Help desk
< September 7	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 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.

September 8

Flagging article for deletion/merging?

I've stumbled upon a page that, at its very best, should be merged into another page. More realistically, this page is full of biased viewpoints; single-sided references that ignore a large amount of peer-reviewed literature in an area of scientific research that is currently being hotly debated online, at conferences, and in published research papers; and subtle jabs at anyone who holds different viewpoints. Further, almost the entirety of this article has been written and edited by a single Wikipedia user. I'm not super experienced with all the rules here, but everything about this article seems... antagonistic to the spirit of Wikipedia.

How do I go about bringing this article to the attention of someone more experienced with matters such as this? FoldedGenes (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could start by posting a WP:BLUELINK here, so we would know which article you're referring to and could review for ourselves. :) DonIago (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seed_oil_misinformation URL replaced by wikilink by ColinFine (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC) FoldedGenes (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FoldedGenes, I am endlessly bemused by editors who come to the Help Desk to complain about some article without mentioning which article. There are 6,880,084 articles at this moment, and Help Desk volunteers are not mind readers. Cullen328 (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, to be fair to FoldedGenes, it seems reasonable to me to want to avoid confusing (A) general problems as these arise (in FoldedGenes' judgment) in Seed oil misinformation with (B) matters that are specific to Seed oil misinformation and (again in FoldedGenes' judgment) irrelevant to the problems. But to look at the complaint/question: It's normal for "almost the entirety of [an] article has been written and edited by a single Wikipedia user". There's nothing wrong with that. Is this single user proprietorial about the article they've created? If so, then there is (or at least seems to be) a problem. I note that there's currently no discussion at Talk:Seed oil misinformation, which is probably where to start. If you believe you're likely to have a policy-based reason for merging the valuable part of the article into some other article, then take a deep breath, read and digest Wikipedia:Merging, and proceed according to its requirements & recommendations. -- Hoary (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A serious article on seed oil and health should mention that while consumption of unprocessed seed oil may be harmless, partially hydrogenated seed oils are mildly carcinogenic. The partial hydrogenation results in trans-linked double bonds in the product. Maproom (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Plumer, 1st Viscount Plumer

Please check ref. 32 - it is in red, thanks 2001:4479:6502:2F00:ADA8:1E6C:FB01:A10B (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done please note that the title= field typically refers to the title of the specfific article you're citing and work= / jounrnal= / newspaper= refer to title of the whole thing. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Cavendish, 9th Duke of Devonshire

Please check ref number 22. - I got it wrong and I'm confused. These are the pages: 390-391. Sorry 2001:4479:6502:2F00:ADA8:1E6C:FB01:A10B (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done see above. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating categories

Hello. I've noticed that there's a category requiring disambiguation, but I can't find any policy guidelines on the right way to do it.

Category:People from Midlothian is for people from the county in Scotland, and it's a subcategory of Category:Midlothian -> Category:People associated with Midlothian. There's also Category:People from Midlothian, Illinois, and Category:People from Midlothian, Virginia, which are for places in the US named after the place in Scotland. I haven't searched yet, but I'm betting that bios for people from one of the five Midlothians in the US are getting added to Category:People from Midlothian by mistake.

I could hatnote Category:People from Midlothian, since it seems to be the category equivalent of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, or I could start a CFD discussion to move Category:People from Midlothian, Scotland with the redirect then containing Template:Category disambiguation, which would probably bring the Wrath Of Scotland down upon my head. :-) But it seems likely that I just haven't found the policy guideline on this yet. Thanks for any advice. Wikishovel (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikishovel You could ask about the policy at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. In practice categories can be disambiguated when the article isn't, e.g. Birmingham and Category:People from Birmingham, West Midlands. Category:People from Midlothian already has a note "This category lists people from Midlothian, Scotland". I have previewed the members of the category and almost all of them are Scottish or British and the remainder were born or brought up in Midlothian, Scotland. TSventon (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking that category, and also for the idea of asking at CFD talk - I'll try that. Wikishovel (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media person Billy Carson AKA William Tyrone Karlson

Hey!

Hard to find where to post about this. I am new here and was wondering if some one could save some fools from falling in to this scam and make an actual wikipedia page about this person. To my knowledge he and his guru business have been getting a lot of publicity during past years and his team is attacking critical publications by doing search stuffing and copyright reporting. For example they have done a fake Wikipedia page about him at Wikitia.

Here is a video about the mediaperson and self claimed guru in question: https://youtu.be/eKRybDUCKU8?si=EFdmL6l16kvQGvXC Jr.dumbo (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Jr.dumbo. Inclusion of living people on Wikipeida usually must meet the basic notability guideline and according to a quick Google search, both of these names don't seem to meet it. You must also remember that Wikipedia is not for advocacy. So while I understand why you would like an article on Wikipedia about him, I don't believe he should get an article. Also for clarification, Wikitia and Wikipedia aren't in any way associated, they just both use the MediaWiki software. Wikitia is a "paid" wiki. Regards, win8x (talking | spying) 17:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He has appeared on shows like Joe Rogan show and has apparently published multiple books. Jr.dumbo (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can publish books these days; that is not relevant. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Anyone with a bit of money has been able to publish books for over 100 years, and e-books for over 25 years. I stated it because it was just one mentioned criteria somewhere in the guideline jungle. This person has tens of millions of views on his appearances in different entertainment / alternative education formats like JRE and he is portrayed as some sort of academic expert (which he is absoliutely not).

From what I have done little research on this person he is a very notable public figure in the field of alternative truth; about pretty much everything from physics to medical science and history. Thus I do firmly believe you guys would make a favour to many uneducated people, who look up to wikipedia as a source of validation and autherity, by hosting a fact based site about this public figure. Jr.dumbo (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

, "the field of alternative truth" is generally termed "fringe [whatever]" here; e.g. "fringe physics". (There are other terms; e.g. for history there's "historical negationist".) Recommended reading: Wikipedia:Fringe theories. -- Hoary (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection for certain pages: touchy religious topics

I was a major contributor to Asherah and Kuntillet Ajrud Inscriptions, they've been rather chipped away at by the sensitive pious since I stopped paying attention to them. Could an admin protect them, and El Shaddai? Temerarius (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP is the right venue for this. win8x (talking | spying) 17:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've submitted requests there.

Temerarius (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct approach to list style - Lists of works

Hi all -- I've helped put together a few articles that are lists of works by specific artists - List of works by Sam Gilliam, List of works by Félix González-Torres, List of works by Faith Ringgold, etc. - and I'm currently working to clean up and expand List of works by Dan Flavin. I was wondering if there are any clear guidelines about list styles - in this case, I'm wondering if a series of basic plain lists or a series of tables would be more appropriate. I recall reading somewhere that tables are less accessible for screenreaders and thus generally less desirable, but I also remember reading something about tables being cleaner in terms of data separation. Is there any guidance on which option would be more appropriate? Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO only use a table if NOT using one will be quite confusing. If you can get away without a table, do so. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the detail, but the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Lists for lists and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial for tables. TSventon (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 19h00s (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best auto-archiving bot?

Is there a consensus about which bot is the best for automatic archiving of talk pages. I'm thinking of adding one to Talk:Electoral fraud in the United States. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Archiving a talk page. There are two bots you may use, User:lowercase sigmabot III and User:ClueBot III. Both do the job well, but I believe sigmabot is more common. win8x (talking | spying) 21:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting revdel via oversight

(Just asking) If a page justifies at least revdel, then is it alright to contact WP:OVERSIGHT since there isn't a place to do that for some reason? JuniperChill (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I did before I had my mop if it was bad enough to not discuss on an admin talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pkilla Musik

I want to publish this on Wikipedia's main page I really want a rapper Wikipedia page for Pkilla Musik? Pauldowe3 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pauldowe3

When a new editor tries to create an article, they usually have a frustrating and miserable time, because they have not yet learnt much about what a Wikipedia article requires.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

Your draft is nothing like a Wikipedia article. 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. ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goddess on the Throne

Courtesy link: Goddess on the Throne

Do you think that this is sound reasoning and use of tools (resored revision)? It makes little sense in my book and I wanted to seek another opinion. [1] — Sadko (words are wind) 23:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of asking leading questions, please just state the problem. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better still, OP, please follow the process at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]