Help desk
< March 22	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 24 >

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.

March 23[edit]

Article is not getting published[edit]

Courtesy link: Draft:Amaara Sangam

I have written an article but it is not getting published. It shows as draft. How can I fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanyapandit21 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Title added to separate from previous query]

Hello, Sanyapandit21. Drafts are not published automatically, since there's nothing to show whether the drafter thinks they've finished. You need to add a submission request template and click the button it contains to attract the attention of a Reviewer who would then Accept (convert to article), Decline ("Needs these improvements first"), or Reject ("No hope of becoming an article, give up") the Draft.

However, I'm not going to add the template, or tell you how to, at this time, because as it stands the Draft would certainly be Declined. I am not a reviewer, but even I can see at a glance that large parts of the Draft are completely unreferenced, and some (if not all) of the references you have used are to sources that Wikipedia does not regard as "Reliable", so they cannot be used either to establish the subject's "Notability" and/or to corroborate facts.

Before you continue, you should read carefully the material at the two links I have made above and also at Help:Your first article, then improve the Draft in accordance with what you learn from them. Once you have done so, you should understand whether or not Wikipedia will judge your subject to be "notable", what sources are "reliable", and how to add a submission template. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.229.59 (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Disambiguating People[edit]

This question is about the preferred method of disambiguating people who have the same first name and last name. Perhaps my mistake was in thinking that the guideline on disambiguation was where to look for the answer to my question. My question is: If a person has the same first name and last name as other people who are already the subjects of articles, and the newly added person has a middle name and an occupation, is it preferred to use the middle name, or the occupation in parentheses? For instance, if there are already multiple people named Jane Zeta, and I am reviewing a draft article on Jane Joan Zeta, who is a Member of Parliament, do I call her Jane J. Zeta, Jane Joan Zeta, or Jane Zeta (politician)? The guideline on disambiguation appears to be say that natural disambiguation is preferred, and for names, that seems to mean the use of a full name. The guideline appears to say that disambiguation by parenthetical descriptor is second-best. However, I seem to be seeing that the usage tends to be to use parenthetical descriptor.

That's the main question for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: You'll find general guidance at Wikipedia:Article titles, and more specific guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). --R. S. Shaw (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:R. S. Shaw - I see that the specific guidance on naming conventions for people is to use an occupational qualifier, which overrides the general guidance to use natural disambiguation, which would be a middle name, rather than a parenthetical phrase. That answers that. I will use the middle name or middle initial in cases where there are two people with the same name and same occupation. What is really messy is when there are two footballers with the same name. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My brain is broken tonight.[edit]

Can someone look at List of claimed contemporary ethnic groups? The history is of the talk page which was moved to the article page but I don't know where the article page itself went. I don't see a move log, a deletion log; the talk page move doesnt say that there was overwriting,,,. Really just not sure, I know theres a bunch of page watchers here, thanks. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 06:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the original editor just started a discussion that never resulted in anything resembling an article/list. I'm not sure if WP:SPEEDY A3 applies: does it qualify as just "chat-like comments"? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see in the page history that the current page was moved from the talk page to the title. Are you saying that there was only ever an orphaned talk page? If so, I would take your pick of A3 or G8. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 06:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The real article is at List of contemporary ethnic groups. Finton the magical salmon tried to add "claimed" to the article title but accidentally moved its talk page to a new article name instead of moving the article: Talk:List of contemporary ethnic groups was moved to List of claimed contemporary ethnic groups.[1] I have moved it back and restored its talk page content. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, to be honest the title didn't make much sense to me, I guess that's why, the word claimed got stuck in there. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 09:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly sorry about the issue, my computer crashed shortly after so I could not revert my mistake. Sorry for any issues I caused. I will move the actual page now. Finton the magical salmon (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Claimed' looks like weasel-wording to me. Then again, the whole concept of the list is probably unsustainable, given the complexities of the subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the move. Thanks to Finton for being bold, but something this contentious should be discussed. Please use WP:RM to start a move discussion, per the WP:BRD process. --Jayron 32 16:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query about Page creation[edit]

I have submitted a draft but it has failed twice. May i know where am I is wrong in creating content and what changes should I make in content to get my article published in Wikipedia.KKMANZOOR (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try writing an article rather than an advertisement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Aur Life @KKMANZOOR: You would have saved a lot of time by first reading WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE. Also please review WP:COI and make the proper disclosures. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help finding deletion records (Cass Limestone/D Sandstone)[edit]

Per instruction for Missing deletion logs, before recreating the pages, I am trying here to locate/replace missing deletion records for deleted pages that were probably normal geology unit stubs. To justify the effort to recover the records, the following is my suposition that they should have recieved treatment other than deletion. I think it is important to know what the arguments were for deletion.

Cass Limestone[edit]

Cass Limestone,[2] is a historic geologic unit with relations to Lawrence, Kansas, Douglas County, Kansas, and Haskell Indian Nations University. Red links suggest a deleted geology unit stub. The Wayback Machine records that the page was deleted.[3]

Even though the term is abandoned, abandonment does not in imply non-notable, especially if there is significant literature using the prior name. That said, if the stub is eventually restored, it may be, with further research redirected, to the replacing name.

D sandstone[edit]

D Sandstone/D1 Formation [4] is a historic name for the upper reservior rock of the Denver Basin, aka D-J Basin. Red links suggest deleted geology unit stubs.

Even though the term is informal, informality does not imply non-notable, especially if there is significant literature using the informal name. That said, if the stub is eventually restored, it may be, with further research, redirected to another article, but there are presently multiple candidate articles for such a redirect, so a small disambiguation may be appropriate.

IveGoneAway (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IveGoneAway I'm not sure what makes you think they ever existed. You say "red links suggest a deleted geology unit stub" - red links don't suggest that an article has been deleted, just that there is no article at that title. You also say "The Wayback Marchine records that the page was deleted," but again, what the Wayback Machine shows is just that Wikipedia does not have an article by that name (or did not as of June 6, 2007). What makes you think these pages ever existed? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pwer ONUicorn, I can find no record of any of these pages. The first, by the way, should be Cass limestone (note that capitalization of Wikipedia titles follows sentence case for everything except proper names), but that also has never existed at Wikipedia. Neither has D sandstone or D1 formation, which are the properly capitalized titles. Since the articles have never existed, they were never deleted. You are under no obligation to anything. If you can create an article that clearly demonstrates the existence of sufficient source texts about these geologic formations, feel free to do so. --Jayron 32 16:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses.

@ONUnicorn: : When a geological unit page is created, especially the large quanity of the original stubs, it is added to a List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units. In my experience, late to that project, a red link in those lists usually means a deleted, moved, or merged page.

The bit with the Wayback was curious. What would prompt Wayback to try to archive a WP page that never existed?!?!?!?

@Jayron32: : I thought to mention the capitalization, but the post was long enough. The present entries for the D/D1 in the WP list for Colorado are capitalized as I have copy-pasted them above. But, as D/D1 are "driller names", they should have sentence case ( the OP had it incorrect ). However, since Cass is a formal classification of formation rank, Limestone should be capitalized.

IveGoneAway (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, if you click on a red-linked article name, like Cass limestone is at the moment, and get only the usual plain "Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article..." message and nothing colored, then no article with that exactly that title ever existed as far as Wikipedia knows. If you click on a red-linked article name and get to a page that also has a colored message, like with G-Log, then the message will tell you that there once had been an article with that name and something about what happened to it and when. - R. S. Shaw (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @R. S. Shaw:; all of that I knew. Yet, the Missing deletion records instructions suggest other possibilities. I have recently encountered discussions of well-intentioned patterns that can result in effective deletion of stubs with no indication at the old title, IIUC.

IveGoneAway (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal... WP:BOLD and WP:AGF apply here. There's no inherent rules against creating articles even if they were previously deleted. They may be deleted again (either for the same reason or a different reason), and that's a risk you can take, and if you're repeatedly creating the same article over and over, that's disruptive. But if some article was deleted years and years ago, and you have a good reason to create it again (maybe it's a completely different topic under the same name, maybe more source material has been published in the intervening time, maybe the old version was deleted because it was a copyvio, and you intend to do it correctly). Whatever. As long as you are doing it for the right reasons, no one is going to stop you. We expect people to be bold and expand Wikipedia. That includes sometimes re-creating an article that was formerly deleted. In these cases, it does not appear the articles ever were deleted, unless they were deleted back under a very early version of Wikipedia; some of the records from those very early years have been lost, and honestly, if the last time it existed was two decades ago, don't sweat it. --Jayron 32 18:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading my own photos[edit]

Hi, I was recently at the Ancient Spanish Monastery and took lots of pictures. My question is as follows:

I know that Wikipedia is very concerned about copyright, so before uploading these pictures (taken by myself), I wanted to confirm that I am the owner and am allowed to upload these.

Thank you,

Commander0034 (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commander0034 when you upload them at Commons, just stating that they are your own work is enough, as long as you haven't posted them elsewhere on the Internet, eg FaceBook, Flickr or Twitter under a different licence. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And as long as Spain has Freedom of panorama, which does indeed appear to be the case. ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except, in this case, the photos would have been taken in Florida (see Ancient Spanish Monastery). -- R. S. Shaw (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Increase positive or increase negative?[edit]

Which is better to use if import rise? {{IncreasePositive}} or {{IncreaseNegative}}? Dinesh | Talk 15:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without further context, you should use {{IncreaseNeutral}}, as the benefit of imports depend on one's perspective. (If you're a consumer of sugar, then rising imports of sugar are positive as they will lower the price of sugar; conversely if you grow sugar beets, rising sugar imports are negative.) - R. S. Shaw (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Detect whether a full date was entered[edit]

In templates, the text {{#time:j F Y|{{{start-date|}}}}} standardizes the formatting of dates, but only if a full date is entered. If only a year is entered, it returns that year with today's day and month. Is there a way to detect whether the user only entered a year? I want it to display something like "c. 1867" in those cases. Thanks! —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has responded, I'm going to suggest WP:VPT, which is where questions similar to this are answered.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A sceptic question about category definitions: Category:Coronavirus researchers and Category:COVID-19 researchers[edit]

What is the difference between these two categories? Of course, the COVID-19 causing agent, SARS-CoV-2, is a coronavirus (sub)species, and hence COVID-19 researchers who are researching about the virus (and not, for instance, about respiratory failure as a consequence of the disease or about Cytokine storm in covid-19 patients, or about vaccines) always are coronavirus researchers. Of course, there are also a lot of virologists who came to the coronaviridae subject only because of fighting covid-19, which killed millions of people (these virologists may be named "covid-19 researchers"). But however, it is not explained. An so, Ralph S. Baric and Mark R. Denison, who cooperated in seminal papers like https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4161/rna.8.2.15013 , are sorted in different categories. I think the cat definition should be shaped. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The categories have no definition (Category header is empty) other than implied by their name. Thus the first research some viruses, the second research a disease. It looks to me that both authors should be in Category:Coronavirus researchers, and perhaps it's questionable if either, neither, or both should be in the other category. - R. S. Shaw (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Himbeerbläuling, the categories should probably be merged. Category:Coronavirus researchers was created on 1 April 2020‎ and contains researchers who have worked on covid-19. Category:COVID-19 researchers was created on 14 January 2022‎ with the edit summary "Creating new category to replace "Coronavirus researchers". The old title implies these people are researching more than one coronavirus, which is not true. While coronavirus is also a common name, we use the title "COVID-19 pandemic" on Wikipedia so this category should also reflect that." TSventon (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: No, the two authors OP mentioned did work on more corona viruses than just SARS-CoV-2; the paper mentioned is from long before the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, and also in recent times they have published papers dealing with SARS-CoV-2. The study of corona viruses (including SARS-CoV-2, but not exclusively) and the study of the COVID-19 disease are distinct subject areas. For these two reasons, I don't think the two categories should be merged. -- R. S. Shaw (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@R. S. Shaw:, I think the two categories are confused and would benefit from clearer labeling and then checking that articles are in the right category. I don't know much about coronaviruses so I wouldn't be the best person to do this. Perhaps a query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 is the best way forward. TSventon (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like it would be better discussed at WP:CfD, where other interested editors can give their input. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Category:COVID-19 researchers is defined to be a sub-cat of Category:Coronavirus researchers .--Himbeerbläuling (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]