Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 December 18

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.

December 18

Dispute over Paid Editing Tag on "It's Coming" and Review of "The Misguided" Draft

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I request assistance with two issues:

1. Request for Page Patrol and Removal of Paid Editing Tag on "It's Coming" Article Although I have not been directly tagged for paid editing, User:Cullen328 has been the primary editor maintaining the paid editing tag on the article It's Coming (film). I have provided reliable sources, stated I have no financial connection to the subject, and followed Wikipedia's guidelines. Despite multiple attempts to address their concerns and answering similar questions from other editors, the tag remains in place without clear justification. Can someone help review this situation and provide guidance?

Why it should be published:

1. • The article is well-sourced, with reliable, independent sources such as Rotten Tomatoes and critical reviews.
   • There are no violations of Wikipedia's neutrality or notability guidelines.
   • The continued application of the paid editing tag without clear evidence is detrimental to the article's progress.
   • I also request page patrol for the article, as it has been thoroughly vetted and should be considered for removal of the tag and eventual publication.
2. Review of "The Misguided" Draft I submitted a draft for the article Draft:The Misguided on December 3rd, 2024, and have followed up on the draft's talk page. However, I have not received any review or response. Can someone assist with reviewing this draft and moving it to mainspace if it meets the requirements?

Why it should be published:

1. • The draft is sourced with reliable, independent sources, including Hollywood Reporter and LA Times.
   • The article meets notability requirements, covering key aspects of the film's reception and production.
   • The draft has been patiently waiting for review and has already gone through multiple improvements based on feedback.

Thank you for your help! Stan1900 (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The statement that User:Cullen328 has been the primary editor maintaining the paid editing tag on the article is a falsehood. I have never edited either It's Coming (film) or its talk page. I have never discouraged any uninvolved editor from removing the tag. I have simply tried to explain to Stan1900 why several editors have expressed concern about their pattern of editing. As for Draft:The Misguided, submitted for an additional review on December 3, 15 days ago, there is a notice at the top of the draft that says This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,820 pending submissions waiting for review. Stan1900 has no basis for complaining for at least another six weeks. Stan1900 is a single purpose editor totally focused on films made by Shannon Alexander, plus getting their own way. Cullen328 (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The statement eventual publication regarding It's Coming (film) makes no sense, since that article is already in the mainspace of the encyclopedia. It's published. Wikipedia does not exist to facilitate search engine optimization. Cullen328 (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Stan1900, there are thousands of articles in the queue for both page patrol and AfC reviews. You just need to be patient until a volunteer gets to them. Schazjmd (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Schazjmd, thank you for your input. While I understand the backlog for reviews, I must address the following points:

1. **The paid editing tags on It's Coming (film) and "The Misguided":**

- The tags are unwarranted and unsupported by evidence.

- I have provided reliable sources for both articles and have explicitly stated that I have no financial connection to the subjects.

- These tags negatively impact the articles' indexing and discoverability, reducing accessibility for readers. This is not about SEO but ensuring that notable topics are properly represented and accessible.

- Their continued application without clear evidence contradicts Wikipedia's principle of assuming good faith and undermines the integrity of the review process.

2. **"The Misguided" draft:**

- While I acknowledge the standard review timeline, the baseless paid editing accusations are influencing the progress and fair evaluation of this draft.

- The draft meets notability requirements, supported by reliable, independent sources from established media outlets.

3. **Clarification of my contributions:**

- I have been an active editor for 8 years, with contributions spanning a variety of topics.

- My recent focus on Shannon Alexander's films stems from identifying a content gap that I sought to address using reliable sources.

- Allegations questioning my integrity distract from the core issue: the quality and adherence of the articles to Wikipedia's guidelines.

I request an immediate review by uninvolved editors to:

- Remove the paid editing tags on "It's Coming" and "The Misguided" based on content and sourcing.

- Conduct a new page patrol review for both articles to ensure fair evaluation and compliance with Wikipedia policies.

Constructive feedback grounded in Wikipedia's guidelines is always welcome, but baseless claims should not overshadow the fair assessment of content.

Stan1900 (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 linked you to WP:Dispute resolution in your first conversation on this page; I suggest you review the options there to address the paid editing tags. Schazjmd (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Schazjmd, thank you for directing me to the dispute resolution process. Which specific dispute resolution avenue would you recommend as most appropriate in this case? I want to ensure this is handled through the correct channels. Stan1900 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

We can't guarantee you a speedy review. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Stan1900, start at the beginning. You have yet to discuss the paid editing tag with the editor who applied it; I'd start there. Schazjmd (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Stan1900, I also strongly urge you to strike out the false statement User:Cullen328 has been the primary editor maintaining the paid editing tag on the article It's Coming (film). Schazjmd (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Stan1900: Whilst complaining of others not assuming your good faith, you have not yet addressed the response to your accusation that @Cullen328 added the paid editing hatnote which you have complained about. (The text of that hatnote states "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payment"; that's "may have", not "has".) Bazza 7 (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Bazza 7, you bring up assuming good faith, yet the continued presence of an unwarranted tag without evidence does exactly the opposite. The articles' content and sources demonstrate compliance with Wikipedia policies. Instead of debating semantics, we should focus on whether the tag is justified based on actual evidence and policy. Stan1900 (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Stan1900: I was not debating semantics. I was observing a still-present defamation about another editor. Bazza 7 (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Bazza 7, if you're concerned about defamation, perhaps address the unsupported accusations that I'm a "one person PR agency" or doing "paid editing" for "SEO." These claims continue without evidence, affecting article accessibility and my ability to contribute. The focus should be on article content and compliance with Wikipedia policies, not unfounded accusations in either direction. Stan1900 (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I have changed the tag on It's Coming (film) to a conflict of interest since the user admits contacting them, I have also trimmed some of the unsourced contnet and marked it as reviewed. Theroadislong (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Theroadislong, thank you for reviewing the article and removing the paid editing tag. However, requesting source materials when writing an article is standard practice and doesn't constitute a conflict of interest when there's no financial or professional relationship involved. The article's content is based on independent, reliable sources and maintains a neutral point of view. Stan1900 (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It is very clearly NOT standard practice I have written more than a hundred articles and never felt the need to contact the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

ChatGPT doesn't have a very good idea of what our standard practices are. -- asilvering (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Theroadislong, asilvering, Reaching out to subjects for source materials is standard journalistic practice, and I’m fully within my rights to do so. It’s about ensuring accuracy, not creating conflicts of interest.

As for the AI comment, it’s a bit off-topic. I’m not just parroting information I find online—I’m engaging with these topics thoughtfully. Let’s keep the focus on the articles and the sources used to ensure the content is reliable and neutral. Stan1900 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

it may be standard journalistic practice but it is absolutely NOT Wikipedia practice ever. Theroadislong (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, seriously, cut it out with the AI. How thoughtfully are you engaging with these topics if you're outsourcing your thoughts to a machine? -- asilvering (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I too have written over 100 Wikipedia articles and have never contacted the subject of an article I've written. Stan1900 says I have been an active editor for 8 years, with contributions spanning a variety of topics. The fact of the matter is that the Stan1900 made nine edits to Katherine Langford and its talk page in 2017 and 2018. Langford is an actress in It's Coming (film), written a few weeks ago by Stan1900. From 2018 to November 2024, a period of 6-1/2 years, the account made no edits. Then, on November 30, 2024, less than three weeks ago, the editor wrote three new articles, one still a draft, about films made by Shannon Alexander, one starring Langford. In that three weeks, the editor has been incredibly repetitive and persistent in pushing these three articles and dismissing the concerns expressed by several editors, not just me. They are not above making a false accusation against me. They consistently insist on special preferential treatment that is not extended to thousands of other editors who have written drafts. This is highly unusual behaviour. Cullen328 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-free historic image

I'm working on Hu Jintao removal incident, the Chinese version of which has an locally uploaded image tagged with {{non-free historic image}}. Is the image allowed under enwiki's criteria? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It's highly relevant to the article and informative, and it is small. I can't read the (Chinese-language) fair-use argument and thus can't comment on the likely adequacy in en:Wikipedia of a translation, but I imagine that a persuasive argument could be made here too. -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The Chinese rationale just says something like "it is hard for the reader to understand the incident from words alone, which is why this image is needed." I'll go ahead and upload the image here. Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Images in inventory table

Whenever i scroll down, images in inventory table drastically go down in size (although very few of them stay the same, but only at start then if i scroll more they too get smaller), is there a way to set images to stay the same size as it is set? Persian Meowth (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "inventory table"? What article or other page are you looking at? ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, images in a template. Persian Meowth (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Which template? And do you mean looking at the template page, or at an article which uses the template? Also, what kind of device are you using? ColinFine (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

For instance, template found on a page “List of equipment of the Royal Netherlands Army”. And of course, images do not get drastically smaller just on that article but on every that uses template with images. I am using iphone, but I had same thing happening on android as well. Persian Meowth (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The page doesn't declare a minimum width for the column containing images. On mobile, they will get scaled to the predefined minimum size, which indeed is rather small. Setting a CSS statement of min-width: 100px or something on each column header of columns with images should help here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, hope it helps Persian Meowth (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Mind if I ask how do you set a CSS Statement on min-width? Persian Meowth (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Persian Meowth,

If no one else answers, check out WP:SKIN for an introduction on how to do that.

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 13:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If I actively volunteer for transport hubs, should I declare a COI on the respective articles? May I still edit them?

I actively volunteer for Sanba station and I volunteered for Hangzhou South railway station. The former gave me a ¥50 credit for my transit card and the latter gave me ¥30 a day for a week (I forgot the exact amount). Do I need to declare my WP:COI on their respective talk pages? Am I still allowed to edit them? (To be honest, there's not much to write anyway. It's more to be transparent that I volunteered there before.) Félix An (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't find any answer to your question on WP:COI, but in my opinion you don't really need to. The purpose of marking COI is to avoid having editors promoting a the subject of a particular article, and honestly purposefully promoting a railway station doesn't seem to be a thing. Even if someone wrote the most flattering article, it's not going to increase ridership or anything. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

On a side note, "promoting a railway station" and "citing a plague" (the latter was from another question earlier) would be great April Fools materials. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

"Location map" module expanding UX

I would be shocked if this hasn't been discussed before, but it's not currently on the talk page for Template: Location map, and I am not sure how to search the history of it. (I did click back several revisions.) ** EDIT: I figured out how to search archives! But I still cannot actually find any mention of this, although it's a little tricky to come up with useful search terms.

But when an article uses an Location map module in its content, a background image appears with a pin overlaid upon it. Clicking the image takes you to the full-page view of that image, without the pin.

There are numerous help requests I could find posted online (on sites like Reddit, Metafilter, and so on) going back several years, so clearly this is confounding several people.

I understand why it's happening technically, but it seems like it would be something easy-enough to have resolved in the last 8 years or so. The Location Map clearly has the pin location data provided to it. It seems as though clicking on the image could take a user to a view of the image (perhaps even an intermediary page) with query parameters representing the pin data to be rendered on top of it. (And from there, of course, the raw image itself could be subsequently linked to as well.)

My guess is there is some sort of underlying policy reason why something like this hasn't been implemented -- perhaps all links on an article must take you directly to the root source of the content (in this case the image), and as such an interstitial page would break some rule of Wikipedia -- but that feels far-fetched.

Does anyone know the reason, and if there's anything a user like me could do to improve things? Dabizi~enwiki (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

How to move a article

I asked this same question on Wikipedia Teahouse, how do you move a article into or out of main space Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Please don't use multiple forums to seek assistance, it duplicates effort. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I won’t, but I generally do need help on moving articles or drafts into or out of main space. The article, El homaydat, is set to be deleted on Christmas, but I think I should still learn in the meantime. Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Yuanmongolempiredynasty, see Help:Move. But please don't start moving pages until you're sure what you're doing. Schazjmd (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Understood and thank you Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If I were you and before moving a page, I'd seek consensus. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You could always copy the content and paste it to your own sandbox. —Tamfang (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)