Help desk
< September 29	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	October 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.

September 30

Waiting for approval

Macmillan Cancer Support (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello

I requested to add two new sections to the Macmillan Cancer Support page on the Talk section for this page in December 2015. They are still in the queue but we were hoping that someone might be able to look at these and approve them? The new sections provide more information on 'Macmillan nurses' and 'Fundraising' - both key bits of information about the charity.

Is anyone able to help?

Thank you!

Frances — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesmawson (talk • contribs) 09:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frances, there are many Wikipedia articles and very few editors. Best to add these sections yourself. They need more citations however, and so have added some tags indicating this. As you're a new editor I will walk-u-through-it if & when I can find the time.--Aspro (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aspro, thank you for coming back to me. I really appreciate you taking the time to help. I'll work on the citations and I also noticed the copy violation being flagged. I also saw your comment asking other editors for help - thank you!

michael uwezu

Michael Uwezu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

i am sorry this page is not up to data Michael Uwezu have scold 12 goals now in 16 games can his Wikipedia page set up for automatic up data pleases Thant you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.237.173 (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia than anybody can edit. If you think it needs updating then you can do it yourself using a reliable source. --Aspro (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to withdraw an article review request?

Draft:Carroll D. Osburn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am posting my first article and submitted for review several days ago. I've now realized that a few of the sections fall short on resources and I would like to pull the article off the review request list until I have time to research that. How do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyfultrust (talk • contribs) 12:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joyfultrust:

Done I undid your change which added the review tag, so it is back to unreviewed with the submit button at the top. Murph9000 (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article but have COI

Hello, I'm a new user and have reviewed some of the information regarding how to create a new article. I've found that I should not create this article, however, due to a COI. I am the spouse of a musician and wanted to create an article for their band. They have pages I could use for reference, to establish the existence, and the fact that they play shows around town. I respect that for credibility, the powers that be do not want anyone with possible COI creating articles. In the case that I cannot create the article, and none of the band can, do we just have to wait for some unrelated 3rd party to decide they want to take it upon themselves to create an article?

Thank you for any information, kbidwell3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbidwell3 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not all bands get a Wikipedia article, just as not all bands get an article in other encyclopedias like Encyclopædia Britannica. The guideline for whether an article is appropriate is Wikipedia:Notability (music). If the band satisfies those notability requirements, there are ways to find someone else to create the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kbidwell3, thank you for declaring your COI. If, after reading the information about notability linked below, you still believe that your band is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (see below) and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, you could, if you wish, post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the the band, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the band claims or interviewing them. Jimfbleak (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lets leave the COI to aside. As your spouse is in the entertainment business you know that there are thousands of bands playing around their home towns and 99.88% don't rate for inclusion in Wikipedia for lack of nation-wide recognition. Even if a 3rd party created an article, it would no doubt be deleted quickly -if the band does not have a high national profile. A good rule-of-thumb to use is: if a band is notable it will have a Wikipedia article already. If it doesn’t, then it does not have a higher enough profile for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Anyway, now you have an WP account – Welcome. There must be many articles that you can usefully contribute to.--Aspro (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you all for your advice and information. -kbidwell3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbidwell3 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PDF issues

I am suddenly blocked from copying and pasting Wikipedia questions and downloading PDF. Is there a system issue? Also, when downloading the PDF versions not all of the images transfer, is there a reason? Valeacat (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Valeacat, welcome to Wikipedia. Can you please be more specific about exactly what is happening when you are "blocked" while cutting and pasting? As far as downloading PDFs is concerned, there are some known and long standing issues with the "Book Creator" system (see Help:Books). Those issues impact some articles, but not others. Please let us know the specific article(s) that are problematic for you, so that we can better see just what is going on. Those issues may also impact the "Download as PDF" option (I assume that's the one you are using), but we can try it ourselves to see what is happening if we know the article names. Please give us the exact error/block messages that you are seeing (if any). Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having tried a few different articles, it does seem as if the "Download as PDF" feature is completely broken right now. For me, it appears that it never really starts, and just endlessly refreshes with a status of:

Progress: 0.00% Status: Waiting for job runner to pick up render job

You may be able to workaround this by printing or saving to PDF in your browser (i.e. locally generating a PDF from the printable version of the HTML).

Murph9000 (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Valeacat: The "Download as PDF" option seems to be working again, at least for a couple of quick tests I did a moment ago. If you still have problems with it, please let us know the specific pages, and some detail on what is going wrong (including any error messages you see). Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing a sandbox page for group edits

User:Skire913/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd like to share the page I've created in the Sandbox with a few other people across the country to get their input. How can this be easily done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skire913 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should not share your account with others, if you're planning to do that. (See WP:U) Each person must have their own account or they can edit without logging in. Anyone with the link can see your sandbox. You can share the link and get their input. Is my answer helpful? Fuortu (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi, Skire913. Although user sandboxes are essentially personal, you can certainly invite other Wikipedia editors to collaborate with you on content within your user pages. Normally other editors should not edit someone else's user pages, other than fixing obvious problems and for policy issues (such as the {{User sandbox}} header I just added to it), and good faith helpful changes are usually considered to be ok. A user can choose to invite / allow others, and that should not normally be a problem (assuming that all the editing meets the usual policies and guidelines). As long as the overall goal is to work on creating a draft article for future publication on Wikipedia, and it has a clear draft article (or sandbox) header, there should be no issue. Please note the WP:NOTWEBHOST policy, so anything other than draft articles or content directly related to the goals of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation is very likely to get speedily deleted. Alternatively, you can move it into the "Draft" namespace, under the Articles for Creation process, but drafts there are essentially fair game for everyone to constructively work on without invitation. Murph9000 (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skire913, on the page User:Skire913/sandbox are you working towards creating a Wikipedia article on A-CURE or looking for a place where A-CURE members can work together? If it is the former, then just invite them to register and edit the page. If it is the latter then it would violate the "Don't store material unrelated to Wikipedia, including in userspace" clause of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Consider setting up a page on Wikia (no connection to Wikipedia) or setting up a Personal wiki. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, in its present form, it would not be accepted as a Wikipedia article, Skire913, because it appears to be about an organisation, but, judging from their titles, it does not appear to have a single reference which is about the organisation. For an article about a scientific theory or medical technique, references to technical papers may be appropriate; for an article about an organisation, the bulk of the references should be to sources independent of the organisation which talk about the organisation. --ColinFine (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music 'til Dawn article

Draft:Music 'Til Dawn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I submitted an article for Wikipedia called Music 'til Dawn and I wanted to edit it and to add two links but I cannot find it - where do I go to find so I can article I submitted about a week ago (today is 9/30/2016) so I can continue to imorove it - I also need to re-write the opening paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:E717:8900:3811:4FA8:9F15:8EBA (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your post by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button above the edit box which looks like this:

. Do not sign in articles.. Your draft article seems to still exist at Draft:Music 'Til Dawn. I'm not sure why you think it was deleted (although it was deemed not ready for mainspace by Fuortu. Ppp ery 23:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi IP user, your draft seems to be at Draft:Music 'Til Dawn. For it to be accepted on Wikipedia, you will need to add reliable sources that show why it passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Joseph2302 23:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi, IPv6 user with a changing address. I strongly encourage you to register an account, as you seem to have a constantly changing IPv6 address, which makes communication with you extremely difficult, and stops you finding articles that you have worked on. I managed to find your draft in search, and have linked it at the top of this topic. The draft article was rejected for failing to meet notability criteria, and the notification for that was sent to the IPv6 address that you were using at that moment in time. From what I can see, the draft is entirely unsourced, and also needs quite significant work on the formatting, to improve readability. The subject might have notability (or not), but lack of sources and extremely over-length paragraphs makes it difficult to see that notability. So, it's a case of "not as it currently exists", rather than "never". Murph9000 (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]