Help desk
< May 7	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 9 >

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 8

Weird Request for Permissions review order?

I hope someone can answer my question, because this is confusing. I submitted a request for pending changes reviewer on May 3rd, and another user did too. However, our requests haven't been approved yet, but not only that, for some reason the newer requests have been accepted recently. Is it because of something I did, or is it because the request permission viewers review in a unorganized way? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Pending_changes_reviewer&oldid=1086646803 Toad40 (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Toad40: Yes, they are reviewed in no particular order. RudolfRed (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Toad40 (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref fix needed

I can't figure out how to fix my error made while trying to use named reference in Hotel Saratoga, Havana article. Help! --2603:6081:1C00:1187:8582:2B80:5654:18BC (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 2603:6081:1C00:1187:8582:2B80:5654:18BC (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page break at Apollo

There seems to be a big page break in the Apollo article, underneath the redirect hatnotes. I'm not sure why (the reordering things I tried didn't work in preview), can anyone fix this? Best – Aza24 (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything out of the ordinary on my display. Meters (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could it have something to do with your display width interacting with the long infobox and other templates in the lead? Meters (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but I was using a pretty standard display, so it would have certainly been an issue for others. Now fixed anyways. Aza24 (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24

Fixed! GoingBatty (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aza24 (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to ask

I initially uploaded the incorrect photo size for this and I'm not sure where to ask an admin if they can delete the previous version. APK whisper in my ear 09:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make it smaller, you can do it yourself and the larger version will be deleted automatically a few days later. Since it is a fair use image it shouldn't be larger than it already is.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks. APK whisper in my ear 10:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Insight, please

I started to create an article for an actor ... Michael Lowry (actor) ... after being surprised to see that no article already existed. Long story short ... I somehow came across this page --> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lowry (actor). I didn't read everything with a fine-tooth comb. And, for whatever reason, I have no access to this "OTRS (ref ticket:2015012210014351)" business. In fact, I have no idea what that "OTRS" business even means. (?) That being said ... what I did take away from the situation is this: if a person is notable and they "officially" request to not have a Wikipedia article, then Wikipedia can/should/must/will delete that article, upon request. I could be wrong, but that's how I read the whole situation. So, that's news to me. Is that the case? This guy is certainly a notable actor. He can "officially" request that his article be removed? I never heard of anything even close to this concept, in my 15+ years at Wikipedia. Any insight is appreciated. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: I don't have access either, but I know OTRS/VRT is a place where tickets are sent to. There, only trusted volunteers can view it.

And also, I don't think a person can request deletion of an article about them, unless they were the only contributor of substantial content, where CSD G7 would apply.

If you think the person is notable, my suggestion is: go ahead and create the article. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 21:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is the relevant policy. Essentially in marginal cases, if the subject requests, we tend to delete the article, rather than keep, out of respect for the living person. I think I would make sure there are new sources to show more notability than before, before creating an article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Joseph A. Spadaro: I wouldn't suggest that you go ahead a create the article without first at least consulting the administrator who deleted the article per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE since it was deleted via AFD. If you think the close was made in error, then you can also request a WP:DELETIONREVIEW. In some cases, the subject of a Wikipedia article may request that it be deleted per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and in those cases simply trying to recreate the article without discussion is unwise. Wikimedia OTRS is now known as WP:VRT and you can perhaps ask about the ticket at WP:VRTN; however, VRT volunteers aren't allowed to discuss the specifics of the emails they receive on public pages or with anyone other than the sender which means you might only get a very general answer. FWIW, the AFD was from seven years ago; so, it's quite possible the situation has changed; you should, however, discuss that with closing administrator and explain why the article should be re-created. A new article might not be needed if the old deleted one can simply be restored. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. I guess I am asking about the situation in general, and not about this actor in particular. I will read all the relevant links posted above. But, does this situation occur only in "marginal cases", where the subject makes an official request? Or this can happen in any notable case? (I imagine not, for the latter. I can't imagine that Donald Trump or Cher -- clearly notable -- can request deletion of their entry in an encyclopedia.) Does the requesting party need to satisfy any particular criteria? Just curious. This guy is clearly notable as an actor ... see here: [1]. But -- again -- I am asking about the situation in general, and not about this actor in particular. This seems so odd, and I never ran across this before. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How the word "marginal" is defined when it comes to WP:N may depend upon who you ask, but I think BLPREQUESTDELETEs aren't the norm and usually there are some extenuating circumstances involved. I don't think articles end up deleted simply because the subject doesn't like what's written, but only when there some expression that it's seriously causing the subject some harm and those concerns are deemed to be valid. Obviously, there's some discussion involved at some level of Wikipedia and someone who clearly is WP:PUBLICFIGURE receiving lots of coverage in reliable sources is going to have a hard time convincing others to delete an article about them because it's not to their liking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm ... this has got me thinking. And -- once again -- I am asking about the situation in general, and not about this actor in particular. However, I will (vaguely) use that actor as an example. Anything that is found in his Wikipedia article will, necessarily, have been published in RS's first. No? So, I can't wrap my mind around this. What -- for example -- might be a valid reason or concern? We are merely taking info that's "already out there" -- published in RS's ... and merely "repeating it" / publishing it here. No? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My previous post was about the situation in general and not about this actor in particular. Not everything you find in a Wikipedia BLP article is supported by a reliable source per WP:BLPSOURCES and not everything found in a reliable source should be added to a Wikipedia article per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Since I'm not a VRT member, I can't see what was in the email referred to that particular AFD; so, I can't say what the subject's concerns might've been. Trying guess what they were or how they may apply to some other person in some hypothetical example isn't going to get anyone anywhere. If you feel the deletion of this particular article was incorrect or otherwise an overstep you should follow the advice given (as previously stated above) in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and seek clarification from the closing admin, and then possibly a deletion review per WP:DRV. If there were BLP issues involved and they were so serious that BLPREQUESTDELETE was seen by some as the only viable option, then it's unlikely that someone is going to post what they were here at the Help Desk or on any other Wikipedia page. So, other than directly asking the article's subject himself, I don't know you or anyone else who's not a VRT volunteer is going to find out why the subject wanted the article deleted. It also makes little sense to speculate as to why someone else might make a BLPREQUESTDELETION request since basically it's just going to be a endless discussion involving hypotheticals. If all someone who is unhappy about what's written about them on Wikipedia needed to do to get the offending content removed or the offending article deleted was to email VRT, then there would probably be a lot of BLPs deleted that way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro, I disagree that he is clearly notable just because he has an IMDb entry. Per WP:IMDB, consensus of editors is that The content on IMDb is user-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors. As for the general principle, WP:BLP, one of our most important policies, says articles about relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion may be deleted, and that was the consensus of the AfD. As an administrator, I can see the edit history and there were a string of seven edits that had to be suppressed, which is indicative of serious BLP concerns. Lowry played a character Jake Martin (All My Children) for four years, but there were five different actors that played that character over 32 years during the long history of the show. Wikipedia: Notability (people) says People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. You will need to find much better sources than IMDb. Cullen328 (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not state that he is notable "just because" he has an IMDb entry. I just provided that as an illustration of his body of work. He's been acting for decades. Lots of "big" roles. Lots of soap opera work. Major sit-coms. Etc. Etc. Etc. I can't imagine that he would be considered "not notable" with an acting resume as he has. Or, even, "marginal", to be honest. The IMDb link was merely to show his body of work / career in one comprehensive list. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, I cannot see the hidden/suppressed content. But, isn't that what we have "blocking / editing protections" for? I am not seeing how it's an "insurmountable issue" for which the only solution is to delete info. And -- once again -- I am asking about the situation in general, and not about this actor in particular. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if he’s been on TV, movies, soaps, magazines, etc., etc., etc., -- as an actor, no less -- (i.e., the "public face" in front of the camera –- in the Hollywood entertainment industry) ... how is he an "unknown, non-public figure"? He’s the very definition of precisely the opposite. His acting goes back some 30+ years ... and he is still acting as of today (2021, at least). The "better majority" of that work occurring after 2015 ... the date of that 7-year-old AfD. How is that an "unknown, non-public figure"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also ... just two or three days ago ... nominated for the 2022 Emmy Awards for acting. 49th Daytime Emmy Awards. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid "acting for decades. Lots of "big" roles. Lots of soap opera work. Major sit-coms. Etc. Etc. Etc." count for nothing here. What counts is coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that with the sort of acting career described, this actor probably is (now, 7 years after that AfD) Notable, but of course an article would have to demonstrate this by citing those appropriate sources. The onus to find them is on the person who creates the article (preferably as a Draft); (re)creating it on the basis that they surely must exist and expecting someone else to find them is a non-starter. Whether or not the subject's apparently not (then) wanting an article cuts any ice would be down to the creator's conscience, I guess. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.88.97 (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]