Help desk
< October 11	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 13 >

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.

October 12

Any reason why I'm singled out?

I was looking over the list of Dragon Award Best Sci-Fi Novel nominees since 2016 and noticed something odd.

Why am I the only author without a Wikipedia page link? Every single other sci-fi author has one except me. Care to explain?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dragon_Award_nominees

If it will help y'all out, you can just cut and paste my entry on Everpedia.

https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/richard-paolinelli

I mean, I kind of feel excluded and targeted here... just saying... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C67:217F:DE0F:6CB4:2551:C074:6E5A (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close to half of those authors don't have articles - red links indicate that there's a link but no article. It's just that nobody has made your name into an internal link, be it red or blue. I've fixed that part, and eventually editors will write articles for all of those red links. Acroterion (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, an article at Richard Paolinelli was deleted in 2016 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Paolinelli. If an article has been deleted then it's common to not redlink the old title, since a red link encourages creation of an article. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paolinelli was nominated the next year, so there might be better source material now. As for Everipedia, we can't cite that any more than we can cite internally within Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And no, we can't paste this article of Everipedia. We can't even cite it. Here's why. -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's progress at least. Hopefully someone will come along and populate the article at some point down the line. Thanks for doing that! I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C67:217F:DE0F:3069:847E:BBE:6B92 (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with targeted harassment

For the past several days I have been harassed across wikis on my talk page by an IP user. Every day they leave comments on a different talk page on a wiki, many which I didn't even know existed. Then, I have to report the harassment and the admin blocks the IP and they move on to a different wiki. It is annoying and tiresome. Is there any way I am able to protect my talk pages across wikis to *prevent* further harassment? Citrivescence (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean harassment on your talk page across the Wikipedias of different languages? (Guessing that you might mean this, I looked in fr, de, es and en; but noticed nothing.) Or do you mean something else? Perhaps you could link to a couple of examples. -- Hoary (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is serious. I am sorry to read this. Though I am new here, please let me know if there is any way I can help. Kalyan1010 (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way is to turn off (or at least ignore) notifications from other wikis (Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo->Cross-wiki notifications). A global block of 2600:6C40:5400:1D2B::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) should help, which I see has already been requested. Make sure you ask for, and get, a block of the /64 range instead of individual IPs (WP:64). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i am not sure if this can help but, if they're harassing you through different projects; then it's called cross-wiki issues, heading to Steward requests/Global on meta, may help you to avoid future harassments. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Citrivescence —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink to WikiProject Page

Hello, I wish to add a Wikilink to an "official" Wikipedia page, similar to the help pages (the Welcome Committee, particularly). I understand that, generally, Wikilinks are used to connect articles with articles and not with such non-article pages – is it alright for me to do so? Regards, ASploopyPerson (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ASploopyPerson: Which page are you trying to link to which article? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ASploopyPerson. Wikilinks are used on all sorts of pages in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects; but it is very unusual to link from an article to something which is not an article (which is what I guess you are talking about). Why would you want to do that? --ColinFine (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu 🐲 @ColinFine I'm in the process of making an encyclopedic article on welcome committees in general. I want to say something along these lines in it: "Wikipedia's welcome committee, as an example, has the purpose of helping new users with finding certain functionalities and usages of the website." Should I, or would it be necessary or better to refer to something else as an example? I haven't found any articles on particular welcome committees; I only have found Wikipedia's. ASploopyPerson (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say No, ASploopyPerson. Either find an independent source that talks about WP:WC, and cite the source; or leave it out, as original research. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with ColinFine, ASploopyPerson. This kind of veers into Wikipedia:CIRCULAR. If an independent reliable source mentions Wikipedia's welcoming committee, than it could be considered; otherwise, this is essentially original research. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks for the input. ASploopyPerson (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_Out_(2015_film)

This article is filled with dead links. Most of its claims, including awards, are substantiated by dead links. Even the final link redirects to a pornsite. I am not experienced enough to deal with this. Please take a look. Thanks--176.229.152.167 (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. For me, the last reference redirected to a gambling website. I've fixed this, and only this. I'd do more, but I'm pushed for time right now. Somebody else, please take over. -- Hoary (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is still filled with dead links. Most of its claims, including awards, are substantiated by dead links.--176.229.152.167 (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

dumb question: how do you become admin

I want to become admin in the future. How do i do that? Please tell me how MikeShinoda2001 (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MikeShinoda2001 You spend years developing a good edit history that shows that you understand Wikipedia policies and content guidelines, and demonstrate that you have a need for the administrator toolset, and gain an overwhemling community consensus that you should have the tools. Note that probably 95% of things here can be done without being an administrator. Having the administrator tools conveys no special status or authority- administrators have no more authority than any other editor. See WP:RFA and some of the pages linked to at the top there for more information. It's more difficult than it may seem. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the info, ill refer to this for future purposes MikeShinoda2001 (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are the most difficult parts of being an admin? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Teahouse is not archived for 5 days

Please help. The Wikipedia:Teahouse is not archived for 5 days, and we want to be archived by Lowercase sigmabot III every 3 days. Can you fix it? 2001:44B8:41C6:F700:51E7:CFA0:7310:4F18 (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Σ/Archive/2021/November#Lowercase sigmabot III seems down. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 2001:44B8:41C6:F700:C12A:5FAF:DB0E:83B1 (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can I add a side bar?

I would like to add a side bar like the info box on this page as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Barcelona. I would like to add the info under the Barca logo on my page..... Where can I find how to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YolandeHudson (talk • contribs) 11:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, YolandeHudson. I'm guessing you are referring to an infobox. If you're talking about your sandbox User:YolandeHudson/sandbox, then you probably want Template:infobox company. The easiest way to put one in an article is to find an existing article about the same kind of subject which has an infobox, "Edit source" on that article, and copy the entire infobox (from {{infobox whatever to the matching }}) into your draft, and edit the content appropriately.

But, if you are talking about that sandbox, then your question is the equivalent of "I've thrown up a house with no foundations, that's probably going to fall down: how can I add a balcony to it?" An infobox is a nice-to-have, but not an essential part of an article. Independent sources, on the other hand, are an absolutely non-negotiable essential to any Wikipedia article (that's why I say "with no foundations"). Almost every one of your citations is to the company itself, and the few that aren't are mostly based on press releases from the company. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. I suggest you build a solid article (you may find you need to dynamite the lot and start again once you've found the sources) before worrying about an infobox. You also need to lose the promotional language.

Personally, I would advise you (as I always advise new editors who plunge straight into creating an article) to put it aside for a few months while you learn how Wikipedia works by making edits to some of our six million existing articles. Then read your first article, and NCORP. And if you have any connection with Hudson group (as I guess you may have from your name) you need to read paid editing carefully, and WP:NOTPROMO as well. --ColinFine (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I ask about the general reliability of a source

Is there an appropriate place to ask about the general reliability of a website/source? I'm aware of WP:RSN, but unless someone has a specific instance of a source being potentially unreliable and they are trying to get the source added to WP:RSP someone else always seems to chime in to tell them that you shouldn't ask about the general reliability of a source at RSN. For instance, without even looking at archived discussions I found someone asking about the general reliability of The Irish Times where someone chimed in to ask for a specific issue rather than discussing the general reliability of the source. Everytime I read through RSN to try and understand the process there at least one or two people are getting chided for a similar question. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Reviewer Question

Where do I go to ask questions about what I'm allowed to do as an AFC reviewer? For instance, I was curious how much I can contribute to an article that I accept (i.e. I can easily find sources that demonstrate notability but they haven't been cited yet). TipsyElephant (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TipsyElephant, the best place to ask is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests for pages from individuals who would have a COI on the subject

First, please accept my apology for not knowing the ropes and for not spending enough time to teach myself those ropes prior to asking this question. I am a newly registered Editor, however, one of the first things I learned was that it is a conflict of interest for me to edit any of the pages in my area of expertise and interest.

Of course I'm not going to break the only rule I'm aware of so far, but I have information that is new to the subject of "pickleball" for the pickleball page. Is there a streamlined way of connecting with Wikipedians to present the information?

Thank you in advance for your help!

Brady Whittingham — Preceding unsigned comment added by InformationPower (talk • contribs) 20:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

InformationPower Hello and welcome. It's not a conflict of interest if you like pickleball and want to edit about it. It might be if you work for a pickleball team or association or some other pickleball group. What is the nature of your COI? 331dot (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am involved on the business side of a game that was derived from pickleball. By the way, was I supposed to click edit, or talk to respond to your comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InformationPower (talk • contribs) 20:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You responded correctly. (Talk goes to a different page) You are welcome to make an edit request(click for instructions) on the relevant article talk page.(for example Talk:Pickleball) 331dot (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Thank you so much for your quick response, I will go there and start the discussion...I'll find pickleball editors on that talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InformationPower (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[this the correct way of connecting?] I'm not familiar enough with this visual editor to feel confident that I'm going to be effective at sharing information - is there a way to just email content or post links to content for an editor to evaluate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InformationPower (talk • contribs) 21:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine to do. Wikipedia business ideally should be conducted on Wikipedia, for openness and transparency. You may simply detail the edits you wish to see and post links to citations for that information, if you mark it at the top of that section as an edit request with {{edit request}}, it will be seen by other editors to evaluate. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Thank you!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by InformationPower (talk • contribs) 22:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Dr Majors and creating orofile

Dr Richard Majors the well known Black Psychologist former Clinical Fellow at Harvard Medical School and book author of such bestselling books like Cool Pose is a native of Ithaca NY born and raised. Most people on this list might of attended Cornell univ and therefore lived in Ithaca while attending Cornell but are not from Ithaca. Dr Majors was born and raised in Ithaca and he is Black. Dr Majors is one of the few Black famous figures and role model from the Black Community in Ithaca and you refuse to put him on the notables list of people from Ithaca or create a profile if him on Wikipedia this is so unfair to just promote the Whites why?

Frank native of Ithaca NY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank choco (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank choco Wikipedia does not have "profiles", not a single one. Wikipedia has articles. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say on their own about a topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. The race of the person has nothing to do with if they merit a Wikipedia article or not, it depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank choco If he's notable in the special Wikipedia sense of that word, then someone could create an article about him, and then he could be added to the list: whether or not he meets the appropriate notability criteria is the only consideration that would be used to decide whether the article is accepted or not (assuming, of course, that the article actually demonstrates that notability by citing suitable sources).

Promotion, of anything, is explicitly contrary to Wikipedia's core policies – see WP:Five pillars.

It looks to me from a brief web-search that Dr Richard Major might be notable enough for an article. The only way to find out for sure is to (correctly) draft one and submit it.

All of Wikipedia's content is written by unpaid volunteers like you and me who choose to do so, and nobody can be assigned the task of writing a particular article. Right now, you are that best person to start drafting an article, because you have shown an interest in the subject. Why not learn how by taking The Wikipedia Adventure and then following the instructions in Your First Article? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.221 (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]