Help desk
< July 13	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 14

I'm a incorporated land group consultant.

I used to assist all Papua 🇵🇬 new guinea tribes and clans to register their customary lands Tobe title by the national government. I draft their geology and family trees and,16 requirement.and search their customary lands and colonial history from the national archives office in port moresby headquarters . Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:9F40:B5:EA3F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, did you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Qcne (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Activity on draft

Draft:Thomas Robert Swift (neurologist)

After a very speedy rejection, followed by me making the requested changes, no new activity has occurred for several days. Could someone check on this, please?

Thank you,

John Henson Jhenson1 (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You submitted it again, three days ago. At the top, it says "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order." Please be patient.

While you are waiting, I strongly suggest that you read WP:REFB, and format all your bare URLs as proper citations: it wouldn't surprise me if that is one of the reasons why no reviewer has picked up your draft again.

I would advise also looking critically at each of your sources, and checking that it meets all three of the criteria in 42: reliability, independence, and significant coverage of the subject. I suspect very few of them do so. ColinFine (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhenson1 it is a hard requirement that biographies of living people have in-line citations after every statement. Currently most of your draft is uncited. I have declined it on this basis. Please see the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE to add in-line citations throughout.

The key thing is, however, does Thomas meet our notability criteria at WP:NACADEMIC? If not, he does not merit an article. If you think he does, you need to prove that through the use of sources. Qcne (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from the draft: "He is a scribbler of verse and is known for extemporaneous singing, leading to the following unpublished rhyme by his son, Andrew.

There is a doctor named Tom

He can dance and sign with aplomb

With the verve of a dervish

He doctors the nervish

When perplexed he bursts into song"

How on earth is this notable? I'm also worried about WP:COI and WP:BOSS here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name can't be changed because old name already exists?

A soccer club I follow and frequently contribute to had a temporary name change last season after going bankrupt. It has acquired the original name again, but I can't switch the page back to that original name because the original article already exists and redirects to the newer one. It gives me an error because the article already exists.

For reference the original article/page it needs to be is "Reggina", the current article is set to "LFA Reggio Calabria" which is no longer the name of the club. Haberdasher (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page you're looking for is WP:Requested moves/Technical requests. —Cryptic 14:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible comments

I'm working on The God Who Riots and noticed some invisible text indicating why a category was added. I haven't done much with invisible text and based on my reading of WP:HIDDEN and WP:COMMENT these comments seem unnecessary. Would it be inappropriate to remove the hidden comments as clutter? It seems obvious that a category would be a topic covered in the book and if that isn't obvious then it could have been clarified in the edit summary. Is it common practice to add comments explaining why categories have been added? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TipsyElephant: It's definitely not common practice to add a commentary to explain the addition of categories to an article, specially when they don't appear to be controversial. Removing them should be fine, though you can always message the editor who first added them to ask why they did so. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I delete my draft article I’ve abandoned?

Deleting a draft Sylvan1971 (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sylvan1971. Place the {{db-g7}} template at the top of the draft. Qcne (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sylvan1971, or you can just ask right here! Was it Draft:Laura Bliss or Draft:Laura Bliss (two)? Commander Keane (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Laura Bliss

thank you Sylvan1971 (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally you’ll move it to mainspace, as it appears to meet Wikipedia’s standards for publication. Sylvan1971 (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple reviewers that rejected the draft would disagree. The deletion also seems like a way to avoid scrutiny by creating a new draft about the same subject with much of the same sourcing. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sylvan1971, Isabelle Belato makes a very good point. I thought you were abandoning the draft but if you wish to proceed then I can't delete Draft:Laura Bliss as it contains the history of previous rejections. Placing the {{db-g7}} template at the top of the draft is unlikely to work either. I suggest you keep working on the original draft if you wish to continue. I am not sure what the policy is regarding creating multiple drafts, if someone could enlighten me that would be great. Commander Keane (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Laura Bliss Was deleted but not the history of previous comments, as you suggested. Please advise. Ideally delete. Thank you. Sylvan1971 (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete Draft:Laura Bliss

thank you Sylvan1971 (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sylvan1971 (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also delete the history of comments related to the draft you deleted? Thank you. Sylvan1971 (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

Hi,

I wanted to ask whether if Publications (books) without ISBN or for who ISBN are not available are reliable or not for citing as a source in a article in Wikipedia ?

Example:-

https://books.google.com.pk/books/about/Defending_Kashmir.html?id=TR7SAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y (Snippet only, Google Books)

https://archive.org/details/DefendingKashmir/page/n73/mode/2up?q=Faqir (totally accessible, From Wayback machine)

A Publication by the Government of India Rahim231 (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahim231: The ISBN was invented in 1970. Your example book was published in 1949. Presence of an ISBN is not evidence of reliability. Absence of an ISBN is not evidenced of unreliability, even for a book published after 1970. -Arch dude (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh thanks alot. Rahim231 (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cant find page i wrote

I cannot find the page that I wrote on Metamorkid today. Where did it go? Oskarzqt (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oskarzqt: You "created" the page by overwriting an existing redirect page. Your additions ware reverted, making the page back into a redirect. Please look at the edit history of Metamorkid to see what happened. you work is still preserved in the page history. Please open a discussion with the editor who reverted your work. -Arch dude (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Oskarzqt. Editor @Another Believer changed the article to a redirect page, with the comment "New article does not demonstrate notability".

You can open a discussion on the talk page of the target article, Talk: Drag Race Germany: remember to ping Another Believer.

To be honest, this is the sort of frustrating thing that happens to new editors when they jump straight into the very challenging task of creating a new article before they have understood much about how Wikipedia works. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.. ColinFine (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the page has been restored. I'm all for more articles about drag queens, but this article does not come close to demonstrating notability. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]