Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 December 3

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 3

RFC Question

I clicked on random article a few times to find some articles to work on, and came across two people labeled as "footballers", from what I recall, there was an RFC on how to properly identify them (association football/american football), can someone point me to it? DarmaniLink (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

DarmaniLink, I didn't find a RFC, but there is guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) with sections for different kinds of football. TSventon (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, it could be for a specific instance that I don't recall, since it was a few years ago that I heard about it in passing. DarmaniLink (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

BLPPROD

Hello. If I see a BLPPROD tag on a page, and there are clearly sources of sorts on the page (so not eligible per WP:BLPPROD, should I remove the tag (with an appropriate edit summary and notification to the relevant editor)? Or leave it for an administrator to do it? On the one hand, I don't want to overstep the bounds of what I should do; on the other, I would be keen to remove unnecessary burden from administrators' shoulders. Cheers SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No need to wait for an admin to do this. Note that the article must contain a source that is both reliable and that supports a statement about the person. Simply containing a source is not sufficient. Meters (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Meters I should have worded my question better. I meant to say, if the nominating editor has added a BLPPROD tag in spite of the fact that there were existing supportive sources of sorts (in the case in question, two external links) at the time of adding the tag - so ineligible because the article does not meet WP:BLPPROD: To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. That is, the article was ineligible in the first place, not because it contains a reliable source that supports part of the article. Cheers SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

What's the issue? If the article contains an external link to a reliable source that supports a claim about the person, the article is not eligible for a BLPPROD. Anyone can remove the BLPPROD tag. Meters (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The article contained two external links, both to unreliable sources. That makes it ineligible for BLPPROD in the first place according to my reading of WP:BLPPROD, even though the sources are unreliable. But is a non-admin entitled to remove the tag in that situation?

I do understand that if the article were subsequently to contain a reference to a reliable source supporting a claim about the person, anyone is permitted to remove the BLPPROD tag. SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Study on users

Hello, and I'm performing studies on users and aware of sockpuppets. While doing my research, I would like to ask you a question: What if a user made several accounts for security purposes so that the user can you one account when the other is broken or hacked? Gnu779 (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gnu779 Multiple accounts are permitted subject to WP:GOODSOCK. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. It helped me. Gnu779 (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Help requested for archiving a talk page section

For quite some time, the topic "Misgendering of PBA athletes" in the Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines page has yet to be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III though the discussion's last update was in September 2024. Can manually archiving the page resolve that issue or are there other ways to approach this? -Ian Lopez @ 13:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ianlopez1115: A user requested no archiving until 1 January 2025.[1] The code would have to be removed to allow automatic archiving before that. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No reason for not archiving was given, so I've removed the code. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

How can I assign a good article for reassessment?

The article in question for me is Rocket League. The article is marked for being "good;" as I'm sure it once was. However, it is clear that the article hasn't been fully updated in a while, showcased by the lack of major updates to the game being featured and past/present tenses inconsistency. Thanks! Therguy10 (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Therguy10, see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. TSventon (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I've tried reading everything that I need to over but I'm honestly confused. It looks like I have to use some kind of scripting which I am very bad and inexperienced with. I tried adding some kind of JavaScript installer gadget in my preferences but I'm pretty lost and could really use the help. Therguy10 (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Therguy10, I don't have the script either, if you can't follow the instructions and don't get practical help here, you could ask at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. TSventon (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NCORP clause and how to disamb

Hey, I few days ago I tried to create a Wikipedia page about the indipendent record label "light-years" but it got deleted by a moderator for the following reason: "Does not pass WP:NCORP, also would not be the primary topic for this redirect anyway, would have to disamb". In my opinion it is a notable company that deserves a wikipedia page, but how can i prove it? Also how can I disamb for this particular case? Many thanks! Leooomil (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Leooomil, rather than using the current redirect Light-years, start at WP:Articles for creation and create a draft article. I'd suggest using the title Light-years (record label). Schazjmd (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Leooomil: You can copy the markup from [2] to Draft:Light-years (record label) (best if you do it, to preserve attribution; but shout if you need help). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Leooomil. The only way to prove notability is by showing that the company meets the criteria in NCORP, which mostly means that there is enough independent, reliably published material to base an article on: so you would prove it by finding several (usually at least 3) sources each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42.

Note that "notable" here does not mean "important", or "successful", or "popular", or "influential", or even "outstanding": it just means that there is enough published information to base an article on, remembering that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Leooomil: Google says there are approximately 359 million companies in the world. I suspect that a lot of them are notable and deserve a Wikipedia page in someone's opinion. This is why we have tried to create objective measures of notability to use instead of these opinions. See WP:NCORP. -Arch dude (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)