Help desk
< October 10	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 12 >

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 11[edit]

Request edit to title of Article[edit]

Hi there, I am looking to change the title of the Article as well the content and would like to know more on how this can be achieved. I work for ARTC Inland Rail and have been authorised to update their page.

We need to change the title from Inland Railway to Inland Rail.

I am currently working on the body text with a colleague of mine and will be updating the content shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTC Inland Rail (talk • contribs) 00:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

First, you should read our policies on conflict-of-interest editing; assuming you follow them, and your account has made at least 10 edits and is at least 4 days old, you can move a page by going to the "More" tab to the left of the search bar, scroll down on it until you see "Move", and follow the instructions. If the requested title already exists, even as only a redirect, this will not work and you'll have to request a move at the page I linked a couple of words ago. Thanks!

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ARTC Inland Rail:Neither you nor your colleague should edit that article directly or move it. Instead, after you both comply with our mandatoy paid editors policy (see WP:PAID) you may make suggestions for changes (including the page move) on the article's talk page. In addition, you must change your use name, and you and your colleague must use separate accounts, not a common account. See WP:USERNAME. Don't panic, following these rules will eventually get the article into better shape. Note that nobody needs to be "authorized" by the subject of an article. Any of our 100,000 or so active editors who is not associated with the subject may edit the article. Only those who are associated with the subject, such as yourself, are restricted from direct editing. -Arch dude (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article[edit]

I have made a wikipedia page and am still waiting for it to be reviewed. Any way of checking how much longer it will take or why it would be taking so long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ba111 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the submission notice on the page that you created. It clearly states: This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,692 pending submissions waiting for review. Having been submitted for review just under 4 weeks ago, the amount of time review has been pending for this article is well within that time frame. General Ization ^Talk 04:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ba111: I made some minor changes to Draft:Gregory Harrington to improve your chances of getting accepted, but my feeling is that it's too light on sourcing to demonstrate notability. Please see Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. (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.)TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia statistics or teaching resources[edit]

Hello, As a teacher librarian, I love teaching students about using, contributing and critically evaluating Wikipedia - so it would be a tremendous help if there were teaching resources developed for this purpose. Resources that could ALSO, be used for professional development, to convince teachers of the value, reliability and scope of Wikipedia (compared to traditional encyclopaedias) could stop teachers 'banning' students from using (or referencing) Wikipedia in assignments. For example, I previously converted this infographic to a ppt for teaching purposes, but it's hard to update the data without some recent, reliable stats. https://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/271/347/a3a.jpg

I would be grateful for any help with locating: Teaching resources that Wikipedia (or others) have developed for this purpose, OR recent statistics/charts or critical reviews, relating to Wikipedia reliability, use, scope, contributors etc

I checked the article 'Reliability of Wikipedia' but most of the studies referred are pre 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

I was encouraged by these recent articles/videos:

"Isn't it time to stop Wikimedia shaming?" http://blogs.slj.com/neverendingsearch/2019/06/17/isnt-it-time-to-stop-the-wikipedia-shaming/

"How trust in Wikipedia evolves: a survey of students aged 11 to 25" http://informationr.net/ir/23-1/paper783.html

"Using Wikipedia: Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #5" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih4dY9i9JKE (thanks Gråbergs)

Kind regards, Jwil0101 (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jwil0101, it's not quite a teaching resource, but perhaps you can get some use from Using Wikipedia: Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Jenny W (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwil0101 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jwil0101 if you haven't found them, Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check them out : ) Jenny W (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles[edit]

Hi, i don't understand why any article that i check on wikipedia goes to speedy deletion, where is the problem, am confused now. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkmomanyi (talk • contribs) 15:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've had explanations on your user talk page. I've just looked at Baglivio, M. T., Epps, N., Swartz, K., Huq, M. S., Sheer, A., & Hardt, N. S. (2014). The prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in the lives of juvenile offenders. Journal of juvenile justice, 3(2). and found that it had no content, so will be deleted under criterion A3. You have been advised not to try to create articles in mainspace. If you work in your user sandbox or in draft namespace you can develop your draft until it is ready to be submitted for AFC review. You'll find advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rkmomanyi: I don't know what you are trying to do when you say "check". What you actually do is to create articles in our encyclopedia with titles of research papers including authors and journal, but no other content than repeating the title. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We make encyclopedic articles like Adverse Childhood Experiences Study. We don't publish research papers and very few of our articles are about research papers although they are often used as references in articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Update[edit]

To all editors! A new list of Forbes 100 richest Indians has arrived. There is gradual increase or decrease in net worths of various billionaires. I think the net worth column present in infobox of various billionaires articles should be updated with new one. How many of you agree with this? Thanks. (2401:4900:1682:4572:2:2:4C3A:6438 (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]

You're welcome to add the information yourself if you can properly source it. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 100 people, it wouldn't be easy for me to update all. I can hardly update about top 65 billionaires, for remaining I need others help.

Thanks. (2401:4900:168F:FC9E:2:2:4CD3:DAC4 (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Please note that "all editors" do not read this help desk, and the few of us who do hang out here are not necessarily interested in editing any specific article. To get help editing a particular article, you can try putting a comment on that article's talk page in the hope that interested editors will notice. If that fails, you can try to find out if a particular wikiproject is interested on the article, and if so, you can place a comment on that wikiproject's talk page. Good luck and thanks four your efforts so far! -Arch dude (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on a page move[edit]

Hello -

Where do I post comments regarding a requested page move that has been listed for discussion?

On the article's Talk Page?

On the requested moves' "current discussions subpage"? (When I tried to edit this page I got a warning "Do NOT edit this page." There was a bullet point instruction on the page that said "To add a page to the list, follow the instructions here." But when I clicked the link it took me to a new page with the nice header "Commenting on a requested move" which told me about standards and what to consider, but it didn't tell me where to add my comments.)

Thanks. Consider me very frustrated at the Wikipedia's written instructions. VFF0347 (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link us to the listed page? DonIago (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Requested moves/Current discussions has a "Discuss" link for each entry. In your case the link goes to Talk:Burmese–Siamese War (1568–70)#Requested move 9 October 2019, which is where the discussion should take place. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you for your help. VFF0347 (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to contribute[edit]

Hi, my name is Lysa Ward, MD and I've been a practicing and board-certified physician since 1997. I've use Wikipedia thousands of times for research and it has been an invaluable tool for me. I began my career as an ER Doctor and I still maintain certification for the speciality, but at this point, I specialize in non-invasive cosmetic services and cosmetic injectables. I feel several of the pages for these types of services are incomplete, misleading, or contain factual inconsistencies, usually because, the page covers too broad of topics. Because of the popularity of non-invasive cosmetic service, cosmetic injectables, and invasive cosmetic services in general, perhaps Wikipedia should dedicate more resources to expanding on these types of topics, especially when you consider that the popularity will probably never subside because people will always want to look good! Unfortunately, I don't have the time to contribute new articles etc. but I feel there is an obligation to help the reader find this information easily. I have a reputable and established practice called ^{[details removed]} with a website that has excellent, non-biased, information which could only help the reader learn about these services and establish options relevant to their conditions. I'm including a link to our URL to help the reader, wherever they may be. I'm also available for personal questions but I won't leave any personal contact info, that is easily found at the link I've provided. At any rate, I'm considered an expert by my peers and patients, and I've earned that distinction, I'm hoping I can help educate in some way. Thank you very much for your time.

Best Regards,

Dr. Lysa Ward

SkintegrityMedSpa (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to promote your website. If you want to help our readers, please work on improving the articles you say are lacking. RudolfRed (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SkintegrityMedSpa. While I endorse what RudolfRed says, I'd like to reply a little more kindly.

First, Wikipedia does not have an editorial board, strategy committees, or anything like that. All its editors are volunteers - like you and me - who work on what they choose. So "Perhaps Wikipedia should dedicate more resources to" comes down to one (or both) of two things: either a) work on improving this, or b) I will work to enrol other editors to improve this. There is no other way to make it happen.

Secondly, Wikipedia welcomes expert editors, but experts often find it difficult to adjust to Wikipedia's different way of working. The value of an expert editor is that they are likely to know the high-quality sources, and can understand them and often summarise their content clearly and accurately. But what Wikipedia does not want is for experts (or anybody else) to write from their own knowledge (still less their own theories or arguments). That is called original research, and is forbidden everywhere in Wikipedia articles. Citing one's own works, irrespective of their quality, is regarded a conflict of interest, and discouraged. This is especially true when the work in question is a popular publication or website as opposed to a peer-reviewed publication, as the suspicion arises that the purpose is promotional (which in Wikipedia is interpreted more broadly than just commercial promotion).

For more information, please see Expert editors, as well as the various links in the paragraph above.

Finally, I suspect that your username is the name of a business: that is also forbidden, and I recommend that you change it immediately. --ColinFine (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked They were here to promote their business, as can be seen by their attempted edit in the edit filter. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Was something purged from her contribution history? —Tamfang (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]