Help desk
< January 2	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 4 >

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.

January 3

Total count of person-articles?

I am curious to know how many articles in English Wikipedia are about individual persons, whether living or deceased. I have not been able to find a figure for this anywhere, nor even whether this has been asked before. I imagine if this count isn’t already automatically compiled somewhere, it would be prohibitively time consuming to determine manually. Can anyone tell me if this info is somewhere I have missed, or suggest whether it is even possible to figure it? MJ (t • c) 04:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark R Johnson: That is actually a really hard question. There are 743,527 people (at the time of typing) in Category:Living people. However, that does not mean that there is only 743,527 living people articles on Wikipedia since some articles may not be tagged. Deceased is even more challenging since it all depends on whether or not someone tagged. it. For example the article on George Washington does not have a "deceased" category so it wouldn't be counted in any of the dead people categories. If anyone else has a more concrete answer I am curious as well. --Majora (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that an exact count isn't available—as Majora notes, the 'metadata' associated with each article (categories and such) isn't complete. For an approximation, one could just hit the Random Article button 100 times (say), count how many of those 100 articles are biographies, then multiply the resulting biography percentage by the total number of Wikipedia articles to get an estimated number of biographies. (I just did a very quick survey and got 10 biographies out of 25 articles: 40%. Figure about 5 million articles, so about 2 million biographies. 6 out of 10 were living and correctly tagged as such, so very roughly half of our biographies are of people now living. But my sample is very much on the small side.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may actually be a (better) job for WikiData, subject mostly to the same limitations already mentioned. Wikidata General Ization ^Talk 05:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all! – especially @Ten for the rough estimate. That’s probably nearly as informative as an actual count, so it pretty much satisfies my curiosity. But I also raised the question in case anyone might want to work on how to automate it. Other suggestions welcome. MJ (t • c) 05:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MJ, there are 1,309,068 articles within the scope of WikiProject Biography. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...With the caveat, of course, that that number relies on manual tagging of biographical articles (or their talk pages) with the appropriate template—so it will under-count by some margin for the same reason as counts based on other categories. (Which is not to say I'm assigning any huge robustness to my "about 2 million" figure; given its aforementioned small sample size, it could be off by a half million articles either way. I just repeated the count with another 25 random pages and got 10 biographies (again), 14 non-biographies—and one dab page to distinguish between two biographies, so I'm not sure how you want to handle those cases.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently at Wikidata there are 1,324,393 biographies, that have an article at English Wikipedia. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiseman Baronets

I knew that my ancestor had been knighted at the Battle of the Spurs, and when I saw his name listed I clicked on it, which opened to an article about the Wiseman baronets. I saw where verification of the information was needed. Yes, that which is written is true and can be verified in two ways: Burke's Peerage or Google "Much Canfield Park". I don't want a tutorial; I just want to help. That's my family.

Thank you for your time. Marilyn Guinnane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cce6:6240:e423:4b10:ab4e:3d0e (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marilyn, Burke's Peerage is generally accepted to be a reliable source and most likely better than almost any arbitrary website found through a Google search. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New article

I have recently created an article, but I can't find the article online except for when I login. Does the page have to wait for approval? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WonderKid1988 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 3 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

So far, you have only put the article on your own user page, not in main space. You might like to read Wikipedia:Your first article, and ask again here if you need further help. Dbfirs 10:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming State Files 12 & 80 2015

Hi, I'm intending to start an article about the above laws recently passed in Wyoming, called "Trespassing to collect data." These are being challenged in the courts by environmental groups. On WP I'm an (English) astronomer and know little about starting an article dealing with US legal issues. However, having gauged opinion on a well-known international Citizen Scientist website called Zooniverse, it seems a good idea to proceed with the article. I have made a significant start already in a WP article on Citizen Science under the section Wyoming Data Resources Law. It has outgrown that article and will doubtless be added to as the legal case progresses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science#Wyoming_Data_Resources_Law

This law makes it a crime to collect environmental data on behalf of the government in the state of Wyoming. This potentially means that a member of the public is a criminal for taking a photo in Yellowstone National Park. It would also criminalize Citizen Science; there could never be a wildflower count, for instance, in Wyoming. I have also asked for help here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences/Law#Statutes. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richard Nowell. I suggest you start by reading Your first article, and then use the article wizard to create your draft. Do remember that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, so everything in the article which might be at all contentious must be cited to a reliable published source, and if there are differing views in the published literature they should all be covered. So, taking what you have said above (and without researching the topic at all myself): if a reliable published source says that "This potentially means that a member of the public is a criminal for taking a photo in Yellowstone National Park", then the article may either explicitly quote that source, or say the same in other words and cite the source; but the article must not state that conclusion without citing a source that says it. And if there are published sources which dispute that interpretation, the article should cover them as well. I'm mentioning this at length because it sounds from your post above that you are concerned to highlight a law that you disagree with and its presumed consequences: if I'm right, that would be SOAPBOXING, and you should guard against it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, a quick look at it does not suggest to me that Zooniverse would be regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, as it is user-contributed. You would need to find discussion of the laws in sources such as major newspapers, or websites with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. --ColinFine (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to try to keep as NPOV as I could- I'm interested in what both sides have to say. I can also appreciate that statements that are emotive and unreferenced, rather than factual and referenced, should be avoided. Zooniverse wouldn't be used as a reliable source within the article, but was used here to highlight a point. Your point about SOAPBOXING is a good reminder. I've created several articles before but none would have had any soapboxing issues.Richard Nowell (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

West Papua Expert

Is there anyone here with any knowledge of West Papua, or more specifically West Papuan politics?
I found a fairly new article Dr. Thom Wainggai which appears to be written by a political supporter, and includes a section entitled "WORST TRIAL EVER", which is clearly not NPOV.
Although there do appear to have been some irregularities, I suspect the sources have been cherry-picked to support the PoV being presented. Having no knowledge of West Papua whatsoever, could anyone who does, please have a look? Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Arjayay: I've just tagged that article with {{POV}} to alert users to that issue, but if you want Wikipedia users from West Papua (in Indonesia) see Category:Wikipedians in Indonesia. You could also let the Indonesian WikiProject know here. Seagull123 Φ 13:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay: I've left a message at the Indonesian WikiProject talk page. Seagull123 Φ 15:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

entry deleted and modified to a previous inaccurate version

I am writing re: the content in Jeremy Gardiner's Wikipedia entry. Jeremy himself has created the content for his Wikipedia page and had it installed by Ginez 17.

Jeremy Gardiner

This content was edited and replaced a few weeks later by some old entry created at random. There are a lot of inaccuracies and not enough information on Jeremy's career as an artist. As his name becomes more well-known, the pressure is on to get a correct Wikipedia entry for him. His website link is correct on Wikipedia: www.jeremygardiner.co.uk

I contacted Wikipedia helpdesk and got the following reply:

The content was rewritten as the previous version was copied from an external site that was copyrighted, which is not allowed under our policies. As this is technically against copyright law, I will not be able to restore the article. Yours sincerely, Matthew Dann

My reply is below:

Dear Matthew Dann, Are you talking about the parts from Lund Humphries website? The publishers of his monograph?

http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9781848221000

Or is it Jeremy Gardiner's own website?

http://www.jeremygardiner.co.uk/profile/

I have actually created content for both of these, so in effect the copyright belongs to myself and Jeremy Gardiner, who is my husband and with whom I work to help spread his profile.

Could you please refer us to a fully qualified Wikipedia editor so that we can correct this and publish a new Wikipedia entry that is in line with Wikipedia's rules? Ginez 17, who we originally paid to do this for us is no longer available.

We really need to have this rectified asap.

Many thanks and kind regards, Veronica and Jeremy Gardiner VeroGardiner (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am referring to Jeremy Gardiner. 86.130.237.5 (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This raises several points:-
1) - Jeremy Gardiner is most definitely NOT "his Wikipedia page" - it is Wikipedia's page about him, and will include whatever relevant information has been published in reliable independent sources - whether that be good or bad.
2) the last person who should decide what goes on that page is Jeremy Gardiner - as he clearly does not have a Neutral point of view
3) The text was deleted, because it was a copyright violation - we do not include text published elsewhere, unless it has been released under the correct licence, and even than, text written by his wife, or someone employed by him, is unlikely to be acceptable due to the inherent PoV
4) We have no sympathy whatsoever with you having paid someone to promote you on Wikipedia. As they apparently did not declare this, their contributions were against our Terms of use, which in some jurisdictions can be an offence.
5) Given the clear conflict of interest, please follow our policy here, and suggest any changes you would like considered, on the talk page of the article, including, reliable, independent sources, that can be cited to support the information you want added, if an independent editor deems the information worthy of inclusion. - Arjayay (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that your question was asked, and answered in a similar vein, at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions - please do not ask in multiple places, in the hope of receiving a different/more favourable answer - that is considered Forum shopping - Arjayay (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to contribute a text, which was previously published elsewhere, to Wikipedia, please, follow WP:DONATETEXT. Ruslik_Zero 18:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is theoretically true, but licensing does not assure acceptance of the content. And promotional content would not be accepted anyway. —teb728 t c 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inability to edit

I am a registered contributor. Why can't I edit an article like for instance Fireworks and some other ones? I couldn't find the answer in FAQ.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adimu (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added a section heading, as your question didn't relate to the previous section, and I've also added a signature. If you click on the padlock symbol at the top right-hand corner of the article, it takes you to Wikipedia:Protection policy#semi, which explains that articles subject to persistent vandalism can be semi-protected so that it can't be edited until your account is autoconfirmed. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your account should become autoconfirmed after just one more edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - Hi User:Adimu
Firstly, please sign all posts on talk pages with 4 tildes ( ~~~~ ) which will add your signature and a timestamp
Secondly, to answer your question, Fireworks is a semi-protected article, so your account needs to be autoconfirmed in order to edit it - which your account will be once you have made a couple more edits :- Arjayay (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Approval

I put my artical how to get approval ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdaiHaddad (talk • contribs) 19:13, 3 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking about Draft:Innovations and the formation of ideas, you have submitted it for review, but (I am sorry to say) it undoubtedly will be declined because it more of a personal essay than an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such it summarizes what has already been published in reliable sources. If your article has published sources, you should cite them in the article. —teb728 t c 21:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the minimum word or character limit for good articles?

Hi Help Desk volunteers. I have received tremendous support from you all before and I extend my thanks for your priceless help. I had a confusion on what is the minimum word or character limit for good articles. As in for WP:Good articles. I have nominated two of my articles for DYK (of which one has been accepted till now). But I am confused about the Good article process. Please advise. Xender Lourdes (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe there is any limit. Rather the article must have enough to be "broad in its coverage," but how much that is depends on the scope of the article. See WP:GACR. —teb728 t c 21:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xender Lourdes - article length as such is not a criterion for Good Article status. However, to be given such a rating the article must properly cover its subject, which would generally mean that a very short article is unlikely to qualify. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you teb728 and Dodger67. This helps. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove DOB from my bio?

Hi-

I am a voice actor and a page was created for me on Wikipedia. First off, I'm so flattered and grateful that people I don't know thought me noteworthy enough to make a page about me. And I would be happy to help add to it, though I am not familiar with coding. One thing I would prefer not to have published is my birth date and age. I try to keep that information non public as it can effect my career opportunities. Is it possible to have some one help me to remove it? Or direct me to some one who can? I'm happy to verify that I am indeed me if you'd let me know the best way to accomplish that. The page is for Carrie Keranen. And I'm her :)

I appreciate all your help.

Sincerely, Carrie Keranen CareBearFinn (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it. The sourcing was not appropriate for the personal information. -- GB fan 20:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been put back; with a note by the editor concerned that DoB is sourced. However, one source mentions Facebook and the other seems to be a free local-paper. Eagleash (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:DOB "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." - Arjayay (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]