Help desk
< May 1	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 3 >

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.

May 2[edit]

How do I request a peer review?[edit]

Placing Template:PR on Talk:Nuclear clock gives me a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Nuclear_clock/archive1&action=edit&editintro=Template:Peer_review/editintro&preload=Template:Peer_review/preload8 which tells me "You do not have permission to edit this page". Do I ask WP:AFC to create a page in the WP namespace?

(Specifically, I'd an opinion from someone less familiar with the topic on which parts are too WP:TECHNICAL, and WP:PR seemed the right place to ask.) 97.102.205.224 (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFC are for creating articles and does not apply in this case. If you don't want to create an account and log in, reply with your reason for review below and I'll create the request for you. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tutwakhamoe: Thank you! To expand on what I stated above, the reason for review is "Is the article sufficiently accessible to a non-WP:TECHNICAL reader to qualify for B-grade? It's difficult for someone steeped in the literature enough to write the article to judge, so a separate reviewer's opinion would be valuable. (I'm pretty sure the other B-grade criteria are already met, but feel free to comment on those too, if you like.)" 97.102.205.224 (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved Wikipedia:Peer review/Nuclear clock/archive1 now exists. Thank you, Tutwakhamoe (talk · contribs)! 97.102.205.224 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Including Parks and Trails to New Hanover County NC page[edit]

Hello my name is James Chisum. I am the Trail Easement Coordinator for New Hanover County. Part of my job is increasing interest and generating usage of our trail and park network. I think exposure to our trail and park system can be increased by adding that information to both the New Hanover County and Wilmington NC wiki-pages. For a complete list of parks and trails please respond and I will help facilitate anything you request to the best of my ability. look forward to hearing from you Jim Chisum jchisum@nhcgov.com 910-798-7567 152.31.193.130 (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't communicate via email/phone; we are happy to discuss this with you here. To be frank, we have no interest in helping you fulfill your job duties to increase interest in your trails and parks, no matter how good a thing that might be to do. The main purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic- if you have independent sources that discuss your parks, it may be possible to include that in the articles you mention in a neutral, non-promotional fashion. You would first need to declare as a paid editor, a Terms of Use requirement(see WP:PAID) and then make edit requests on the article talk pages. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in our sibling project, Wikivoyage. I would also suggest you reach out to your local OpenStreetMap community (OSM is independent of Wikimedia, but has been descried as "the Wikipedia of maps"). Finally, our FAQ for article subjects may be of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help[edit]

Can anyone help me? A user is moving my article from mainspace to draft but my article contains reliable sources Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This matter is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bajirao's Konkan Campaign. Cullen328 (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Wikipedia[edit]

When I go to my profile and click on the contributions page, it shows all of my edits with either a positive or negative number next to them? What does that number mean?

BindingOfIsaac (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's your reputation score. No just kidding, it reflects how much content was added or removed with each edit. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! BindingOfIsaac (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signature[edit]

Can this be my signature? or will someone call me out of it?:🅿𝔸𝓉ⓐ꓄𝐞𝟛２4͓̽ (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Patate324. The misspelling is confusing. You can use the strange characters, but I suggest that you spell your own username correctly in your signature. Cullen328 (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a little while when I was new to Wikipedia, my sig was my real name; no one objected. —Tamfang (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I get info page publish?[edit]

I was looking for information about "Pay per head", but you have nothing about it. So I decided to create it myself, but it wasn't published! Bek Seo (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bek Seo. You created the article in your Sandbox, an area to make test edits.

It would not be accepted as an article as it has no references, please very carefully read WP:VERIFY.

Once ready, I would recommend you submit your sandbox for review by experienced editors by following the instructions at WP:AFC. Qcne (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bek Seo. The thing to realise is that Wikipedia is not intersted at all in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows): it is only interested in information which has already been published in reliable sources.

What makes creating an article hard is that it starts with finding independent reliably published sources (see 42 for more detail on that) and then writes a summary of what those sources say, citing them. Please see your first article. ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Colin! Thanks for replying! Yes I understand that. The problem is that information is about a type of software. There are not many sources, except the ones provided by the companies that sell that specific software. I thought it would be helpful to explain what is this software is about, avoiding the "sales speech" from the sites selling it. I thought, that Wikipedia could be useful and helpful in that matter. Bek Seo (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bek Seo: I can understand the drive to create an article on something that you may be familiar with; however, if there aren't many sources then it probably doesn't meet our notability guidelines. Generally speaking, if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there were many sources about that subject then I wouldn't see the point on creating/collaborating with it on Wikipedia... I apologize for my mistake, I thought Wiki was a good starting point for helpful info. Bek Seo (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate information[edit]

Why are you guys deleting accurate information from pages?

Rep. Troy Nehls (R) stated that the House of Representatives should be doing nothing but helping Donald Trump. All I did was accurately add that his allegiance is to Donald Trump, not the U.S.A.

The only reason tht should have been deleted is if Rep. Nehls changed his position. 2603:7081:6C06:3348:31B0:364E:6C0A:ED62 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provide at least one reliable source for your claim, else your edits would just be seen as vandalism. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability, not accuracy. Correct information will be deleted as non-encyclopedic if it's WP:Original research, even if true. The linked articles explain this policy at much greater length than I want to bother writing here.

In this particular case, the argument is not whether he said something, but whether him saying something was reported in a reliable source. If you heard him say it and are reporting it in Wikipedia, it's not encyclopedic. If you can cite to a reliable source reporting the statement (and there's not a greater preponderance of reporting that he never said it), that's an entirely different matter.

Per WP:BLP, Wikipedia is considerably stricter about its rules when writing about living people, as in this case. In most cases, a reliable source needs to exist, but doesn't have to be directly cited to defend each little assertion, especially non-controversial ones. (WP:BLUE) For biographies of living people, it's "citation of GTFO." 97.102.205.224 (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that I happened to read this earlier today. Deor (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Besides everything else, possibly Nethis (of whom I know nothing) sincerely believes that, at this time, the best way to serve the U.S.A. is to support Trump. That would make your inference false. We don't publish our own inferences even if they may be accurate. —Tamfang (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Rejection - Questions[edit]

Hello, I don’t think I understand the feedback I was given in the rejection for my draft here. I was told that there weren’t enough reliable sources, but included 10 whole references, many of which from major gaming publications independent from Bushiroad, which should count as secondary, reliable, and independent, correct? Dragon Ball Sparking Zero, another upcoming anime fighting game without a release date, has an article, which only has a single reference (the official website, which shouldn’t count as independent), and is nowhere near as well sourced as my article. I tried to include a source for every claim and provide a variety of sources. Is there a particular form of source I’m missing? I included both Japanese and Western sources from articles, official websites, and even a YouTube video with 56k views by a well known fighting game content creator, Justin Wong, who has his own Wikipedia article. Would everything I included not count towards it being noteworthy?

TheEnderDwonk (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) The draft was not rejected, it's declined, meaning that once appropriate changes were made it can be resubmitted for another review;

2) As per WP:OTHER, just because an existing article did not match a suitable standard, does not mean other article can be passed for lower standard. As far as I can tell, another editor copied much of the stuff to Dragon Ball: Sparking! Zero, the right course of action would be fix or brought up issues of that article instead of using it as an excuse for this draft;

3) As per WP:RSP, the only YouTube videos that are acceptable sources are those made by official channels of reliable organizations. Content made by independent YouTuber can not be used as sources, no matter how many subscribers they have;

4) I just checked, the other cited sources in the draft are the official website of the game and announcements about the game. Official site is primary source and should be avoided, and announcements are generally counted as WP:ROUTINE and does not help with notability. There are a constant stream of game announcements, many of which would be obscure after release or even never see the light of day, we cannot have articles for every single one of them just because they have been announced.

I agree with the reviewer here, it's best to wait post release to see if there's significant coverage of the game. If you can find suitable sources now, you can still edit and submit the draft, but at the current stage it does not seem to be ready for main space. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this is where I’m confused. So coverage of the game’s official announcements from gaming news outlets is considered routine and is not considered noteworthy, but independent content creators cannot be cited either. What specifically are you looking for source wise for an article like this? For example, gaming news outlets Goziline (which I cited in the draft) and Famitsu did articles going in-depth on the game’s mechanics. Should look to include more things like that?

TheEnderDwonk (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheEnderDwonk, probably yes to your closing question (though I haven't examined them).

There are two separate Wikipedia-specific criteria here which are easily confused, Reliability and Notability.

In order to corroborate specific facts included in an article, Wikipedia requires Citation of Reliable sources – for uncontrovertial facts, these need not be independent of the article's subject.

However, to demonstrate a subject's Notability, several (usually 3 or more) Reliable sources that are independent of the subject (and discuss it at some length) are needed.

A Reliable source has to be one that exercises editoral control and fact checking, which by definition excludes virtually all independent content creators. News outlets that are (usually professionally) edited and fact-checked qualify, but only when they are not merely publishing or paraphrasing subject-supplied press releases, or interviewing subject-related people, which would not be independent.

[Edited to add] Most importantly, a subject must be demonstrated by its Draft/Article to be Notable in order for the article to be included in Wikipedia. Deficiencies in corroborating individual facts within it can be addressed either by finding more sources or by deleting those facts, but Notability is make-or-break.

Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.144.58 (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for your help. I’ll try to go in and fix these issues.

TheEnderDwonk (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One way to look at this, TheEnderDwonk, is to note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

This means that not only things published by the subject's associates, but also sources that merely repeat what the subject's associates say (even if they are in themselves reliable sources) do not count towards establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that now, and I’ve edited my draft to address this. I hope it is accepted this time! Thank you for the feedback, I’m very glad people have been so helpful here :) TheEnderDwonk (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]