Help desk
< December 18	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 20 >

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.

December 19[edit]

I am willing to follow Wikipedia's standards[edit]

Hi I was paid to write a biography for a politician who came from an independent party. There are not many third party articles written about him from news outlets in our country and admittedly, that made it difficult for me to make the article notable. Please help how I can keep my page from being deleted. I have already exhausted the online sources that I could possibly have to my disappointed, there were close to none. My job is on the line here, Thanks Madona Jace (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Madona Jace and welcome to Wikipedia! you seem to have posted about this on the Teahouse, and I will be replying to you there. next time, please just post your question to either the help desk or the teahouse, not both. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 01:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make the mandatory declaration of paid editing on your user page before making any further edits. If you can't find third party sources then he can't have a Wikipedia article. The sources don't need to be online; newspaper articles are fine (unless they are interviews with the subject). You'll find advice at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges. - David Biddulph (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the reply! I am new to wikipedia and have solely made an account to publish that article. Would you mind clarifying which part I should make a mandatory declaration of paid editing? Is it part of the sandbox before you publish the article? sorry, the interface is really new and confusing to me.

I checked the tag about politicians and from what I know, the politician that I am writing for is qualified as notable since he is currently a congressman or a member of the legislative body. Only that there aren't many articles written about him. After reading the notability under politicians, perhaps my article was wrongfully deleted?

Could I perhaps move for my article to be undeleted even if it is tagged under category U5? Madona Jace (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's another discussion related to this currently ongoing at the Teahouse. It might be best to close both discussions and move then to the OP's user talk page to avoid confusion and possible conflicting advice. It would also probably be a good idea for the OP to explain things like WP:PROUD, WP:LUC and WP:OWN to whomever is paying them to make sure the subject of the article understands that they will have practically zero editorial control over any article created about them. Finally and perhaps unfortunately for the OP, if the subject clearly meets WP:NPOL, there's no need for the subject to pay anyone to create a Wikipedia article about them and there's no added editorial control gained by paying someone to do so. Of course, the OP should be as upfront as possible about this with whomever's paying them, but that's up to the OP. The OP, even if they're paid to create the article and are able to get it accepted, should understand that they too will have zero editorial control over it once it's been created and they too (like the subject of the article) will be expected to not edit the article directly, except under certain specific conditions. The OP should also realize that others aren't very likely going to help create an article that the OP is expecting to be paid for creating. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC) [I posted the same thing at the Teahouse for a question asked there by the OP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)][reply]

America's Frontline Doctors[edit]

I don't think it's necessary to further feed the trolls which have already made up their mind, are accusing us of that which they do, and are not interested in a civil, collaborative discussion. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your description of America’s Frontline Doctors is totally false, and you know it. Apparently you are against following all science, and only agree with what fits with the far left agenda. Your job is to print truth. Of course they go against the Covid information put out by MSM. They have proof. These Doctors treated their patients successfully with a different protocol that didn’t kill people. You, and MSM, are the source of misinformation. 2600:1700:52E0:17F0:403B:F4A8:5110:A2F4 (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have changes to suggest, do it on the article talk page, and be sure to make specific suggestions and provide citations to reliable sources, which you have not done above. This page isn't the correct venue for suggesting changes, and no page is the correct venue for vague complaints. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What Anachronist says, and the place to make your specific suggestions (of course citing reliable sources) is the foot of Talk:America's Frontline Doctors. But before posting anything, first read and digest the two hand-in-orange-circle warnings atop that talk page. (And before you get carried away by the notion that "Your job is to print truth", first read and digest Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just mainstream media but most medical sources which are against America's Frontline Doctors. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Wikipedia:Fringe theories. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most independent medical professionals DO support America's Frontline Doctors. Those who are opposed to AFLDs are directly compensated by Big Pharma. Wikipedia has been infiltrated by the globalist agenda. Wikipedia has become FAKE NEWS ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.109.11.126 (talk)

If that's the impression you have then I think you have been reading texts which present the medical sources in a biased way. I'm not claiming that the medical majority is always right but in this case, Wikipedia does represent the medical majority. If you have a very narrow definition of "independent" medical professionals which is tailor-made to include people you agree with and exclude others then perhaps you are right for some countries. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Those who are opposed to AFLDs are directly compensated by Big Pharma." All of them? David10244 (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Search (not sure if possible with normal search)[edit]

I'd like the list of Redirects where the Redirect is to an article without "The " at the beginning. For example, the list should include The Johns Hopkins University since that is a Redirect to Johns Hopkins University. If this would require quarry or similar, and you know what the sql would be, please let me know. Naraht (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This would be RegExp. I believe just type the expression into the Special:Search. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Search cannot search the content of redirect pages so it wouldn't work here. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And can't determine the relationship between the title and the redirect target. I don't want The ABCDEF that redirects to GHIJKL. :(Naraht (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article title ending with a period (.), difficulties associated with[edit]

Hello -- I am the author of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gigger,_Jr. I find when pasting the link in an email or text that the text or mail program removes the final period before passing the link to the browser, resulting in an error message from wikipedia. It seems the easiest solution would be to create a wikipedia page for the article title without the final period and redirect it to the original page. Is this correct, permitted, how would one do that, is there a better solution etc.? Much thanks. Iguana0000 (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iguana0000: A redirect is the correct and recommended approach. I have redirected Richard Gigger, Jr to Richard Gigger, Jr. See Help:Redirect. If there is no redirect then you can encode the period as %2E like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gigger,_Jr%2E when you post the url somewhere a program has to automatically guess which part to include in a link. Most programs will guess that an ending period means the end of a sentence and not a part of the url. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Their appears to be some information about this at WP:TSC. I suspect you might get more thorough and explicit feedback by asking about this at WP:VPT. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Periods are a normal and allowed character in page names. It's only disallowed in rare cases mentioned at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Forward slashes and periods. Those cases are not relevant here. I think my post gave a complete answer to the asked question. But just to clarify, you can link the page from within Wikipedia with the normal wikilink syntax [[Richard Gigger, Jr.]] to produce Richard Gigger, Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gigger,_Jr%2E is a trick when you post the url somewhere else as plain text and a program has to analyze the text to figure out how to turn it into a link. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANNOYING film section.[edit]

Previous discussion : WP:HD#The annoying film releases section

I should preface this by pointing out that 46 of the ‘years of film’ pages, between 1930-2000 have the section i’m describing, and there’s still no clarity as to what it even represents. If it could be clarified, users could add this section to the remaining 24 years. Otherwise the list structure is annoyingly inconsistent with some years including it and others not. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

To take an example, in 1931 in film, there’s a section for 1931 in film#1931 film releases, but it’s not the full list of films (like 1931 in film#Notable films released in 1931), it’s just a generalised list of ‘film releases’ (until clarified how that list is determined). It has a dissimilar film count to the other sections, so I can’t take reference from them. Any ideas? 81.155.230.3 (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

- according to the IP who started this thread, then deleted it rather than letting it be archived - Arjayay (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

who is David Stearns??[edit]

Thanks. Pat Makai 69.113.0.184 (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Stearns. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]