Help desk
< April 21	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 23 >

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.

April 22

Requesting Move for AfC Draft?

I'm creating a new article right now, and realized too late that the proper name of the article should be something else. Should I put in a request to move the article now, before it is accepted through AfC review, or is there another avenue that is more appropriate?

This is for the page Draft:Dropout_TV, and the title ought to just be Dropout.

Thanks in advance! ChunyangD (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChunyangD, The title Dropout is already taken by a disambiguation page, so I suggest not using that title because you wouldn't be able to anyway when it's accepted. Your account isn't completely new, so you should be allowed to use the Special:MovePage feature to move pages yourself, and as far as I know, there's no rule against moving pages marked for review, there should be no problems just doing it. I've gone ahead and moved the draft to Draft:Dropout.tv for now though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @ChunyangD: It can be moved now; Otherwise, articles can (and often are) also be renamed when they're accepted at AfC. However, Dropout is a disambiguation page (a page listing articles that could be referred to by the term "dropout"), so you can't move it there (as it isn't the overwhelmingly primary topic for that word). You could leave it be, or I could move it to something like "Dropout (media service provider)" or "Dropout (video network)" if you want. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the quick responses! Ah yes, @Alpha3031 I didn't realize I had access to the MovePage feature... my editing has been sporadic over the past years. And thank you for the initial move to Dropout.tv. I still need to figure out what the preferred stylization of the service should be. I might end up taking @LittlePuppers advice and use Dropout (media service provider) as that seems closest to how the service brands itself. ChunyangD (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How drafts works?

Hi, I'am a Spanish Wikipedia user, and I try to create an article here, in English Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how to make it. The article (Draft:Indira Murillo) is just a "draft", in Spanish Wikipedia we don't have such thing, so I'm confused. Need some help, please. Thanks!!

JohnnyStar (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JohnnyStar. If you put {{subst:submit}} at the top of your article, it'll put your draft into the review queue, and an AfC reviewer will be around to either make it into a regular article (by moving it) or tell you what you need to do to meet our criteria for inclusion (mostly WP:Notability). This might take up to a few months because there are many drafts in the queue right now (~3000), but usually drafts are reviewed within a few days. Good luck! Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks!!! JohnnyStar (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JohnnyStar, I have reviewed and accepted it, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger67, many thanks!! I will try to continue contributing. JohnnyStar (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia via a VPN

Hi!

In three days I will be going to Turkey for two weeks. I know that Wikipedia is banned there but I do have a VPN (Windscribe) to bypass the ban. However, last time I was there I used Windscribe to access Wikipedia and I got an IP ban that I had to appeal to overturn. I am wondering that if I access Wikipedia via a VPN will I get another IP ban? And if so, is there any other way to access the site?

Thank you, Central Data Bank (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you were given an IP block exemption it should still be in effect; if not you can request one following the instructions at that link. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Central Data Bank, before someone granted you temporary IP block exemption. I have reinstated that for you. It will expire in 3 weeks. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly indexed data

Query "all people in 1972 presidential election" (or various forms thereof) - Wiki will never reply with the list of the names of all persons who attempted to become president. No, altering query or subject to "nomination" or "primaries" doesn't present the list as a result either.

In the common vernacular the phrasing "all people who ran for president in YEAR" should give this list -- ONLY if you add the word "election" should one receive the final contenders, the persons who received their party's nomination. But whoever set it up now & whoever has entered data now has all queries regarding CAMPAIGN to be answered to ELECTION.

CAMPAIGN or RACE and all things "1972 presidential" sans word "ELECTION" should list all things related up to the general election, and then reference the election. Should start with a list of all candidates - not 1 name here, another 3 lines later, another 4 paragraphs after that. They are all in the same elections, same race, same campaign -- someone was a nutter to set it up as it is now!

To make a single question: How many people were in each of the races in the 70s after Watergate? - it took over 2 hours to find the answer on your so-called "encyclopedia."

On Britannica? 1 query for each election.

You try it. Find out when the 1st woman ran a campaign for president. Now the 1st black woman.

See if you can do it in under an hour (and no cheating using Google or a book!!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.198.246 (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, according to List of elections in 1972 there were arond sixty elections that year - which one are you referring to? Secondly, if you have spotted an article that you think needs to be written - then go ahead and write it. That is how a volunteer project like Wikipedia works.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parsing a string as English language and producing an accurate answer is extremely difficult for a computer program. Wikipedia's search box does not attempt to do it. It just searches our articles for the words unless certain parameters are used. If there is a navigation template listing the subjects and you know the template name like Template:1972 United States presidential election then you can say hastemplate:"1972 United States presidential election". incategory: or linksto: can also sometimes help. See more at Help:Searching. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues here. 1) Most fundamentally, the title of this tirade is not valid as to does not discuss "incorrect" indexing all. The OP did not get an incorrect result. 2) Britannica is a lot smaller than Wikipedia, so it's easier for them to search. 3) We do not consider this to be part of our mission. There no reason not to use Google or some other entity that specializes in search. Since Wikipedia is completely open to allow these searches (as Britannica is not) we don't need an organic search capability. 4) We have a sister project, Wikidata, for structured data. It has very powerful generalized search capability. -Arch dude (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If, as PrimeHunter suggests, the election in question is the 1972 United States presidential election then that article contains lists of all people who officially nominated as candidates. The list is split into three - Democrats, Republicans, and Other. I am not clear whether that satisfies the original question about "all persons who attempted to become president" is not clear - I expect many people tried but did not it make it as far as nominating. If the reader is looking for those, the question would need to be clarified.

For the second part of the question, you will find related information at Women_in_government#Historic_firsts_for_women_in_government. It does not mention women nominating for election, but it does mention the first woman who became president - Isabel Perón, of Argentina (1974–1976).--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits Not Displayed

Dear Wikipedia Team,

Few days ago, I updated the Wikipedia page of an organisation, Association for Democratic Reforms, where I work. Upon visiting the page today, I could not find those edits. Please take this into your consideration and update the content as per my edits.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by NandiniRaj1994 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NandiniRaj1994. Your edits (you can see this on the "view history tab" on the article-page) was reverted by a "bot", probably because you added WP:EXTERNAL LINKS to several social media in the article text, and this is generally a no-no on WP. Text like "To receive our press releases, join our google groups" is not fitting for a WP-article, nor are your phonenumbers etc. Take the time to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] @NandiniRaj1994:, please also read carefully the following sets of guidelines: WP:PAID, WP:RS and WP:CITE. Having done so, you may understand why your edits were reverted and why you should not be seeking to edit the article directly, but rather providing cites to Reliable sources in the articles Talk page and requesting other disinterested editors to evaluate them. Please note in particular that WP:COI and WP:PAID require that you place appropriate declarations on your User page (which you can create simply by clicking on that red link and typing something): non-compliance with this requirement could result in your being blocked or banned from EnWikipedia. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.2.132 (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Categories

Are extendedconfirmed users not allowed to move categories anymore? SportsFan007 (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]

Only administrators and page movers have the move-categorypages right at Special:ListGroupRights. I don't know whether extendedconfirmed users ever did. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Users used to have move-categorypages, at least according to my project (I'm sure I didn't adjust that). - FlightTime (open channel) 15:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something has changed. On 2 November 2018 I moved Category:Censuses in Trasnistria, even though I've never been an administrator or page mover. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It changed at phab:T219261 after Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#RfC: Restrict technical ability to move categories. Before that autoconfirmed users could move category pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

atheist church

Currently a search on these terms redirects to the Sunday Assembly, which doesn't even really like to use the term "atheist" and the NYC community actually split over this issue. PLUS there are several other atheist churches. I don't know how to fix this. It should be fixed as a google search on atheist church returns over 28 million hits and most are not the Sunday Assembly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenomed (talk • contribs) 13:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xenomed. I took a quick look, and see no obvious "solution". Per WP-philosophy, atheist church should lead to an article with that title, or, like in this case, somewhere the reader is probably looking for. If there are several "atheist churches" with articles one can create a "disambiguation page" like Apostle (disambiguation). What the org itself wants to be called matters less in WP-land than what independent sources calls it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally someone should make an article about the broader topic, rather than just redirecting it to one congregation. I remember a few years ago reading an article (maybe in Newsweek, back when it was a real news magazine?) about atheist churches in general being a new movement. It would be a good source to start an article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this for a broader discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 22#Atheist church. MB 15:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On a point of order: notice that redirect titles do not necessarily need to be neutral. Hence, the fact that members of the community feel it does not adequately describe them is not relevant if a large fraction of the public designate them by that term, and it is not too outrageous. Of course, whether the redirect is actually to a subtopic (when a larger article should be written) is another debate (see RfD discussion). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source?

Hi, an editor added to the article on Albert Camus that Camus lived in Lourmarin, Vaucluse, France and cited as a source "Michelin Green Guide 2017: Provence (English Version), page 346". Is a tourist guide a reliable source? Can Michelin be trusted for biographical facts of Camus' life? - Epinoia (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epinoia. I'd say a Michelin_Guide#Green_Guides could be an RS on this, it seems reasonably uncontroversial. If sources conflict, something like a good biography would be a better source, but this one doesn't seem awful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Gråbergs Gråa Sång - ok, thanks for the response - Epinoia (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a COI, or appropriate use of a draft article?

Just noticed this, after an edit was reverted on Line of Duty. The editor in question seems to be the actor himself, or at least somebody representing the actor - they've set up a draft that is pretty much a CV: User:ChrisWilsonxx1x/Chris Wilson (actor).

Apart from the usual COI template, what would be the best way of dealing with this? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chaheel Riens it's a copyright violation, now tagged for deletion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the username has been sent to WP:UAA. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remove a biographic article, as requested by the person in question?

Hi, I have an acquaintance who does not want to have a biographic article of his on Wikipedia, especially a WP in a certain language. Is it possible to request its removal to an administrator? What are the requirements? Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iñaki LL. On English Wikipedia, an article can be deleted only if it meets the criteria for Deletion: principally, that there are not adequate published sources to base an article on. The wishes of the subject are almost irrelevant, because an article will only be possible if sufficient material about them has already been published elsewhere. For other language Wikipedias, I'm afraid that you would have to ask at the relevant Wikipedia: each is a separate project, with different rules, and possibly different criteria for deletion. --ColinFine (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iñaki LL. On en-WP, the "rule" is WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Basically, if your friend is not very well known (in the opinion of the WP-editors who wish to comment), an article can be deleted. To attempt this, start a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion with something like "Hi, I am X, this article is about me and I would like it deleted, please."On other language WP:s, similar or different rules may apply, you'll have to ask there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for your replies! Iñaki LL (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marital status

Hi, i am divorced and engaged to a new partner.

How can I change this on my wiki profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.55.167 (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, the articles are not referred to as profiles but instead as articles. The information in those articles should be referenced to reliable sources for that information. If there is some reliable source saying that the subject of an article is divorced, then we can put that information (with the reference) into the article. Which article are you referring to? †dismas†|^(talk) 21:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest it on the talkpage of the article. You need a source, but in this particular case (WP:ABOUTSELF), something like your own blog, facebook or twitter can be an acceptable source. Of course, an article about it in the Washington Post is better. Wikipedia:Edit requests may be of help to speed things up. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP problems

Hello, I've made edits before making a wikipedia account. Now my IP address is open to the world, is there a way to connect my account to my old ip edits or anything else that could help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OmeedP (talk • contribs) 22:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OmeedP. If you want to, you can write something like "Between date1 and date2 I edited with IP X" on your userpage, just click the redlinked OmeedP and type away. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Oversight if you want the IP address hidden for privacy reasons. But IP edits cannot be reassigned to your account in page histories or Special:Contributions/OmeedP. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Saint-Sulpice, Jumet - disambug page

Currently, this article links to a disambug page about Saint-Sulpice, but I think there's enough churches to warrant a a page just about the churches themselves. There already is one on the French Wikipedia, [1] and it lists 48 articles of churches named Saint-Sulpice in France. Would this be a good reason to create a disambugation page? Clovermoss (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss: Rather than copy a large chunk into a content fork, where the info is duplicated, I would just add a churches section to the Saint-Sulpice dab page, with the places that are churches, and separate alphabetically by country, like the current places section is separated. Then create a redirect called Saint-Sulpice Church, sending readers to your new church section on that dab page. Then the info won't have to be maintained in two places. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timtempleton Okay, that's a great idea! Thank you. Clovermoss (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timtempleton I've ran into some problems with this approach.

It seems that there's only two Church articles written in English; so there's 46 churches that would be red links if I listed them. I could put all the work into translating and creating these articles (if they meet English Wikipedia guidelines), but 46 articles about churches is a lot of work to do without thinking about whether that's a good idea. I'm also currently working on my own drafts - I don't think I'm quite ready to handle something like that yet, especially since this draft of mine has taken a few months to get to its current state.
The suggested redirect of Saint-Sulpice Church is already a redirect to Church of Saint-Sulpice, Paris.

Clovermoss (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss: I moved the discussion to your talk page. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]