Wikipedia:Help desk
- 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).
December 5
What can I include in "Political Positions" for a party leader
I'm looking at updating the political positions for the different leaders of parties in Western Australia (in preparation for the upcoming election), however I'm not quite sure what should be included as I understand the pages for these leaders should not become propaganda pieces, however in their current state they are quite lacking. Additionally, I do not know if party policy announcements (for example on their websites which aren't directly attributed to a specific person) would count as proper sources for a party leader. Any clarification on either problem would be greatly appreciated. Tomo307 (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Tomo307, you should base the descriptions on what has been said about these people in articles in respected newspapers, magazines and news websites, written by people who ought to be disinterested. I know nothing about politics or the mass media in Western Australia and wouldn't be surprised if, as elsewhere, various outlets purporting to be independent seem in reality little more than stooges for this or that party or politician. When there's a suspicion of this, avoid such "referenced" statements as "Murdo McMuffin is a wild-eyed socialist" (plus a reference to your source, The Brisbane Larrikin-Digest) and instead go for "Murdo McMuffin is, in the opinion of The Brisbane Larrikin-Digest, a 'wild-eyed socialist'" (plus of course the reference to The Brisbane Larrikin-Digest). For your questions on the reliability of sources, try WP:RSN. -- Hoary (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Question about WP:SD, "written by a banned user before their ban"
Hello. While reading WP:DP, I had a question and came to the WP:Help desk. As I don't see a separate Help desk subpage specifically for policy questions, I'm posting my inquiry here. I would like to know if articles written by a banned user before their ban also fall under the speedy deletion criteria. --Jeebeen (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Jeebeen Per what I see at WP:G5, they do not, but there might be more usual reasons to delete, speedy or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, articles by a banned user before a ban do not fall under that criterion. Only pages created after the ban. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Wikiproject question
How can I create a Wikiproject? (Sorry I know that's vague lol) Therguy10 (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
I can't load visual editor on Wikipedia
Wow, now i can't edit on Wikipedia even i not blocked in Wikipedia!
How can i fix this? Vitorperrut555 (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Vitorperrut555: You managed to edit an article on December 3. Were you, by any chance, trying to edit a page that was restricted to extended confirmed users? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I just want to edit my User page. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Tenryuu But I can’t? Now I can’t edit anything on Wikipedia even I not banned…. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're clearly able to post comments here and I don't see any blocks on you. Are you not seeing the edit links at the top of the page and view source instead? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Tenryuu I can see the edit, but the loading has not loading.
- But. now he can load Vitorperrut555 (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Vitorperrut555: try this link to edit your user page. Mjroots (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're clearly able to post comments here and I don't see any blocks on you. Are you not seeing the edit links at the top of the page and view source instead? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Tenryuu But I can’t? Now I can’t edit anything on Wikipedia even I not banned…. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I just want to edit my User page. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Https://
Non-constructive text
|
---|
Nemo! (Belize)
I am writing a draft about the National Emergency Management Office in Belize. I am not 100% certain on which sources establish notability. Source one likely does not contribute as it is primary. OAS, source two, I am unsure if it provides notability as it a supranational entity that covers(?) Belize. I am unsure if Devex's profile (source three) counts as primary and what to do with the mission statement. CNS (source four) I believe may not cover it enough. Deeper insight is welcome along with any other sources that you can find. ✶Quxyz✶ 23:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
December 6
Trouble using links in the Tip of the Day
In the Tip of the Day for today, the buttons to click on for both the previous message and to get more information about external links aren't working for me. They go to an information message that's not relevant to where they're supposed to go. I think a tekkie is needed to look into this ... but in case it's something I should be doing, please advise. Augnablik (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Prior tip" and "Wikipedia:External links" both work for me at both User:Augnablik and Wikipedia:Tip of the day/December 6. They go to Wikipedia:Tip of the day/December 5 and Wikipedia:External links. Do the links fail in both places for you? What does the information message say and what is the url when you view it? PrimeHunter (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, @PrimeHunter, they're working now. All I can tell you is that much earlier today, they weren't. What happened, to answer your question, was ... nothing. Literally.
- I may have some gremlins playing around in my computer because for about 2 weeks now I've had a maddening situation I'll describe for you. When I start typing a new sentence or use a capital letter within my current sentence — also when I try to use a dash, colon, or semicolon — my cursor jumps back to the start of the preceding sentence and what I'm trying to type appears there.
- This means I have to copy those letters or pieces of punctuation and paste it where it should go.
- And that all the capital letters and dashes you see in this message had to be copy/pasted into their correct locations!
- My computer isn't doing this anywhere but within Wikipedia. Do you have any idea who I should connect with about this? Augnablik (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Augnablik: If you have enabled wikEd at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets or the first feaure at WP:HILITE then try to disable it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter, I thought these places you suggested I go would be under the Preferences section on my User page, but apparently not. When I click on the location links in your message, I'm told that I'll leave this page. Maybe that's what I have to do, but that's made it awkward to write you this message.
- When I send you this message, I'll try the links and see what happens, but I did want you to know my confusion about where these links lead. Augnablik (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- (Follow up to my above reply) Okay, I just went to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and found that it was actually on one of the tabs on my User page (Gadgets), but I didnt see wikEd anywhere. And when I went to WP:HILITE, I didn't see a "first feature" I could disable. I feel as if I'm wandering around in thick fog. Augnablik (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Augnablik: A browser will usually only warn you that you will leave a page if you are editing the page or filling out a form, but it may vary. If you were previewing then it also counts as editing. The message is to warn you that you may lose your work when you leave the page. Most desktop browsers can open a link in a new tab by right-clicking it and choosing an option, or by just pressing Ctrl while clicking it. wikEd is in the "Editing" section at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. I don't know whether users can have circumstances which omit it. WP:HILITE doesn't offer the mentioned feature but describes where to enable/disable it on a highlighter marker button . PrimeHunter (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Augnablik: If you have enabled wikEd at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets or the first feaure at WP:HILITE then try to disable it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Need to change page title
I'm researching US radio stations and searched on WPLH, a college station in Georgia. This redirected to WJYI (FM). The issue is confusing because WPHL filed with the FCC for a new construction permit in 2021, was assigned WJYI as its call sign, and then switched back to WPHL when its new license was approved in 2022. The Wikipedia article doesn't cover this well, though the worst of it is having WJYI as a title. In any case, I'm certain WPLH is correct per the FCC and the website. So what's the procedure for changing the page's title? Thanks. Allreet (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Allreet The procedure is Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#How_to_move_a_page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I wouldn't have thought "moving" was the same issue. I probably won't get to this tonight (our time), but shouldn't have any trouble once I do. Allreet (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Allreet I don't know if various redirects will be "a technical barrier to the move", if so, you'll notice. If that happens, you can request a move, see top of that page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks for the additional heads-up. Allreet (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Allreet I don't know if various redirects will be "a technical barrier to the move", if so, you'll notice. If that happens, you can request a move, see top of that page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I wouldn't have thought "moving" was the same issue. I probably won't get to this tonight (our time), but shouldn't have any trouble once I do. Allreet (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Why am I seeing ...
... little symbols I can describe only as "right-angled arrows" on some of the text at my User page? They occur to the left of 4 bulleted items just below a barnstar and several related paragraphs, and also to the left of the first sentence in the first paragraph after that. Augnablik (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- That would be the break lines when editing on mobile (particularly through the browser, not the app)? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 12:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, this occurred on my computer. Now I don't see the symbols when I make a fresh attempt to go to my User page, but earlier those arrows were there. Incidentally, I thought I checked carefully then to make sure I wasn't in editing mode, and it seemed not, but I wonder if somehow I was and didn't quite know it. I'm frankly a bit confused as to what went on. Augnablik (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Dealing with poor English contributions
I recently left a message on a new user's talk page ([1]) welcoming them, but also letting them know that the majority of their edits have not conformed to proper English and reminding them that there are Wikipedias in other languages. Is this the proper way to handle situations such as these? I don't want to accidentally be rude to someone who's actually acting in good faith, but I also don't want to let poor edits like these pass without letting the user making them know. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @GracenC Your message had a reasonable tone but I'm not sure that you really had enough evidence to conclude that User:Harrisonsdgage737 is not fluent in English. For example, their most recent edit was, almost certainly one that they did as a newcomer task suggested because of the "puffery" tag on that article and they removed the words that could have been seen as non-neutral. Their edit summary certainly implied this. The fact that the word "she" was left instead of "She" and that the article has an "Introduction" section header it should not have mean it still needs much more work but that's not something that newbies would always recognise. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looking back on it, I probably did jump to conclusions about them not being a native speaker. However, in the other edits I reverted, namely [2] and [3], it certainly seems like their understanding of proper syntax isn't great (e.g.
to be used by the use of
). I'd like to imagine there's a place here I can direct them to that would be helpful, because like you said they're most certainly going through newcomer tasks and have positive intent, given that they actually removed POV language (totally on me for reverting that without noticing the actual contribution). /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 19:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looking back on it, I probably did jump to conclusions about them not being a native speaker. However, in the other edits I reverted, namely [2] and [3], it certainly seems like their understanding of proper syntax isn't great (e.g.
Looking for a tool to get statistics on article references, specifically reliance on individual domains
For articles with many news org references, it can be hard to tell exactly how much weight is being given to one source. Is there an analysis tool available to display a table of the total link count for each domain in the reference list? Safrolic (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
December 7
Request for clarification on a COPYVIO related issue
I’d like to request guidance on a situation where I have probably erred…
Recently I was dealing with a COI edit request which asked for several blocks of text to be amended to be consistent with the [subject’s] website
. Investigation indicated that the blocks of text were, as I suspected, direct lifts from the subject’s website. Further investigation indicated that (a) the great majority of the Wikipedia article consisted of material lifted directly from that website, and (b) the article had been curated by a series of SPAs for the last 15 years, some or all of which apparently derived from within the subject organisation.
I declined the COI edit request, removed the majority of the article text on the basis that it was WP:COPYVIO and requested WP:REVDEL, which I believe would be normal under such circumstances. The COI editor then informed me that since the subject, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, is part of the US government there is no COPYVIO.
Assuming that that is correct, it still seems to be problematic that virtually the entirety of the recent article text was directly lifted from the subject’s website (e.g. there is a complete reliance on non-independent sources, the material describes the subject in the subject’s own words, absence of NPOV, potential for promotion, etc. etc.).
I’ve not met this situation before and would be grateful for some guidance. I assume that I'll need to replace (in some form or other) the material I deleted, but I'm unsure of to what extent such material was rightly in the article in the first place.
Until recently the article looked like this [4], with the first 6 paragraphs being direct lifts from the subject's own website (i.e. everything prior to NIGMS produces a number of free science education materials
).
Any input here would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- If the editor is saying that the text is from a US federal source, and that is acknowledged on the page, there is no violation. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose it depends what you mean by
acknowledged
. In our article the material was cited (as per a normal citation) to the relevant pages on the subject's web site, but it was not specifically acknowledged within our article that the text has been lifted wholesale from there. Axad12 (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)- @Axad12 Isn't the more important point that the article currently has 9 citations, all of which are to the Institute's website? Without secondary sources, I don't see how it can meet the relevant notability guidelines. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, yes, that was part of my original point, i.e.:
it still seems to be problematic that virtually the entirety of the recent article text was directly lifted from the subject’s website (e.g. there is a complete reliance on non-independent sources, the material describes the subject in the subject’s own words, absence of NPOV, potential for promotion, etc. etc.
Notability is just another side to that, albeit one that could theoretically result in the article being deleted. - My main concern at this point is what material, if any, should be reinstated. However, if you think the article should go to AfD instead then please do go ahead and nominate it. Axad12 (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- That would involve a WP:BEFORE search on a topic I'm not sufficiently interested in. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, yes, that was part of my original point, i.e.:
- @Axad12 Isn't the more important point that the article currently has 9 citations, all of which are to the Institute's website? Without secondary sources, I don't see how it can meet the relevant notability guidelines. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose it depends what you mean by
- This is not a copyright violation but in my opinion, it is a form of plagiarism. Wikipedia editors are supposed to summarize the sources, not to wholesale copy sources that happen to be in the public domain. WP:PLAGIARISM says
even though there is no copyright issue, public-domain content is plagiarized if used without acknowledging the source
. This practice transforms what should be an article summarizing what independent reliable sources have written about the institute into a simple extension of the institute's own website. Cullen328 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
December 8
when to go to ANI?
I know it’s discouraged to go to ANI, but I’m unsure of where to take a conflict with a user. I don’t think their edits are considered vandalism by Wikipedia standards/warrant a full rollback but I do think they are disruptive and might need a WP:CIR block. I (and many others) have addressed this in both user and article talk pages, but they do not seem to understand the issues raised.
Things this editor has done include repeatedly not citing sources, repeatedly citing blogs, edit warring/ownership, and has partially deleted talk page discussion in a manner that changes what the original post means (instead of fully blanking). It also appears this editor may not have a good grasp of English due to the mispellings and grammar issues they have introduced.
I’ve lurked for a lot of my WP career and feel like I have a good grasp of policy, but I’m not sure where to go with this. Thanks, Sarsenet (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)