Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Helpdesk)

    ↑ To top of page
    Shortcuts
    Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)
    • For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
    • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
    • If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
    • Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
    • For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
    • New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).
    Ask a question
    Skip to top
    Skip to bottom

    December 18

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

    And cut. Take this to ANI if necessary. [Add-on: Stan has been blocked indefinitely] 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 17:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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:

      • 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:

      • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    We can't guarantee you a speedy review. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    ChatGPT doesn't have a very good idea of what our standard practices are. -- asilvering (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    it may be standard journalistic practice but it is absolutely NOT Wikipedia practice ever. Theroadislong (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    What do you mean by "inventory table"? What article or other page are you looking at? ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, images in a template. Persian Meowth (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Thanks, hope it helps Persian Meowth (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mind if I ask how do you set a CSS Statement on min-width? Persian Meowth (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    "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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Please don't use multiple forums to seek assistance, it duplicates effort. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    Understood and thank you Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were you and before moving a page, I'd seek consensus. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You could always copy the content and paste it to your own sandbox. —Tamfang (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    December 19

    Questions, Sources, and general advice request

    I'm working on the Sacred Reich article (specifically a draft on my userpage for a major edit) and I've been struggling to improve the article recently due to a few problems, and I have been unsuccessful in solving myself; I've come here to ask for your input on it, and general advice on the draft if plausible.

    A major problem I've run into is that I'm unable to properly add information to the article, just because of the lack of coverage on said information. For context, a part of the major edit is a section on their artistry (musical style, lyrics, etc.) However, I'm struggling to put anything useful together as most sources only briefly cover the topic of their artistry (i.e "continued to work on their political lyrics ..." without much—if any—deeper coverage on the topic. There are a few sources that are somewhat more descriptive of the topic, but it seems I can't write enough information (at least two paragraphs) to provide encyclopedic coverage of the subject, and without accidentally violating WP:SYNTHESIS. (On a sidenote, many sources either explicitly or implicitly mention the band's extensive and "aggressive" touring habits, but almost no coverage besides that, and I don't know how that could be used in the prose of the article.)

    Another problem I've had is that I'm beginning to believe that I have run out of sources for the article. I have already used most of the sources that show up in regular Google searches, as well as almost all of the results in Google Books, News, and all applicable sources in WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. On a sidenote, a large majority of posts on Google are relatively recent, which leads to more sources for more recent releases (i.e. the 20 sources for the Awakening subsection) than needed. The reverse also applies, with little information on their early releases (Ignorance, Surf Nicaragua, and The American Way), which are their most famous releases.

    And—in my opinion—the hardest problem, is the section on the band's political views. The band (mostly frontman Phil Rind) has made several statements regarding Donald Trump and his followers and has been negative towards him on several occasions.[1][2] Because of the BLP policy, NPOV, and just getting it right, I'm struggling to put this section together without "blowing everything up". This interview with Revolver Magazine I believe clears up Rind's viewpoint, with Rind going in-depth about his viewpoints regarding Trump. To avoid copyright problems, I would usually paraphrase Rind's opinion because of MOS:QUOTE and copyright reasons, but I feel obliged to quote him fully to avoid distorting the meaning of what he said. However, per copyright, I don't think I can without risking a copyright violation. I don't really know what to do in this situation, as it's squished between WP:BLP+WP:NPOV, and copyright problems.

    Also, there may be some problems regarding the prose in general (irrelevance, flow, etc.) that I may have missed, and I would also like to request some general feedback on the draft in general. If you can provide insight into any of these problems I'm having, it would be highly appreciated. Thanks. —Sparkle and Fade talkedits 01:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Sparkle and Fade talkedits 01:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sparkle & Fade, it seems to me that you are overthinking things. The Metal Injection source makes Rind's political opinions very clear. You can pick two or three of the most evocative sentences, and quote them with attribution. You can then paraphrase the other things he said. He speaks clearly and frankly without evasiveness, and in my mind, what he said would be very easy to paraphrase. Cullen328 (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't yearn for sources to say much more. Just summarize what the known sources say, and leave it at that. Cullen328 (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again, Cullen328. Looking back, I think I was really overthinking things because I've been working on the article for a long while. Your advice has been very helpful in clearing my view on the whole thing, and I'm likely to finish the edit soon. Thanks for your help, Sparkle and Fade talkedits 05:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Kennelty, Greg (2021-01-12). "SACRED REICH's Phil Rind Puts "Trump Cult" On Blast". Metal Injection. Archived from the original on 4 Dec 2024. Retrieved 2024-12-12.
    2. ^ "Rockers React To Pro-TRUMP Protesters Storming Capitol Hill: 'This Is Next-Level Insanity'". Blabbermouth.net. 2021-01-06. Archived from the original on 14 Jul 2024. Retrieved 2024-12-13. Been looking forward to the people storming the Capitol, but I thought it would be to stop the lies and corruption, not support it.

    Archiving a talk page of a redirect?

    What's the standard practice on whether to archive talk page discussions when a page becomes a redirect? There are some talk pages that will seemingly stay on the list of longest talk pages forever[1]. Wizmut (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:TALKSIZE states that talk page discussions can be archived when the byte size of the talk page exceed 75 KB, or have many closed or resolved discussions. Archiving talk page is usually left to the bots, but if you want to archive them manually, the procedures are on H:ARC. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Illustration of an event from description

    There's currently a once nearly-boiling-over and now relatively minor dispute regarding illustration of an event for which there exists no free media. If I were to illustrate the event myself using descriptions of the event (which can be safely and reliably attributed), could these be included in the article, and would this count as original research? Departure– (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-photographic illustrations are, in principle, fine. Most articles about historical people and events from before the advent of photography have them. For articles about fictional people and places, they are also pretty unavoidable. That said, if the depiction might be controversial, which is what this sounds like (no idea what the topic is), then I think I'd avoid it. If no free media exist or could be created, a copyright photo can be used under fair use; see, for instance, the image captioned "Cutty Sark on fire, in May 2007" in Cutty Sark fire. But it's often worth ask the photographers if they are willing to upload the images to Commons, first; they might be happy to freely license it. HLHJ (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The debate regards the 1925 Tri-State tornado, and the argument can be seen at Talk:1925 Tri-State tornado#This image shown here is photoshopped and not the real tri state tornado. The part I'm focusing on is towards the bottom, where I floated the idea of illustrating the topic from a few descriptions of the event. It's not just that no free media exists of the tornado - no media at all is known to exist, much like the elusive 1990 Plainfield tornado. Anyway, I was told that the descriptions were somewhat open to interpretation, and thus any illustration would be original research, even with attribution. Departure– (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that it is a bad idea for a Wikipedia editor to try to create an illustration of a historical event based on a written description. It runs afoul of the policy against original research. Just quote and attribute a couple of sentences, or paraphrase a longer passage. Cullen328 (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Page containing page question

    I do not know what a page that contains a page is called. I know that it is invoked by the {{}} symbols, but I am unsure what it is called. I also want to ask another question about it. Caleb's World11 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They're called templates. And what's your other question? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The main page seems to use templates of pages, but it wont update information that was edited on those pages. I already tried to purge the page, but that did not work. I am trying to update the 7.3 Magnitude earthquake in Port Vila. Caleb's World11 (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing seems wrong/not up to date to me. And just to confirm, is this the template you're talking about? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the actual word that I am looking for is Transposed, but with your response, I am unsure. To be clear, I want the heading on this page to match what is on the main page, but it doesn't. This page is at the top of the news section. Caleb's World11 (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, now I know what you're talking about. My bad. So the main page says 19 fatalities yet the article says 14. Is that the problem you're trying to highlight? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Caleb's World11 (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to get information into the main page, we have to edit here. However, they're only accessible to Administrators. To fix this, you might want to contact the administrator, who is User:Stephen, who changed the death toll from 14 to 19, and alert him for the mistake he made. Hope this helps. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, @Caleb's World11. The word is WP:transcluded. But the main page does not (mostly) transclude other articles, but specially written summaries.
    There is a section on how to report errors in content currently or imminently on the main page, on Talk:Main Page.; ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    December 20

    drafts of Pakistani dramas

    should add second drafts from redirect for Pakistani dramas because i learn about putting reliable soruces by Sunuraju (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, @Sunuraju, I don't understand what you are asking. ColinFine (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    because i learns how to put citation sources today and i need add drafts for paksitani dramas for citation sources Sunuraju (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    because of sockpupprt accounts without add ciation sources which dramas wiki pages like Hook are redirected to Ary Digtal Sunuraju (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The target of the redirect can only be changed when the drafts get accepted and published into the mainspace, if that answers your question. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See User_talk:Sunuraju. There are several draft articles that were turned down because they were improperly sourced or written like an advertisement. Wikipedia is not IMDb or a similar resource, so all articles about actors, films etc need to meet the general notability guideline.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahh, how long I'm waiting for an article review?!!

    Help! I'm NOT patient with my article review and I'm tired of waiting for weeks and weeks. What can I do? Gnu779 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello @Gnu779, I find it rude to be impatient with volunteer reviewers who review drafts in their own time. We receive hundreds of new drafts a day for review with a very limited amount of volunteer reviewers. The current wait time is 8 weeks or longer. You can continue to be patient. qcne (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having had a look at Draft:Hong Jen Yee, it has zero chance of reaching article mainspace at the moment. I could review it and turn it down today, but this wouldn't help much. It is way too short and lacks sourcing, see WP:NPERSON.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Might also be Draft: Pelles C? qcne (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically there are almost 2,000 articles waiting for review right now, and there aren't many people who look through them. So it's hard to say when drafts get reviewed. It could be a couple minutes or a couple months. Your best bet is just to find another thing to work on for a little while. There are countless tasks that help out Wikipedia if you're looking for more ways to participate. Also make sure that the article you submitted meets the standards generally expected. Each article should have a few good sources about the subject (like newspaper pieces about them or something like that). Thanks for your help in expanding Wikipedia! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm bad at writing articles. Sorry for that but I have big problems with that. Gnu779 (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An average wait of weeks is actually pretty good, I've seen it as high as 6 months or more. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, dude. It took me over maybe 2 months or something. Gnu779 (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing a repeatedly-declined AfC draft from scratch?

    Hello! I am not actually sure what the correct process is for this. I am a librarian who is killing time at the reference desk reading old Help Desk archives (because I have learned a ton about Wikipedia and its policies by doing so), and I encountered a discussion of Draft:Uman (artist) being repeatedly declined through the AfC process in January of last year. In viewing the draft, I see that it was further declined for the subject's purported lack of notability in July 2024. However, I think this person easily meets general notability guidelines if not WP:ARTIST, having received significant independent coverage (ranging from lengthier profiles to briefer exhibition reviews) from credible publications like CNN (see here), Artnet News (see here), ARTNews (see here), the New York Times Magazine (see here), Artforum (see here), and The New Yorker (see here). The artist also has a major solo show upcoming at a notable art institution, the The Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum, that has also received support from the notable Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts.

    With all due respect to the folks who reviewed this page through AfC, I acknowledge that the current draft is written to be too complimentary to the subject, but I think that is a separate issue from notability, and if this were not already part of the AfC process, I do not think that I, as an extended confirmed user, would have had any issue creating a NPOV draft and passing NPP based on the subject's notability as documented through the above links. Creating an article for this artist falls directly in my expertise wheelhouse, and I think it is important and helpful to continue to contribute articles about BIPOC and female contemporary artists to the encyclopedia due to their relative lack of coverage.

    My question is, because a draft was begun through AfC, do I need to edit the problematic draft that has repeatedly been declined--or can I erase it and start anew? Further, do I need to submit it again through AfC if I can completely redraft it, or can I move it to the mainspace myself--as I have no COI here and do not need help drafting an article, and the WP:AFC page says that "Established users are encouraged to create articles on their own if they do not need support from reviewers."

    If this is not the best place to ask, is there a more specific forum for AfC-related issues in which to ask this question? Thank you for your time. Peachseltzer (hello!) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Peachseltzer, the AfC process is entirely optional for competent autoconfirmed editors, and you are significantly more experienced. The draft in question has not had any substantive content edits for nine months, and the editor who created the draft has been inactive since then. I think it would be perfectly acceptable for you to write a policy compliant article from scratch, and just allow the draft to be deleted in due course. Cullen328 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your kind and speedy reply @Cullen328! My desk shift is wrapping up now, so I will do just that on Monday. Peachseltzer (hello!) 18:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peachseltzer: you could start a new article from scratch in you sandbox, or a subpage of your user space. If you are satisfied that notability is met via verification by reliable sources, you can move it to mainspace yourself. Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How to properly add annotations to entries in a bibliography?

    Many Wikipedia pages have a "Further reading" or "Bibliography" section. They list useful important books that the reader of the article may use to learn more about the topic of the main article. Are there any tools (templates) or best practices for adding annotations, that is, additional information for each entry that would explain what the referenced work is (e.g. a seminal work, a monography or a review), so the reader will have an easier time deciding which book to read?

    Many high quality articles on Wikipedia have a dedicated "Bibliography" section. It has various names, such as "Bibliography", "Further reading", "References", "Sources". They can be found on these articles, for example:

    Thanks for any pointers. Regards, Fantastiera (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Bibliography" and "Further reading" are not the same thing. Take Philosophy as an example, the "citations" section points out the specific pages of the cited sources, whereas "bibliography" section list out all the books that the entries in "citations" came from. If you click/tap on the link of an entry in "citations", it will bring you to the corresponding book in "bibliography". In that sense, bibliography is a part of the reference, while further reading is not.
    To add citations like those, you'll need to list the sources in a "bibliography" section, then cite specific pages by adding "<ref>(Book title), p.(page number)</ref>" to the part of article where you want to add citations to. See WP:SFN. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, this is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for the proper way to add annotation for entries in a "Further reading" section for the purpose explained above. This is not to link the references. Fantastiera (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You might find Wikipedia:Further reading helpful. Schazjmd (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There does not seem to be a standard format. You can follow the instructions at MOS:FURTHER. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. This looks very useful. Fantastiera (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirects

    How do you make a redirect? Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See Help:Redirect. Schazjmd (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    December 21

    Marshall Brooks

    This page is great but I placed the name by which he was known on top of the info box - should it be inside it ? (please see my citation which has his full title: The Hon. Marshall Jones Brooks)

    Thank you Srbernadette (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Full name and title can be placed in either the lede sentence or the infobox. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot work out how to place the name and title IN the actual info box. Please assist. Thank you Srbernadette (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Srbernadette I think that the infobox "rugby biography" is designed so the name doesn't go into the box. See this example in the template documentation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I wished Wikipedia supported wallpapers in pages...

    It would be even more awesome if we could change the wallpaper of pages in Wikipedia. But the fonts' colors could change to adapt to the wallpaper. The button for that might look like this: Change wallpaper Gnu779 (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, @Gnu779. The place to suggest features is WP:VPR ColinFine (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! You replied quickly! Gnu779 (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will add that personally, I do not want the WP developers to spend time adding features that in my view do not contribute to the sole task we are here for: building an encyclopaedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gnu779 Did you know you have a choice of five skins? See Wikipedia:Skin. Shantavira|feed me 19:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shantavira I know them. But how about wallpapers?
    Thanks, Gnu779 (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    List of pages using a shortcut

    Before deciding to retarget a redirect of a shortcut, it would be helpful to know the pages that are using the shortcut, so that any disruption by the retargeting can be considered in the decision to retarget. Is there some way to find that out?
    (I'm asking this question because of the discussion Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16#Wikipedia:PCR, which resulted in a retargeting of a redirect that disrupted a section, Provide context for the reader, of a page that I was reading.)
    Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless I've misunderstood you, you can navigate to the redirect page (for example, go to WP:PCR, and then pick "Redirected from PCR" at the top) and then pick "What links here" ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was what I was looking for. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    can i speak to a global renamer or steward

    please FeistyRooster (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an em Wikipedia Helpdesk, there is information and contact info at meta:Global renamers and meta:Stewards. TSventon (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    December 22

    Query re: Search Engine Optimization

    There was recently a very long thread at ANI about a user who was eventually site blocked. I won’t link to the thread because, frankly, life is too precious.

    The user was a promo-only account who initially attracted attention to themselves by opening multiple threads to try to rush 3 film articles through AfC. The stated aim of the user was to get the articles to appear on Google searches to coincide with the US release of one of the films – i.e. apparent search engine optimization (SEO), as can be seen here [2].

    The user also went to great lengths (again across multiple threads) trying unsuccessfully to remove PAID and/or COI tags from the articles.

    The intersection between these two aims is clarified by the user’s suggestion that These tags negatively impact the articles' indexing and discoverability [in Google searches], reducing accessibility for readers. This is not about SEO but ensuring that notable topics are properly represented and accessible.

    I’d be interested to hear from other users on the issue of whether or not the presence of such tags would represent a serious impediment to the aims of someone involved in SEO. The film mainly in question here (It's Coming (film)) currently has 2 tags and appears 5th on a Google search for “It’s Coming film” and not on the first few pages of results if searching for “It’s Coming” (which is evidently far too generic a search term).

    Any input here would be much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My own understanding is that Wikipedia has its own objectives, rules, and policies, and ignores the objectives of SEO agents. If an editor admits that his objective is SEO, I personally would be disinclined to cooperate with him. If I read the suggestion you quote in teal above, I'd respond "That's great – I hope you'll work on improving the article until an impartial editor removes those tags." Maproom (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See this ANI thread for further views. The now-banned Stan1900 has been remarkably effective at making enemies. Maproom (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, quite so (in response to both of your posts above). The user almost went out of their way to advertise their promotional and SEO objectives and then behaved at ANI in such as way that their conduct there alone was enough to get them blocked.
    However, my question is whether the existence of the tags interferes with attempts at search engine optimisation. And also, how does it interfere?
    To some extent I'm inclined to briefly remove the tags and see if the article moves from #5 to #1 on the Google search, but I'm reluctant to make an edit for such a contrived and non wiki-related reason. If I put the names of some (relatively obscure) untagged films into Google they do tend to occupy the #1 spot in a search - so there would seem to be some evidence that the blocked user was rather knowledgeable on how tags influence SEO (possibly implying a promotional background?).
    If COI/PAID tags do interfere with attempts at SEO then that can only be a good thing, of course. Axad12 (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The movie in question is It's Coming (film). A Gooogle search for two common words like "it's coming" is going to produce countless false search results. But search terms "it's coming movie" and "it's coming film" have the Wikipedia article ranked about #5 on Google, which is pretty darned good. The film's own website and trailer and Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb rank higher. The specifics of Google's ever changing search algorithms are opaque, providing employment to countless SEO specialists. Of course, the prominent banners at the top of the article may deter prospective streaming viewers, but that is the result of the primary author behaving like a total ass in so many ways. The one constant that I have noticed over the years is that more comprehensive Wikipedia articles tend to rank higher than briefer articles, which is no surprise. Cullen328 (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And hence perhaps another reason for the user having wanted to pad out the article with a great number of positive quotes from reviews. Although, in fairness, there were other (entirely neutral) ways in which the article might have been lengthened if that had been the intention.
    However, that still leaves the question of why the user was so sure that These tags negatively impact the articles' indexing and discoverability [in Google searches].
    Obviously it's staggering that the user felt that non-conflicted users would find an SEO-based reasoning a compelling argument to remove the COI/PAID tags - but it seems reasonable to assume that he believed what he was saying. Axad12 (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Google, and other search engine operators, do not reveal their criteria for evaluating pages, as that would make it too easy for people to game their evaluations. There are techniques that SEO people discuss and use; if you're interested, you'll be able to find such discussions. It seems to me likely that a long Wikipedia article will score higher than a short one, and that one with tags at the top will score lower. An SEO expert will know far more about these things than I do. Maproom (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Witness statements as sources

    Should witness statements for court cases or public enquiries be used as sources for biographies of living people? I avoid it, even if they are available online (public enqiry!), as they may contain information of a very personal nature about family, health, etc. or can end up making the article look like a CV. I might give a brief quote: "she said in her witness statement to the public enquiry..." if there is anything very important, although if it is important it is likely to be reported in the media, but not use the statement for details of someone's childhood, etc. I ask because another editor Strugglehouse is adding content from witness statements from the Horizon Inquiry to articles of living people, for example, to Paula Vennells and, potentially, Jo Hamilton and I haven't been able to find anything in reliable sources guidance about it, although I am sure I have seen something in the past. Southdevonian (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, thanks for bringing this up. I used these sources as, as you mentioned, these are public.
    While I do think some public documents shouldn't be used, I believe these are probably okay. Most very personal information within the couple of documents that I have used is redacted. Therefore, I think it's okay to use for some claims.
    I do agree, however, that if claims can be proven by other sources, such a the book source used in the Jo Hamilton article, this is probably better. Strugglehouse (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism help request from Bondwagon

    I have noticed some persistent vandalism at Ijaw People. Namely, persistent change of the population figures to an outdated number, not reflecting updated figures and sources. Removal of multiple reliable sources confirming new figures and replacing with one outdated source still on old figure . Persistent valdalism carried out by da5ft9. A tribes population calling remain constant for over a decade, hence the single oudated population figure is null and the multiple recent population figure is correct. Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, Bondwagon (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you talked with the person you accuse to do this on his/her talk page ?
    Each user have a "Talk page". Anatole-berthe (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not speak with the person Bondwagon (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bondwagon, please do not ask the same question four times. I've collapsed the duplicates below. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks you @CanonNi for your contribution. Anatole-berthe (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you Bondwagon (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bondwagon I would advise you to either open a discussion at the editor's talk page or the article's talk page to settle the matter. It seems that Da5ft9 has reverted you earlier because the sources added were irrelevant and unreliable (regarding this, I don't think the 101lasttribes source is reliable since Wikipedia is one of the places they took their information from). Jolly1253 (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Duplicate of above

    Vandalism help request from Bondwagon

    I have noticed some vandalism at ijawpeople. Namely, It has come to attention that there is ongoing vandalism of population figures, particularly the consistent removal of updated estimates supported by multiple reliable sources, such as the University of Birmingham, and their replacement with outdated figures from a single source, the CIA Factbook. This vandalism appears to be persistently carried out by user:da5ft9. It is important to note that a tribe's population is unlikely to remain stagnant over nearly a decade. For example, the CIA Factbook estimated the Ijaw population at 4 million in 2010, and this figure was recently relabeled as a 2018 estimate without any substantive update. This contradicts more recent and credible estimates provided by multiple sources, which suggest that the Ijaw population has grown significantly over time. Given the discrepancy and the reliability of other sources, it is evident that these updated figures are far more accurate and reflective of reality. It is crucial to maintain data accuracy and prevent the suppression of validated information. Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, Bondwagon (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism help request from Bondwagon

    I have noticed some vandalism at Ijaw people. Namely, It has come to attention that there is ongoing vandalism of population figures, particularly the consistent removal of updated estimates supported by multiple reliable sources, such as the University of Birmingham, and their replacement with outdated figures from a single source, the CIA Factbook. This vandalism appears to be persistently carried out by user:da5ft9. It is important to note that a tribe's population is unlikely to remain stagnant over nearly a decade. For example, the CIA Factbook estimated the Ijaw population at 4 million in 2010, and this figure was recently relabeled as a 2018 estimate without any substantive update. This contradicts more recent and credible estimates provided by multiple sources, which suggest that the Ijaw population has grown significantly over time. Given the discrepancy and the reliability of other sources, it is evident that these updated figures are far more accurate and reflective of reality. It is crucial to maintain data accuracy and prevent the suppression of validated information. Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, Bondwagon (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=1264587671"