Help desk
< December 11	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 13 >

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 12

Inquiry Regarding Recent Contribution

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I recently attempted to contribute information about the founding organization of Pete Capano, and I also included a reference link to support the addition. However, it appears that my contribution was rejected. I am writing to seek clarification on the specific reasons for the rejection and to inquire about the proper procedure for adding this information.

I am committed to ensuring the accuracy and relevance of the content I contribute, and I would appreciate any guidance or feedback you can provide to help me improve my contributions. Additionally, if there are specific formatting or citation requirements that I may have overlooked, I would be grateful for any pointers.

Thank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely, 96.230.129.157 (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. Your edit was reverted because it included formatting errors that resulted in big red error messages in the article after your edit. That is why your edit wss reverted. Please read Referencing for beginners. Please also be aware that secondary sources are strongly preferred to primary sources, such as websites associated with Capano. Cullen328 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your contributions. In addition to the concern brought up by the comment above, it also seems that your edit was reverted because of the content and the source are not neutral enough to be included. Your introduction of the organization that the subject founded reads like promotional material, and lacks substantial description on what the organization did and how is it notable. The two sources you provided are the official website of the said organization and a document introducing the subject as a candidate, neither of which are independent enough to be suitable sources. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! We encourage people to be bold and make edits to improve articles. However, sometimes another person will revert those edits. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the best place to discuss situations like this is the article's talk page: Talk:Peter Capano. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everything 🙏 41.116.183.79 (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the right time to use this template?

I was planning to put the distinguish template on the top of the article West Point, New York to distinguish it from the United States Military Academy, which is also known as West Point. Would this be the correct time to use the distinguish template? ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 04:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is unreasonable. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Meadowes

Please fix up ref. number 4 - it was difficult for me. Thank you 115.70.23.77 (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you just need to change {{cite journal}} to {{cite web}} to resolve the error. Folly Mox (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help with personnel section

Let's say I'm writing a personnel section for an album, and a performer is credited with something unusual, such as "word bitz". This is obviously a type of vocal performance. Should I credit them for "word bitz", or "vocals"? Thank you in advance.

SupremeLordBagel (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SupremeLordBagel, how obvious is it that "word bitz" refers to a vocal performance? Without seeing the rest of the bespoke credits, I could see it having to do with lyrical composition without contributing to the vocals. If your source says "word bitz", feel free to credit the contributor for "word bitz", with the quote marks included, citing the source that uses the term. Folly Mox (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full guidance is at MOS:PERSONNEL. If it's genuinely obvious that "word bitz" refers to vocals, you could say "vocals" without it being considered Original Research. Folly Mox (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help. I'll go with "word bitz" with quote marks. SupremeLordBagel (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

simple question?

I have been operating my own "CDC" or "Data Warehouse" for nearly two decades. Currently it is 20+ Servers/ 125+/- Virtual Servers, no less than 80 CPUs/800 Cores, 40TB RAM, and 2.2PB SAN Storage. I do all this for less than $20,000.00/year, yet I see that you are all the time asking for donations to operate this site. I wonder two things, the first is, what are you doing with all your money that you always need more, and second is, how do you think your information can stay accurate when so many people edit the posts? Just for my interest I data minded your site, and found that in doing so for just three days the reliability of information varied by 4.7%, one would think, for all the donations, the number would be less than .05%... Crisp411 (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia_Foundation#Finances may be the place to start on money.

On how we think info can stay accurate, see Wikipedia:General disclaimer, Reliability of Wikipedia, Vandalism on Wikipedia, Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, Ideological bias on Wikipedia etc. Note also, that the donations don't go to the people who edit WP-articles, those people are mostly volunteers who edits WP as a hobby.

Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not find this article interesting: The Huge Fight Behind Those Pop-Up Fundraising Banners on Wikipedia Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Guerritore

The biography is very confusing; moreover, there are some links that look like spam, even though they are not. JackkBrown (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is very bad, but I don't find it especially confusing. The main problems are external links in the body (including one to Facebook), sourcing to IMDB (which is user-generated), and the later bits of the biography being wholly unsourced. Other problems are ALL CAPS where Title Case or italics is meant, and a statement that places 2019 in the future rather than the past. Feel free to fix it up, JackkBrown. There should be plenty of guidance at MOS:FILM for actor biographies. Folly Mox (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per references, it's a pretty bad BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with all-white non-free logos?

I will admit, I'm fairly new to the non-free image upload system, but having just uploaded the updated logo for Go-Ahead London, with plans in the works for extracted SVGs from companies such as Go North East and Go North West, I'm not sure what the technical policy is for white-on-transparent non-free logos such as what I've uploaded. Should a colour background be included (e.g. TfL red, as they appear on London buses; I can't find any instance where a white Go-Ahead London logo is not used), or would that both go against policy and look a bit ugly? Looking through WP:LOGOS, I can't find any advice on the matter. Hullian111 (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CONTRAST would imply that the white logos should be placed on a contrasting background. Since the logos themselves are non-free, this could be accomplished by setting the background colour of the infobox element in which they appear using standard CSS, rather than editing the images themselves. (As an unhelpful aside, as a dark mode user the logo at Go-Ahead London already looks fine for me.) Folly Mox (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, messing with the infobox itself does feel like an unnecessary complication. Per another user's advice, I may have just found another alternative on the Go-Ahead Group's website that I somehow overlooked. I'll see if the logos listed are SVGs and then maybe I'll put the new one out as replacement. Hullian111 (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

promotional material

Hi,

I've submitted content for a page buts it's being flagged as promtional - can anyone point out why?

The page I was submitting was the 'Williamson Trust' but it's clashing with 'The Williamson Trust' which is now dissolved (no connection) but when the article was undone 'The Wiliamson Trust' article reappears, which will confuse readers. EcomStudios (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:EcomStudios, thanks for disclosing your paid status. I'd encourage you to use the Articles for Creation process rather than overwriting a redirect. Fair warning is that your sourcing doesn't establish "notability", which we really ought to call "already published aboutness". Your sources are the organisation's own website and a listing of all registered charities, neither of which meet the three critera of reliability with independence with significant coverage. If you're able to establish notability of your subject, the decision of how to disambiguate Williamson Trust and The Williamson Trust can be made afterwards. Best luck, Folly Mox (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Folly,

Do you think I could just add a general statement like 'The Williamson Trust is a charitable trust[1] established to improve health and wellbeing. It was founded in 1987 by William Salt (1925 – 2020) with the aim of enabling quality of life and longevity. [1] Registered charity no. 327601, Charity Commission for England and Wales'

To get the page started?

I also first submitted the article as a draft but it seemed to get 'stuck' in the process - does this normally take a long time - it was over a month. EcomStudios (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EcomStudios, unfortunately yes, AfC is chronically backlogged and often takes weeks to months. This is actually a bit of a more interesting (read: complicated) situation than it seems at first blush, because the sourcing for the existing article The Williamson Trust isn't really better than the sourcing at Draft:Williamson Trust, and The Williamson Trust may not have passed AfC if it had been created through that process today rather than directly in mainspace five years ago.

Based on my total inexpertise on either of these trusts, it seems there's likely no primary topic for the term "Williamson Trust", and if your article already existed the choice to disambiguate the two Williamsons Trust would be very probable.

I would say your first order of business is to find additional sourcing for your client Williamson Trust, rather than trying to put information about it into mainspace. Once you have more sources, you'll have a significantly stronger position to argue for disambiguation, as well as get your article through AfC. Repeatedly overwriting the redirect currently at the title Williamson Trust is only likely to cause you trouble. Folly Mox (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EcomStudios. Absolutely the first step in creating any article, big or small, should be searching for the independent reliable sources which are a non-negotiable requirement for establishing that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, because if you cannot find such sources, any other work you may have spent on the article will be wasted. ColinFine (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donation

I would like to donate by cheque. I do not give out my money card details. 159.196.132.85 (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page Ways to Give includes a mailing address to which you can send a cheque. Thank you for wanting to support the project! -- John of Reading (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added upcoming Project was reverted

Yash upcoming project reverted after adding wiki page toxic (2025) wiki artical created on the name of Toxic (2025) with all link provided in the page Please check this link

https://www.filmcompanion.in/news/yashs-next-film-titled-toxic

https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/south/yash-19-titled-toxic-directed-by-geethu-mohandas-set-to-release-april-2025-1263993

Gangasutha (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gangasutha, per WP:FILMOGRAPHY, do not add future film projects until filming has begun as verified by a reliable source. Please talk with the person that reverted you first before coming to the Help desk. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 18:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When to post to COI/N?

Laureys1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created his own article, Steven Laureys. There has been work on it since its creation, but until my recent edits it had no mention of the COI anywhere in the article or talk page. The article is also undersourced, and so I have added that banner as well. I alerted the user on their talk page. My question is: is putting up the COI banner on the article enough in this situation? Or is the fact that he created his own article an issue that should be handled in another manner? Kimen8 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kimen8, Laureys1 created that article with three edits in July, 2009 and has not edited since. The article has been edited repeatedly over the years and about 40% of the content has been added by other editors. I see no point in filing a noticeboard report about an editor who has been inactive for 14-1/2 years, and I wonder whether the tags you added are appropriate in this particular situation. Efforts to improve the article are, of course, always welcomed. Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There are articles (I am thinking of Michael Abramoff recently), that I think had the COI banner because the editor who created the article had a COI; in that article's talk page it was decided the COI banner should stay. I guess it should be handled on a case-by-case basis. I think it would be reasonable to remove the COI banner from Steven Laureys, but it is still undersourced so I would leave that banner. Unless something else is said, I'll remove the COI template and leave the sources needed template. Kimen8 (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kimen8, that case is quite different because there has been obvious undisclosed paid editing on that article in recent months. Cullen328 (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I'm still trying to figure out how to handle these sorts of situations. I value the integrity of the project as a whole and want to make sure COIs are addressed when they need to be, and I'm trying to learn when they need to be addressed, and when they don't. Kimen8 (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kimen8: It's a matter of editorial judgement. You are an editor, and you can choose to make the judgment. If, in your opinion, the article as it stands today is not biased by a conflict of interest, then there is no reason to warn the readership by using the template. If you feel that the article is biased, then use the template to warn the readership. Better, fix the bias if possible. If unsure, discuss on the article's talk page. Go to COI/N if the COI editor is actively messing with the article and discussion on the talk page is not working. -Arch dude (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace links to Draft???

Is the following statement correct? No mainspace articles should link or redirect to Draftspace, correct? I did a search for insource:/\[\[Draft:/ in mainspace and got 389 hits including some redirects from Mspace to Draft:Mspace. So 389 articles that need to be fixed, right? Naraht (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most, but not all were in comments, looks like about 20-25 that are actual.Naraht (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that statement is correct. Like every rule on Wikipedia it's up to the subset of the community who cares to enforce it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did some cleanup on those, lots are inside comments, but I figured out how to eliminate most from a search.Naraht (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blow magazine and Public relations

Hi there. I notice the magazine I did in the 90’s is not listed when I search on Wikipedia. How can I add it please. Many thanks Michael1133 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael1133: Hi there! Creating a new Wikipedia article can be quite challenging, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article and summarize what the sources have published, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, declines, and rewrites before an article is accepted. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HI There, I don't understand this really. The magazine was published from 1992-97. It was written about extensively in the fashion and media circles. It launched the same time as Dazed & Confused, which is listed. We had global distribution. I have a ton of press on the magazine. Michael1133 (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide this press that you claim to have, and it meets the requirements stated at WP:RS, then editors may create an article about your magazine. It is not recommended that you create the article yourself. miranda ^:3 22:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in addition to what GoingBatty says, if this was your magazine, then you would have a conflict of interest in creating an article about it. This doesn't mean that you can't do so, but it tends to make a challenging task even harder, as you will basically need to forget everything you know about the magazine and write an article based on what the independent reliable sources say (even if you think they are wrong). ColinFine (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

article about non-existent place

this article for "Petrel" minnesota (an unincorporated community) is inaccurate, it is just a creek and not an actual place, I also found no way to delete this page. If anyone could fix this that would be great! Bradinator33 (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradinator33: I used the {{prod}} mechanism to nominate it for a proposed non-contentious deletion. If you ever need to do this yourself, just go ahead. The other two ways are "speedy delete" for egregious cases, or WP:AFD for cases where discussion is needed, you can do those, too, if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arch dude (talk • contribs) 23:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]