Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 June 7
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 6 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 8 > |
| 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 7[edit]
Request for improvement of categories[edit]
I had added an article named Mothparja and improved and expanded it a lot. But still it's categories are as unknown important articles and unassessed important articles . So I think they should changed and also it's class,If and only article is able to. And may you please also review this article to find it's mistakes and to correct them. I will be thankful to you if you help me to improve it a bit.Thanks.FAAHS (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
ANI report archived without action[edit]
Hello, I posted a report about a new user at ANI on 2nd June and it got archived today. I believe there is a consensus to take admin action against this user. The thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1100#Legal threats, COI and disruption by Konguhead. Where should I go from here? Thanks. - SUN EYE 1 06:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Suneye1: As far as I can tell the user was blocked for 1 day, subsequently increased to a week. If you still have concerns, I believe you would have to start a new thread at ANI but you can link to the original thread when posting. ANI have acted on the information you provided so may consider the matter dealt with. If they return from the block and continue in the same vein then further action would IMO, be warranted. Eagleash (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Eagleash: I think you misread it, other editors recommended for a block but the user was not blocked; see block log. - SUN EYE 1 11:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Suneye1: Yes, I think you are right, I thought the user had actually been blocked. Same applies as above, I believe you would need to start another ANI thread if the behaviour has continued in the meantime. If there have been no other offending edits, let it be for now; ANI can be tricky and not always produce the desired result. Eagleash (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Eagleash: I think you misread it, other editors recommended for a block but the user was not blocked; see block log. - SUN EYE 1 11:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Sir how can I register for playing list[edit]
Sir how can I register for playing list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4070:4384:17D2:78BF:542D:90EA:5562 (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- You'll have to tell us what you mean and how it relates to Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
[edit]
Hi everyone! Fantasy on Ice is the first article I created myself in the English Wikipedia mainspace and I wanted to ask how to group and link articles to this page in a smart way. This ice show is mostly known in Japan, but it gained international media attention this year with reports by the Olympic Channel amongst others. My three ideas to group related articles to this page are the following:
- create a navigation template at the bottom of the page, listing the main cast members and guest artists. This would have the advantage that the template can be included on the skaters' and artists' pages as well and attract more readers from different fields. Especially the bios pages of less known artists outside Japan would profit from that, I think. On the other hand, other ice show articles like Stars on Ice don't have a navbox either, so I don't know if it's appropriate/necessary to use one here.
- add a sentence or short paragraph about the show in the prose part of related bios pages. I have done that for some main cast members already, but it might be unfitting/irrelevant for certain artists.
- create categories for the cast members (main cast at least) and guest artists. This solution is my personal favorite, but before I start with the linking process, I'd like to hear other opinions as well.
Thank you very much in advance Henni147 (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Each of those have their pros and cons, and I don't see why you couldn't do all three. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Question on submitting my draft[edit]
Hi,
Just had a question as I feel like i'm stuck. I'm trying to create an article on my band Drunken Starfighter. I currently have it as a draft and am a little confused on how I am able to get it submitted to be a live article. I think I already submitted it but not sure. How long does it take? is there anything I still need to do? Any help is much appreciated. Jtimmons01 (talk)Jerad Timmons — Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to tell you @Jtimmons01, but we need reliable sources to verify facts about your band. This means that it has to be notable, which means having coverage in multiple reliable sources. And also, because it is your band, you have a conflict of interest. Making articles about your own band is hard to get right (see this essay about notability (it's humorous, it's not meant to be taken seriously)), but if you still want to submit it, add
{{subst:submit}}to the top of it. Hope this helps. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 18:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC) - Courtesy link Draft:Drunken Starfighter. Since the draft has zero references, there is no chance it would be accepted as an article in its current state. CodeTalker (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Jtimmons01. It sounds as if you have the (very common) misconception that Wikipedia is a place to tell the world about your endeavours: it is not. In the first place, promotion of any kind is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. Secondly, if at some time Wikipedia does have an article about your band, the article will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, will not be for your benefit except incidentally, should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with you have published about you (good or bad), not on what you or your associates say or want to say, and may end up containing material you do not want it to contain. Please see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Notability[edit]
A friend wants to write a Wiki article about me. Before he spends time, I want to determine if I qualify for Wiki notability. Here's what I can tell you,
- I've been interviewed or highlighted in numerous major publications: Forbes, Bloomberg, Popular Science, TechCruch, Radio Canada, etc..
- I was invited to give a main stage TED Talk (@ TED2009 Conference) on one of my inventions. Talk translated into 32 languages. Scientific American called it one of "10 World Changing Ideas".
- I was a founding member (employee #3) in what became the world's 2nd largest PC company. My division grew to 1/3 of company revenue.
- My current company (I founded it) was just inducted into the Technology Hall of Fame, reported in Forbes et al. Company also has over 30 top industry awards.
- I am a frequent invited guest lecturer of technology at many of the world's top universities: Stanford, MIT, Johns Hopkins, Carnagie Mellon, NYU, etc..
- I Executive Produced a doc film which took multiple top festival awards, music by Sigur Ros (streams on Amazon and Netflix).
Does this qualify?
Thanks.
2603:3006:E01:500:21DC:71B9:8A69:55BD (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's hard to say unless you name the person involved. As a general rule though, you, your friends or employees should not create articles about yourself. If you are notable enough, independent people will do it. Once created, you will never have full control over the article, because it is not a Facebook profile or similar. See WP:FIRST for more advice.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Before proceeding, you may also want to read the essay on why an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Interviews do not contribute to notability, and neither do speaking engagements. Your involvement in companies in itself does not contribute to notability. What counts is significant coverage of you as a person in reliable sources that are entirely independent of you and your companies. The Scientific American coverage sounds promising but it depends on how significant the coverage is. Cullen328 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Before proceeding, you may also want to read the essay on why an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's helpful. So, is it more about notable life achievements, or about general popularity? One could have a long list of notable achievements not generally covered in national press, and yet remain generally unknown. For instance, my TED Talk has been viewed over 1M times, and millions of people use computers by a company I helped start, and thousands of people have read about me and my inventions in major media .... but why would any of those people feel compelled to write a Wiki page about me? Does that make my lifetime of invention and achievement less notable? Compare this (for example) to a musician who had a song that reached #67 on Billboard, but who's brief career then faded into obscurity. That person's song inspired a fan to write a Wiki page. Great. But is that truly Wikipedia's definition of notoriety? How does Wikipedia justify this clear dilemma between "being known for writing a song" and decades of sustained, notable life achievements covered in multiple international media? One more thought ... just about every person who's ever given a TED Talk has a personal Wikipedia page. (e.g., being selected to give a Main Stage TED Talk is, I would suggest, like having a song high on the Billboard charts). As I reviewed 25-30 of these TEDTalkers' personal pages picked at random, easily over 90% of these persons do not seem "generally popular" enough to compel a random stranger to write up their Wikipedia pages (exceptions would include global celebrities like Julian Assange and JJ Abrams). For instance, let's take the very first entry, Trevor Aaronson, a writer. I see no "significant coverage of him as a person in reliable sources that are entirely independent of him and his companies." I see two awards, and one fellowship. Your thoughts? 2600:1700:61E1:1EB0:24D0:FA16:BE48:B952 (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- As people have said above, this really depends. If you want to do some reading here you can read up on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There's a lot in there so you'd probably want to focus on notability guidelines for people. Usually people in business fall under general notability guidelines which is what was described above. There are people who will write an article about you (presuming you meet notability guidelines) who do this for a job. They'd have to disclose that they were paid editors and this can sometimes have a "vanity press" feel to it, but it is possible. And as to your question, awards and fellowships (which often result in coverage in reliable sources) can sometimes be part of meeting general notability guidelines. Definitely true for the larger awards and fellowships. Wikipedia's a giant boat that is tough to steer, but it's usually worth the effort to spend time understanding how the giant website works and what it's expecting if your end goal is to have an article about your accomplishments. It's a nearly-all-volunteer site which can explain the odd and oftentimes uneven coverage. Jessamyn (my talk page) 03:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia operates in accordance with policies and guidelines. We do not make things up on the fly for cases that have occurred millions of times. And this is the short form version of the guideline for what type of people are eligible for a biography in this encyclopedia:
A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
There is a lot of debate about the details, but there is broad agreement among experienced editors that this is the basic standard that must be met for a biography. Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)- As for the quality of the article Trevor Aaronson, please be aware that English Wikipedia has over 6.5 million articles and well over a million of them have serious problems. Perhaps several million. Volunteers work constantly to either improve or delete these articles. We do not accept from any specific person the argument that because this encyclopedia has some substandard articles, it ought to accept a new substandard article about that specific person. This is 2022 and we enforce standards today that were not really enforced when this encyclopedia was in an explosive growth phase, peaking in 2006-2007. That was 15 years ago and this encyclopedia is only 22 years old. We are in a constant state of self-improvement. As for a hypothetical musical performer who had one Billboard hit and then faded away, we have an article One-hit wonder about that phenomenon. Many books have been written about this, which often describe various artists in detail. Significant coverage in the music and popular press will often be published on the 10th, 25th and 50th anniversaries of such hit songs. These artists may tour to lower level music venues for decades, gathering reviews of their performances in reliable independent sources. If you actually name some such specific person, then experienced editors here can offer opinions about that specific case. We prefer specific cases here instead of hypotheticals. So, instead of more hypotheticals that cannot be actually evaluated, bring forward links to significant coverage of you in independent, reliable sources. Then we will have the basis for an informed discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- As an extreme example, there was a minor controversy when Donna Strickland got a Nobel prize, because she did not have a Wikipedia article, even though she was obviously an accomplished scientist by that point. (The oversimplified extreme views on the matter are "Wikipedia is a sexist bureaucracy" and "draft reviewers are overworked and cannot check everything fully". I personally believe Wikipedia is an equal-opportunity bureaucracy, but that there is a negative correlation between wanting to write about women and wanting to fight the bureaucracy, and that the sources of the anti-correlation are found mostly though not entirely outside Wikipedia.)
- That example shows that you could have outstanding accomplishments, but if the available sources are niche / hard to find / etc., getting an article accepted still has an element of randomness. It still isn’t totally random, so if you or your friend could actually list some sources, we can review them before you or your friend commits to the arduous task of actually writing a draft. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- As for the quality of the article Trevor Aaronson, please be aware that English Wikipedia has over 6.5 million articles and well over a million of them have serious problems. Perhaps several million. Volunteers work constantly to either improve or delete these articles. We do not accept from any specific person the argument that because this encyclopedia has some substandard articles, it ought to accept a new substandard article about that specific person. This is 2022 and we enforce standards today that were not really enforced when this encyclopedia was in an explosive growth phase, peaking in 2006-2007. That was 15 years ago and this encyclopedia is only 22 years old. We are in a constant state of self-improvement. As for a hypothetical musical performer who had one Billboard hit and then faded away, we have an article One-hit wonder about that phenomenon. Many books have been written about this, which often describe various artists in detail. Significant coverage in the music and popular press will often be published on the 10th, 25th and 50th anniversaries of such hit songs. These artists may tour to lower level music venues for decades, gathering reviews of their performances in reliable independent sources. If you actually name some such specific person, then experienced editors here can offer opinions about that specific case. We prefer specific cases here instead of hypotheticals. So, instead of more hypotheticals that cannot be actually evaluated, bring forward links to significant coverage of you in independent, reliable sources. Then we will have the basis for an informed discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia operates in accordance with policies and guidelines. We do not make things up on the fly for cases that have occurred millions of times. And this is the short form version of the guideline for what type of people are eligible for a biography in this encyclopedia:
- Popularity is not the right measure. As others have said, the important thing is whether other sources (such as newspapers, magazines, etc.) have published articles about the person. That coverage often happens when a person becomes popular, but it's the secondary coverage that counts. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- As people have said above, this really depends. If you want to do some reading here you can read up on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There's a lot in there so you'd probably want to focus on notability guidelines for people. Usually people in business fall under general notability guidelines which is what was described above. There are people who will write an article about you (presuming you meet notability guidelines) who do this for a job. They'd have to disclose that they were paid editors and this can sometimes have a "vanity press" feel to it, but it is possible. And as to your question, awards and fellowships (which often result in coverage in reliable sources) can sometimes be part of meeting general notability guidelines. Definitely true for the larger awards and fellowships. Wikipedia's a giant boat that is tough to steer, but it's usually worth the effort to spend time understanding how the giant website works and what it's expecting if your end goal is to have an article about your accomplishments. It's a nearly-all-volunteer site which can explain the odd and oftentimes uneven coverage. Jessamyn (my talk page) 03:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's helpful. So, is it more about notable life achievements, or about general popularity? One could have a long list of notable achievements not generally covered in national press, and yet remain generally unknown. For instance, my TED Talk has been viewed over 1M times, and millions of people use computers by a company I helped start, and thousands of people have read about me and my inventions in major media .... but why would any of those people feel compelled to write a Wiki page about me? Does that make my lifetime of invention and achievement less notable? Compare this (for example) to a musician who had a song that reached #67 on Billboard, but who's brief career then faded into obscurity. That person's song inspired a fan to write a Wiki page. Great. But is that truly Wikipedia's definition of notoriety? How does Wikipedia justify this clear dilemma between "being known for writing a song" and decades of sustained, notable life achievements covered in multiple international media? One more thought ... just about every person who's ever given a TED Talk has a personal Wikipedia page. (e.g., being selected to give a Main Stage TED Talk is, I would suggest, like having a song high on the Billboard charts). As I reviewed 25-30 of these TEDTalkers' personal pages picked at random, easily over 90% of these persons do not seem "generally popular" enough to compel a random stranger to write up their Wikipedia pages (exceptions would include global celebrities like Julian Assange and JJ Abrams). For instance, let's take the very first entry, Trevor Aaronson, a writer. I see no "significant coverage of him as a person in reliable sources that are entirely independent of him and his companies." I see two awards, and one fellowship. Your thoughts? 2600:1700:61E1:1EB0:24D0:FA16:BE48:B952 (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
can i edit wikipedia?[edit]
can i edit wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7C94:1900:C44D:7DB7:BA9F:5532 (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, you can, provided you edit in accordance with Wikipedia's principles. Your two edits to Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II today were not: in the first edit you added unsourced personal opinion, and in the second, you inexplicably deleted several paragraphs. I suggest you look at Help:Introduction, and consider taking the Wikipedia Adventure. ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)