Help desk
< November 29	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	December 1 >

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.

November 30[edit]

Is there a way to see the most viewed new created articles of the last week?[edit]

I want to keep an overview of the huge amout of new articles. Petscan crashes when I try. Any suggsettions? --Noobius2 (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an indirect method, Noobius2 but the criteria for "did you know..." mean that many interesting new articles get nominated to appear on the Main page, and when they do (after a couple of weeks, usually) there is a large spike in views which will dominate their stats. You can look up former DYK in the archive at WP:DYKA. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have a look at https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/AQS/Pageviews#Most_viewed_articles Vexations (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOlympics LA[edit]

I am not sure if NOlympics LA should have their separate article or not? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: Hi there! Talk:NOlympics LA is the best place to discuss this, so I'm glad you've already posted there. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Don't forget the grammar too. I almost forgot, at the time when the article was new I did added sources to back it up. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: I see you made some grammar changes which were reverted. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, your best bet would be to create a new discussion on the article's talk page that just focuses on your concerns and suggestions about the grammar. However, the grammar is moot if the article shouldn't exist. GoingBatty (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Okay. I also said that "I do not condone [or] support this organization because of the organizations they partnered" and the reason why I said this is because I added a source that partnered with the Anti Racist Action (which is a violent far-left group) and in this edit. I tried to make accurate edits as I could but it failed. Well, you can see the talk page for yourself. I want to make an unbiased version of my edit that was removed but I do not know how because when it comes to editing political articles, things can get ugly for me. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost confused this with WP:NOLYMPICS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NEW ARTICLE[edit]

New article written but is seems to have gone to a "profile" and there's no way to submit it.... WAY TOO COMPLICATED.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Drednm&oldid=1047182969

Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drednm (talk • contribs) 12:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drednm I will move the draft to the draft space and add the information so you can submit it(it is provided if you create a draft via WP:AFC). 331dot (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is now at Draft:Edward Lorusso. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Drednm. Please read Your first article. Writing a Wikipedia article begins with finding several reliable sources which are independent of the subject and contain significant coverage of the subject - not blogs, wikis, forums, social media, or anything written, published, or with major input from the subject or their associates. If you do not start with several such sources then you are building a house with no foundations, and it may well fall down, wasting all your work. --ColinFine (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing which you should do before you submit the draft for review is to ensure that you provide properly cited references, see Help:referencing for beginners, so that readers can see which parts of the text are supported by which references. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands now, that draft is not getting accepted. Based on my quick look around, it doesn't appear the subject satisfies WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Sources[edit]

I would like to know how to cite sources for an article. I went to the beginners section, only to find more questions than answers.

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangane (talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find advice at Help:Referencing for beginners, & also see WP:Reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hangane: Hi there! You might also enjoy watching the video at WP:EASYREFBEGIN. Happy editing! (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.) GoingBatty (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most appropriate title for a building article[edit]

I’m going to do a new article on a house in Birmingham. The house is called “The Homestead, 25 Woodbourne Road”. My question is whether that would be the best title, or rather, “The Homestead, 25 Woodbourne Road, Edgbaston”, along the lines of 21 Yateley Road, Edgbaston? We already have a number of “Homestead” articles, including two on historic houses. My instinct says that it would help the reader if the title had more detail, i.e. Edgbaston, but I appreciate that many readers won’t have a clue where Edgbaston is. The Historic England listing calls it “The Homestead, 25 Woodbourne Road, B17” but I don’t think part of the postcode is very useful? Any advice greatly appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KJP1. The relevant policy is disambiguation: we use a term in parenthesis in an article title only to distinguish the subject from others with the same name, not to give additional information. So the title should probably be The Homestead, Edgbaston. --ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine - Many thanks indeed. The Homestead, Edgbaston it is. KJP1 (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Win total of college football coach Brian Kelly[edit]

I have recently contributed this edit to the LSU Tigers football page to add a reference and use a more encyclopedic tone. The previous contributor had referenced Brian Kelly as the winningest coach in Notre Dame history. The source I referenced for the hiring also makes this claim, but it takes into account 21 wins that were vacated by the NCAA. I had attempted to reference other pages to attempt to determine the standard on referring to his win total, but I've found some existing inconsistencies and I'm unsure what the "correct" answer should be. I have removed reference to his win total and the "winningest Notre Dame coach" claim from the LSU Tigers Football article for the time being to be safe.

Brian Kelly's page lists his record at Notre Dame as 92-39, which does not account for his vacated wins. This would be behind the win totals of previous Notre Dame coaches Knute Rockne, Lou Holtz, and Ara Parseghian. The article for the 2021 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team and the ESPN article referenced above both use the figure of 113-40, which includes the vacated wins, and oddly enough, an extra loss (I think Kelly's page isn't counting his loss in the 2013 national championship), but both still name him the winningest HC in Notre Dame history. However, the List of Notre Dame Fighting Irish head football coaches article has an entirely different figure of 106-39, placing him one win above Rockne. I'm not certain where the 106 is coming from, but I think it might be counting his vacated wins while missing some wins from the current 2021 season.

What should be the correct figure in this instance? My gut says that the correct total should be 92-40, and we shouldn't refer to him as the winningest ND coach of all time, but given the different figures used across multiple articles, plus a major external source giving him that distinction, I'm not sure, so I wanted to check on it. Has an established standard been determined for this somewhere? Jedibob5 (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you're in the wrong place. This is for technical questions. You should be asking this at the Entertainment reference desk. In any case, lots of reliable sources say he's the winningest ND coach - nfl.com, CBS, NBC, Sporting News, even Notre Dame - so he is as far as Wikipedia is concerned. His record currently stands at 113-40, according to Sports Reference and some of the aforementioned sources. Barry Bonds is still considered to have hit 762 homers, despite cheating his ass off. What can you do? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. WP:HELP's description of this page didn't specifically mention that it was for technical issues, so I incorrectly assumed the scope of this page was broader than it is. I didn't use the reference desk initially since I considered this more of a policy question over a factual one (his win/loss totals and vacated games are known, I was more looking for an established precedent on how WP treats vacated results). Looking closer, perhaps the Village Pump may have also been a place to ask this. On the Bonds note, the MLB never actually vacated any of his statistics in the official record books, so even from an "official" standpoint he still holds the home run record. Kelly is de facto the winningest ND coach, but in the official NCAA record books he only has 92 wins, so that claim could be considered factually incorrect even if other sources disregard the vacated wins when referring to it. Jedibob5 (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you could do is add that his total includes vacated wins. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]