Help desk
< February 13	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 15 >

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.

February 14

News & sports programming on the DuMont Television Network

I have attempted to create the "DuMont news programming" & "DuMont sports programming" categories at Category:DuMont news programming & Category:DuMont sports programming. I did so to replace the Category:DuMont News & Category:DuMont Sports categories, as I feel the the Brand news programming & Brand sports programming categories much better fit than the Brand News & Brand Sports categories, especially since, from what I'm aware of, the DuMont Television Network never actually had a news or sports divisions. 2600:1700:C960:2270:446F:23ED:BD33:29E4 (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating categories for renaming is done at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. If you have Twinkle, the xfd option will automate your proposal for you. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updating numerous external links

I know that several citations throughout Wiki point to my website, which recently moved from one URL to another. A simple string would need to be changed in the links throughout wikipedia. Is it possible to request a bot be created to make the update? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shsilver (talk • contribs) 02:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question? Factual Error

Hello,

How do I correct an article that is factually incorrect?

To correct this error, I would have to re-write the whole section of the entry.

How would this impact the original author?

Is there a way for me to offer up a discussion as to why the entry is incorrect and have that reviewed before doing a total reworking of the section?

_______ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariedel2021 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariedel2021 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of discussion takes place on the talk page of the article. Start by offering up just the discussion you describe. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of subpages in my userspace

How do I find out how many subpages are there in my userspace? Will I be notified if someone else creates a subpage in my userspace? Thanks. -Abdul Muhsy (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abdul Muhsy: you can use Special:PrefixIndex for this. For your userspace, that would be Special:PrefixIndex/User:Abdul Muhsy. You won't get a notification for other users creating pages in your userspace. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom of Special:Contributions/Abdul Muhsy has a "Subpages" link to Special:PrefixIndex/User:Abdul Muhsy/. It includes an ending slash to only give subpages. Without it, some users would also see pages for other users if their own username is a prefix of the others. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pending feature request for this kind of notification: phab:T166924. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Как создать новую страницу ?

Как создать новую страницу ,если её нет в википедии? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romakoff (talk • contribs) 10:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To create an article, follow these steps:

Read Your first article carefully.
If you don't have an account, consider creating one (it's not essential, but it makes some things easier, especially communicating with other editors) and logging in.
Learn the basics of editing with the Wikipedia:Tutorial
Make sure the subject is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article
Gather reliable sources to cite in the article
Make sure no article on the subject exists under a different title by typing the subject into the search box and clicking 'Search'
Use the Article Wizard to create a draft.
Create the article, including all your references, making sure you adhere to the Manual of Style and our article layout guidelines. Base the article on what the references say, rather than on what you know.
Once you believe that your draft meets Wikipedia's requirements, submit it for review by picking the "Submit your draft for review" button in the draft.
Be aware that many drafts are not accepted the first time, or even the second time they are submitted for review, for failing to adhere to our policies and guidelines. New articles by new users are particularly likely not to be accepted, due to new users' unfamiliarity with our rules. Consider gaining experience by editing existing articles before attempting to create new ones. -Abdul Muhsy (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google-translated: "How to create a new page if it is not on Wikipedia " Romakoff, on the English WP you are supposed to communicate in English. If you intend to write in Russian, try the Russian WP: [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I sent them a welcome notice on their talk page using a Russian template Shushugah (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page Restore request for sandeep salwan

This page has been removed about sandeep salwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandeep_Salwan

Please restore Sandeep salwan's profile as he has a valid and authorized link that is verifying about sandeep salwan.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10060941/

http://www.cannes-shorts.com/csff/csff-archive.html

He has dubbed a for a feature film "Cooped up " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.68.218.203 (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The concerned article was deleted in 2012 due to failure to meet WP:BLP, WP:N at that time. If you feel that the situation has changed, (since the subject may have become more notable now) you can now recreate the article. If you are in doubt whether the person meets wikipedia's requirements of notability please read this. Alternatively, you may ask experienced editors here too. Also you may wish to go through WP:CITEIMDB though, to ensure that the article is not deleted again due to lack of verifiable sources. -Abdul Muhsy (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

help with creating a page

Good morning. I am trying to publish my dad's biography on Wikipedia in three languages. I have watched relevant videos and read the instructions. However, apparently I did not finish the process and my entries in all langauges are either deleted or pending. Would you please share the instructions for a dummy user like myself? Thank you and I really appreciate your time and help. Sara — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMKKG (talk • contribs) 14:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to your draft on Dr. Kurmanali Matikeev, you will have to wait for an administrator to review your request concerning the same. I recommend that you watch that space.- Abdul Muhsy talk 14:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Articles nominations

Hi. I proposed the appointment of the Good Articles of the pages Cristiano Ronaldo and Overseas teams in the main competition of the Coupe de France. How long does it usually take to get a response? Dr Salvus (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAN relies on users to take the nominations, so can take some time to be begun. You should however be aware of the GA Criteria, and also note that you should have been a major contributor to the page.

The Ronaldo page has been reverted as it has recently had a failed nomination and hasn't been changed since Dr Salvus. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas teams in the main competition of the Coupe de France has one source, and only has 932 characters of prose text (excluding the tables), none of which has inline citations. So it doesn't have a chance of being accepted as a GA. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: What should I do to turn it into a good article and then maybe a featured article? Dr Salvus (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Salvus: Write more prose, provide more reliable sources, and see Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

communication difficulties with the editor

I tried to find out the way to communicate Liz (Editor) to defend against the deletion of my page "natural Quantum Communication" but the system is so complicated to find any communication opportunity. Please tell me how to communicate editor Liz. Thanks Dr. Orun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orunab (talk • contribs) 16:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orunab Every user(including you) has a user talk page, to be used for communication. It is offen linked to in user's signatures, and can be found in edit histories. In the case of Liz, their talk page is at User talk:Liz. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it talk about the fact that "once an article is created, there is no limit on how much information can be added to the article"?

Which page in the "Wikipedia" domain talks about the fact that "once an article is created, there is no limit on how much information can be added to the article"? Please {{ping}} me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jax 0677. There is a practical limit. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Article size.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jax 0677. I think you might specifically be thinking of WP:NOTPAPER (though I agree that Wikipedia:Article size is responsive to the your post, and would add exercising editorial discretion as well). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Fuhghettaboutit:, @Shantavira:, I seem to remember a policy saying that notability determines whether or not an article can be created, but that once the article is created, that there is no limit to the amount of information that can be contained in that article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability determines whether or not Wikipedia should have an article on a particular subject, but not whether particular information may be included. In other words, notability does not apply to whether material can be included. But, that's not the same as saying that there is no limit to what can be included in an article. As pointed out, there are practical limits to size, and there are other considerations too, such as whether the information is sourced, neutral, due, etc. Meters (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably thinking of WP:N: "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists " Meters (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

I would like the pages List of Coppa Italia finals and Overseas teams in the main competition of the Coupe de France to be nominated as Featured List. The quality of the items is not high. So I asked for help in the Peer review. How often is the Category:Current peer reviews page is viewed by administrators? Dr Salvus (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Dr Salvus. Your post implicates a bunch of matters, so in no particular order:

An administrator is a user who has been given certain extra tools, such as the ability to block users, delete and protect pages, etc.; being one has nothing whatsoever to do with processes like this. So, if the person who does a peer review is an administrator, that is just happenstance (and they are not acting in their administrative capacity in doing so).
I expect that the users who conducts peer reviews are much more likely to find candidate pages by visiting Wikipedia:Peer review or Wikipedia:Peer review/List of unanswered reviews than that category. Nevertheless, to see how many views a page has, you can always go to its history and click on the tool at the top for "Pageviews". But this is often rather irrelevant information for what I think you're actually seeking—how long you might expect to have to wait for a peer review to start, so—
—like most processes here, peer reviews are performed by volunteers, choosing to review what they like, and there is no set order. Accordingly, no precise prediction can be made, but the project does place pages into various views based on time has elapsed since last edited – such that older pages are given some priority. See {{Peer review/Unanswered peer reviews sidebar}}, where the older articles listed go as far back as December 19, but most of the them are early January and more recent. Based on this, it appears most reviews start within about a month.
You say "the quality of the items is not high", and yet "...peer review is a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent..." – so peer review may not be the right place for these lists. Your only expectation on a peer review is for suggestions for improvement directed to the requestee, i.e., for you, to read and implement; do not expect substantial improvement; for someone to do the research an article is lacking; for them to add well formatted references to reliable sources; nor to rewrite the content to remove prose that doesn't belong and to add content that the sources indicate should be included by the weight they are accorded upon doing a survey of sources in the subject area; don't even expect a surface copyedit.
Requests for copyedits can be made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests;
There is no secondary way to bring an article up to the high standards needed for a successful o FLC or FAC; any proponent must be willing and able to do the heavy lifting themselves.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archive issue

Hello. I was going to migrate some conversations from my talk page to an archive by copy/pasting, but then I had a thought: Will doing so ping everyone whose signature/mention is on what I'm copying? If so, how do I avoid that? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 20:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EDG 543: You could use one of the processes detailed on Help:Archiving a talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of proper authority in Wikipedia

I don't understand what is going on in Wikipedia publication domain. It seems there is a lack of qualified authority to edit, confirm, protect the novel ideas. Most actions seem just very emotional! I believe that, if such critical responsibilities are left to just ordinary readers, there will be absolute chaos.

What I do not understand is; if there is a proposed article supported by the journal publications, not exhibiting any personal or institutional names, why it is still threatened for deletion ? I know that there are many formal rules and guide lines (e.g. conflict of interest, etc.) , but they can easily be misinterpreted or misused by non-qualified editors.

Regards Dr. Orun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orunab (talk • contribs) 20:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orunab, may I ask which proposed article you are referring to? And did the reviewer leave any comments or reasoning for why the draft was rejected? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 21:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Orunab: Are you referring to Intelligent laser speckle classification? If so, the deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent laser speckle classification. GoingBatty (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's key words above are protect the novel ideas. Based on the AfD linked above (posted before Orunab's post above), WP:SELFCITE and WP:OR appear to be the relevant issues. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not interested in "novel ideas"; only in subjects which have been discussed in independent sources. There's no emotion involved in this; or at least, not from this end. (This is in no way a criticism of your research, which seems, at least to me, creditable and praiseworthy.) Maproom (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article about "D.C. Statehood" movement.

This article has a strong, left-wing bias. It only presents arguments in favor of D.C. Statehood, and does so in a biased, slanted, partisan manner. It should be removed entirely and be replaced by another balanced one. Outrageous, really, that you would post it and try to pass it off as legitimate. Furthermore, the author should be banned from posting future articles, as he/she obviously has no intention of being objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.42.5 (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

99.117.42.5, I assume you are referring to Statehood movement in the District of Columbia. You're not wrong, the article does seem quite a bit slanted, and the tag stating: "The neutrality of this article is disputed" means someone else agrees, as well. However, there is no single author of this article, there were many editors who collaborated to create it. If you truly believe that there is a problem with it, you may feel free to edit the article yourself. Be very careful to only include information supported by reliable sources. I would also suggest taking up this issue on the article's talk page rather than here on the Help Desk. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 21:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle a broken link in a reference

What is the protocol for addressing a link that is broken in a reference? When I tried to click on the link in a particular reference, I landed on a page that said "Page Is No Longer Available". Should the reference be replaced with "Citation needed"?

The particular instance I am referring to is the first link on the "Lemon balm" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EE sparky (talk • contribs) 21:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most websites exist on internet archive (or another archiving website). If this can't be done, you can add {{dead link}} or |url-status=dead to the reference to show that it isn't a live website. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EE sparky: Lee Vilenski and I have updated the reference accordingly. GoingBatty (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How would I download multiple wikipedia pages as pdfs

Hi,

I have a list of wikipedia articles laid out in book format e.g.

B-admissible representation

B-coloring

B-convex space

B-spline

and so on. Is there a way to download these all pages as 1 pdf file all at once?

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.201.207 (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you're at any particular page, you should see on its left-hand side a menu named "Print/export", which provides a link for "Download as PDF". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean mutiple pages at once in 1 download. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.201.207 (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, you might need to create a Wikipedia book first before doing so. I've never used it before, but it seems to aggregate selected articles onto one page, which you could probably download as a .pdf. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the book feature was disabled? I used to use it but now I can't find it 142.167.201.207 (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't render books anymore, but there are external services like MediaWiki2Latex that can still do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of free online tools that show up if you search for combine pdfs. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where should I suggest a change in the way all articles are written?

Where should I suggest a change in the way all articles are written? For example, what is considered to be a good way to write articles.Arctic Gazelle (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arctic Gazelle. There are numerous pages providing information and recommendations for aspects of article style and writing. I think one of the best overviews is to read our criteria for articles to achieve featured article status, i.e., to be designated as the best Wikipedia has to offer. For that, please see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. To suggest changes to the way a particular article is written, visit its talk page. You wrote above, though, about making suggestions for " the way all articles are written. I'm not sure if you were speaking loosely, or meant what that could imply – whether you're thinking of writing a post about some global issue in the manner Wikipedia articles are written. If that's what you meant, see the Wikipedia:Village pump. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Arctic Gazelle: If you haven't done so already, you may want to visit the various Wikipedia:Manual of Style pages and post specific suggestions on the appropriate talk pages. GoingBatty (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Arctic Gazelle: If you post your suggestion here then we can say where it belongs. It could be dozens of places based on your first post. We need more info. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recently set up an account and found my way to Sandbox, wrote my article, and now I can't figure out how to publish it

I read several help pages and all seem to refer to a drop down menu where I will find the option to "move" my article to the next step but I cannot find either option on my Sandbox page. Please advise - thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Radicalmoney/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radicalmoney (talk • contribs) 22:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Radicalmoney: As you are not autoconfirmed yet, you are unable to move pages. You can submit a draft for review by putting {{subst:submit}} at the top of your page, but I suggest removing the external links in the body of the article first, as Wikipedia doesn't do that. You may want to consult Easy referencing for beginners. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing

Courtesy link: Draft:Baltinglass Hillfort Complex

Hello. I created a draft and want to move it to the main space or have it approved for publishing but there is no option to do so. Can you assist? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonewallmad (talk • contribs) 22:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stonewallmad: When you're ready to submit the draft, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. I will point out that you should find a different source than the interview, as primary sources are less prioritised than secondary sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewallmad, the interview might be usable for certain purposes, but it would have to be published. An unpublished interview may not be cited for any purpose (and neither may unpublished letters, email, etc). And statements such as "It is a place of immense beauty and profound archaeological significance" should be avoided, or anyway the "immense beauty" part should, because eye of the beholder and all that. -- Hoary (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Chip Vaughn's page

Courtesy link: Chip Vaughn

Hi,

I work for an NFL agency that represents Chip Vaughn. I am trying to update his wikipedia page with information that he wants on his page, however, every time I edit the page, it says that I need a reliable source for this information. All information that I have been uploading has been relayed from Chip Vaughn to me. Please let me know how I can successfully edit this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atr0218 (talk • contribs) — Atr0218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Atr0218: First, please declare your conflict of interest on either Talk:Chip Vaughn or your user talk page. Second, Wikipedia does not care what Vaughn wants on his page. Personal communications between you and him are unverifiable, and Wikipedia cares about what reliable sources that are independent from him have to say. You should also not directly edit the article, and submit edit requests on the talk page instead. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]