Help desk
< June 7	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 9 >

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.

June 8[edit]

Co. Article Creation standards, How to Flag a page that does not meet Wiki criteria[edit]

Hi, I've been trying to learn how to create a company page and have tried a few. When not accepted, I spend time reviewing requirements, pick another company and start fresh.

Recently I found another already published company Asetek to base the structure on assuming if it had met wikipedia standards, so would it's CoolIT competitor. Despite a lot of effort it has been rejected a few times for different reasons, however based on these reasons the Asetek page does not qualify either. I reviewed further and here is what I have found:

when reviewing Asetek articles 27 references, *more than half do not meet Wikipedia’s requirements: 12 are to Asetek's website & 1 is their annual report (48%), the 1 Slashdot reference is to a forum thread, the Kitguru link is to a Corsair article that only mentions them once, similar problem with the Gigabyte link, and NEITHER Bloomberg links have Asetek content. At all. 66% of the references do not meet wikipedia guidelines.

Only 3 are to Tech Report, 2 to Gamernexus, 2 I added before are legit and another 2 are the same as I've referenced for the CoolIT company. only 9 references (only 1/3) meet wikipedia guidelines.

Therefore, wikipedia only requires 9 references for the Asetek article to qualify, and there are far more than that for the CoolIT article, it qualifies.

Ootherwise, based on wikipedia’s standards, if the CoolIT article does not qualify, neither does the other Asetek - so how does one flag the Asetek article?

From the requirement standard I received that the article must “being written in prose” instead of a decade of organized referenced history, neither Corsair & Asetek qualify, and need to be redone - again, how does one flag these articles?

I disagree that a dated, organized, referenced history does not meet wikipedia criteria, and argue - let's use the Corsair article for example Corsair Gaming - that it adds credibility to the article.

The more I learn about meeting wikipedia's requirements and review other articles, the more subjective the decision criteria appear to be.

I've started another article - this time on a topic - which I will submit once I have the minimum quality references demonstrated to test this standard - including the wall street journal writeup on the topic.

In the meantime, please let me know how to flag pages that do not meet wikipedia criteria, or accept the CoolIT article draft Draft:CoolIT Systems I have created which supercedes the others already published.

I don't really understand the talk pages but here is a link to mine User talk:TheGremlin

Thank you for your assistance --iwanturCAT (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC) jun 2021[reply]

TheGremlin Please read other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits; other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. In addition, article standards have changed over time so that what was once acceptable may not be any longer. I have marked the article you mention as problematic for possible action. There are many maintenance templates available to use; you can add them manually, but there are also several tools available to make it easier to add them such as Page Curation and Twinkle.

I gather that you might have an association with the company you have edited about, if so, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for formal disclosures you may need to make should they apply to you. I've fixed your links to proper internal links, the whole web address is not necessary. 331dot (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, I really do understand the concept of WP:OSE and have no problem with it being used to explain why an article might not be acceptable despite superficially being comparable to an existing article. However, I think it would be useful to go beyond that statement and give some advice that a new editor could use. It is quite understandable that a brand-new editor might look to an existing article to use as a "model". That's actually not a bad approach (at least I hope it's not because I've used it myself). The flaw arises when choosing an article that represents the bottom of the barrel, then thinking you've met that standard and being surprised when your article is rejected. I think it would be useful to tell new editors that if they like to look to an existing article for guidance on how to write an article they should start with WP:GA. Find a topic related to the potential subject matter and peruse a couple of selections. This doesn't mean a brand-new editor has to meet the standards of GA to get a new article accepted, but if you strive for something that's in the ballpark, you'll be much more likely to get accepted that if you choose some article that is replete with problems, and get kinda sorta close to that level. S Philbrick (Talk) 01:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick I will try to keep that in mind, it's good advice. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What to do in a particular situation[edit]

Hello, I was going through the recent changes and noticed this removal. The IP advised that it was not "relevant". It seems sort of relevant to me but I didn't want to rollback (assuming good faith, of course), just in case other editors felt similar to the IP. What is the general consensus on how to approach these types of situations? And is WP:VILLAGEPUMP a better place for these types of questions? --Abillionradios (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abillionradios rollback is for reverting obvious vandalism without leaving an edit summary. Therefore if you disagree with an edit but it isn't obvious vandalism you can revert it in a way that allows you to add an edit summary. TSventon (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abillionradios: This and the tea house are great places for these kinds of questions. The pump is for more technical issues. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Published about upcoming new Actor Abhenav Mahajit[edit]

Courtesy link: Draft:Abhenav Mahajit

Published about upcoming new Actor Abhenav Mahajit.

From IMDB to Times of India all the links related to actor Abhenav Mahajit is provided,

Still the page is being deleted by some unknown sources without reading the whole context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk GMenon2656 (talk • contribs)

@Jk GMenon2656: IMDb is not a reliable resource because it's user-generated. External links generally don't link to an actor's social media; that is where links to their IMDb page usually go, though. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jk GMenon2656:, the draft doesn't have the Times of India in references. You may find WP:Tutorial and WP:GNG helpful. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 03:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jk GMenon2656. Wikipedia does not publish articles about "upcoming new actors". We publish articles about well-established, notable actors. Please read the notability guideline for actors. Also read and study Your first article because your draft has several obvious problems with referencing and formatting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jk GMenon2656: Also take a look at WP:TOOSOON and WP:AMOUNT. -Arch dude (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also Up-and-coming next big thing. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to get a proposal to reach a conclusion?[edit]

Hello, I started a discussion in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). This is my first proposal. I don't know how to get more Wikipedians to respond to that. I'm afraid that after two weeks of inactivity that discussion will be archived without any conclusion. How can I get more Wikipedians to respond to that so that it reaches a conclusion? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 03:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbluerain: VPP is already one of the most viewed pages on the project, so generally putting it there would be considered to be sufficient attention. I would note that really it should be in village Pump (Ideas) because you haven't submitted a fully-formed proposal (which would be something like "if about to template a level 1 warning for test-edits, humour, or unsourced edits, place a welcome message instead") but instead want to have a discussion about what might work Nosebagbear (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear, I was confused myself. I read that policy discussion should be at VPP so I thought to put it there. Should I move the thread now to VPI ? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 03:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do i cite the wiki[edit]

yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.128.175 (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I you mean if you can use a wiki as a reference on Wikipedia, the answer is generally no, see WP:USERG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean, should you cite Wikipedia when using material from it somewhere else?

If you're quoting material from Wikipedia, you should credit Wikipedia. However, since Wikipedia is self-admittedly not a reliable source (because it can be altered by anyone, sometimes incorrectly, and you may have consulted it before such errors or vandalism have been corrected), you should be aware that for some purposes (such as schoolwork) this may be not be approved.

If you want to use a fact from Wikipedia, it is better to see what source Wikipedia has cited it to, check the source directly, and then cite that source. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.163.176 (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you source or ref a category?[edit]

This edit has just been made to Cosplay. I'm not sure about it, so thought to challenge or at least ask for sources & references to support the addition, but then I wondered - how do you source or ref the inclusion of a category when challenged? Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaheel Riens, WP:CATV says "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Uncited category}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate or if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category." The Cosplay article should mention that it is an internet meme and that should be supportable by a reference before the article is put in the internet meme category. TSventon (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right - so it's not the cat itself, but the content of the article to support the cat. As the article makes no mention of any memes, I've removed it. Thanks muchly. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

formating article export[edit]

Hi, can I set the page format for article export (PDF, Book and/or print, whatever)? If so, how/where? Simple stuff like font size, position/aspect ratio of tables and frame of the pages, would be cool to set. Can't find it. Thank you

@Hennk von Muspelsheim: you have already asked this at the Teahouse, please do not duplicate questions on different helpdesks as it wastes volunteer time. The recommended venue was WP:Village pump (technical), not WP:Village pump (idea lab). TSventon (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azov Battalion and Wikipedia: Not a forum?[edit]

Hello everybody. A user provided a link[1] where the Azov (Battalion\Movement\National Corps), defined by multiple strong RSs as "neo-Nazi", hosted a forum for the Ukrainian Wikipedians[2] (event also reported on Ukrainian Wikinews[3] without any criticism) where editors were awarded for their "contribution to Ukraine's future victory in the information war". Another user closed the discussion with "WP:NOTAFORUM",[4] but I suppose the question is of some interest and importance to the community... I was wondering if there is a place to report this news. Thank you very much.--Mhorg (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding person to Wikipedia[edit]

How does one add a person and their bio/info to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.85.95 (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Your first article, and understand that Wikipedia isn't just a repository for people's biographies; they have to be encyclopedic, which is further complicated by whether or not they meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. If they don't, then an article about them will not be made. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Routelist template error in List of named state highways in Oregon[edit]

There is an error in the Routelist top template in the List of named state highways in Oregon#List of state highways article, exposing the text "[[File:|x25px|alt=|link=]]" in the leftmost Highway column. I don't know enough about this template to resolve the issue. We'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at this and resolve the issue, whether it's an error in the template itself or in the way it's used in the article. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Truthanado. Looking at other articles which use the template {{Routelist row}}, it is clear that the first column is supposed to contain an automatically generated highway symbol. Presumably somewhere down under the template (presumably in Module:Routelist row) there's something that needs to know the format of Oregon highway badges and hasn't been told. I suggest posting at Template talk:Routelist row. --ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. It's been posted as suggested. Truthanado (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrolling[edit]

Does new page patrolling require a copy-edit of new article? Dr Salvus 17:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, although articles may be tagged with Template:Copy edit or something similar if they need it. The purpose of NPP is simply to triage articles, tagging serious issues while accepting "articles that may not be perfect" but are not so problematic as to require action. You can read WP:NPP if you're curious. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Want The Storm Force Acceleration Article Fixed[edit]

I Want The Storm Force Acceleration Article Fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.8.165 (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Start a discussion on that article's talk page about what you think is broken and your suggestion on how to fix it. RudolfRed (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bug light[edit]

We need an article about the bug light also known as the bug zapper.

I tried to find information about the company that introduced the bug light to North America but was instead redirected to an article about a lighthouse!

Finding this information may keep the small company that invented the bug light in business if it hasn't already been bought out or run out of business by other vendors selling Chinese knock offs. In any event It would be good to know who brought buglights to us consumers.

Please let me know if you condescended to make a page for us. Us as in the people who want to know.
Rockut (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bug_zapper? If not, please clarify, but Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business. RudolfRed (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]