citation to the heading "Gyroklystron" ( located after heading "Reflex Klystron") and somehow, I deleted the heading "Gyroklystron " could someone please fix that and/or please help me to fix it? I think there is some conflict between the browser on my phone and Wikipedia 's visual interface, because when I click in a location to edit, the cursor keeps being sent somewhere else. I'm even having trouble posting this question - the text of my description keeps disappearing. Thanks. Sorry for the trouble. Taliesin13 (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Cryptic (talk · contribs) took care of this. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt, you can undo your own edit from the edit history menu. This returns the page to the state it was in before your edit. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

media permission

message indicating media may be deleted in 7 days unless copyright holder provides some permission. There is no copyright, this was provided when license CC(0) was created.

what to do when no copyright exists?? MikeMARS52 (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you are talking about File:Celebration Joe Chambers.jpg. The file information page says that the photo was taken by Royce Degrie, who is a professional headshot and portrait photographer in Brentwood, Tennessee. Why do you say that no copyright exists? Do you have a legally binding document from Royce Degrie saying that he has released this photo into the public domain? If not, the photo became copyright protected the moment it was first published. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MikeMARS52 After a bit of detective work, I assume this relates to File:Young Joe Chambers.png which you uploaded to Commons. You assert that you have the permission to do this from the daughter of the photographer. That is not sufficient. You must follow the procedure described at c:Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team, which involves the copyright holder emailing Commons volunteers to confirm they have licensed the file in the ways allowed on Commons. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... so that's at least two files that are not correctly licensed yet. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now three. c:File:MJC January 2013 204.jpg appears to be a selfie of Joe Chambers (music producer), which is clearly not your "own work" given Chambers died two years ago. DMacks (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks

the picture is selfie of me (MikeMARS52). i used the photo to test upload of a photo of Joe to the page. I was very happy when it showed up in the correct location. i used it as place holding prior to move to final space.

i don't think it was ever published in final space. However, if the photo needs to be deleted from Commons, i would be happy to do so.

MikeMARS52 MikeMARS52 (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]