Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 July 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 18 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 20 >
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.


July 19

[edit]

How long it typically takes for a draft to be reviewed

[edit]

I submitted a draft Draft:Chu Wanghua and it hasn't been reviewed in two weeks despite I added three reliable English sources, is it ok for me to ask at the help desk of AFC? Also, how long it takes for a draft to be reviewed. QiuLiming1 (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply

@QiuLiming1: Please see the first line of the review notice at the draft; it can currently take up to four months. Drafts are not reviewed in any particular order. Eagleash (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Then can someone give me some suggestion to increase the chance of this draft being accepted? QiuLiming1 (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
The problem is a reviewer at AFC told me this requires someone who is able to read Chinese, but the Wiki project China is not seem to very active. QiuLiming1 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I will look at it right now and give you my opinions. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
First, I am not a regular reviewer of new articles, simply somebody who has had a lot of experience in creating them. I looked at your draft: (1) It is not long enough; you have much more information available to you than you have used. You could certainly use almost all the article by Pu Jiaru titled "Chu Wanghua's Piano Music Creation and Value Research." Therein you'll find a good story of Chu's life, which you should use and carefully cite to your source. (2) That other source, "1977 Letter to Deng Xiaoping," seems to be just propaganda: Don't use it. (3) You could use https://www.australianmusiccentre.com.au/artist/chu-wang-hua, but since the biography was provided by Mr. Chu you would have to say so in your article. (4) This looks like a good reliable source: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/19442. It has a little bit about his life but more about his music. (5) In summation, if I were you I would take the article back and add more about his life based on good, reliable sources. (6) For help, go to any other composer on Wikipedia and see how the article is written. (7) Right now your article is not ready to be used. Best wishes in writing for Wikipedia! Good luck! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@BeenAroundAWhile Thank you so much for your comment, but in Chinese wikipedia there is a thing called stub, which is kind of the length of this draft, does it apply for enwiki too? QiuLiming1 (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I want to translate this from zhwiki, but the article at there have almost no source. QiuLiming1 (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
WP:Stub Yes, of course, but stubs also need good sources, and you have to show any editor that your man is really NOTABLE and that RELIABLE SOURCES have said so. Whoever approves your work to go into main space (it won't be me) will expect them. Why not use the Chinese article and look for sources yourself? In short, I think you need to do more RESEARCH on your proposed article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I see it has been moved to User:QiuLiming1/Chu_Wanghua. Is that any better than being in draftspace? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Judging from the edit summary here sounds like the author feels they need more time to work on it. Likely just a misunderstanding, since it actually makes no difference whether the draft lives in userspace or draftspace as long as it isn't neglected for more than 6 months. -- 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Actually, it shouldn't be subject to G13 if there is content in userspace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)reply

Where is the list of all the "Series" grouping of articles?

[edit]

On some articles on there is a side box saying that "this article is a part of a 'Series' on _______, such as 'Sociology' or something. I really like this feature of some articles and I was hoping someone could point me to a list of all the 'Series' that have been curated as a way to more systematically navigate through Wikipedia's articles. Elias Stassinopoulos (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply

Read this: Wikipedia:Article series. Good luck! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@Elias Stassinopoulos: In case you don't notice it among the "See also" links there, a "list of all the 'Series' that have been curated" with those side boxes is available at Wikipedia:List of article series. Deor (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply

2 minor questions on William Greene (economist)

[edit]

After my edit, two questions remained open:

  1. A Comma question, see in-line-commentary in wikisource. (I am only en-2, de-N, not sure about en grammar.)
  2. In the disambiguation page William Greene, he is categorized "Business figures". In fact he is a scientist.

--Himbeerbläuling (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply

Himbeerbläuling, I have added a comma as you suggested. It is arguable that an economist is a business figure, otherwise you could move him to the "Other" section. TSventon (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Thank You. I think it is  Resolved. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply

 Done

Requests not yet completed

[edit]

Time ago, I have added this and this requests, but not yet completed. There are some other requests added after mine and completed. I have added the requests in the wrong page? 2001:B07:6442:8903:B444:DAA4:6DB6:16 (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply

Hi IP 2001:B07:6442:8903:B444:DAA4:6DB6:16. The users who help out at WP:GL are no different from any other Wikipedia user in that they are all WP:VOLUNTEERs, and tend to work on things that interest them. Try asking at c:COM:GL. Maybe you'll have better luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
2001:B07:6442:8903:B444:DAA4:6DB6:16, the meaning of your request, "Is there someone that can kindly capitalize Wikipedija word and make text to path?" may not be clear to the graphics lab volunteers, as it's not entirely clear in English, which is a second language for many of those volunteers. Firstly, "WikipedijA" is already capitalized; you want it to appear in all-caps. Second, the expression "make text to path" is either a technical term that I've never encountered, or it may be an un-idiomatic English translation of an idiom from your first language. This might explain the delay in responding to your request.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)reply

Add Magazine to Wikipedia

[edit]

How can we add of Soigne' + Swank Magazine to the Wikipedia Platform ? 2601:58C:4305:A8B0:AC13:997:3D6B:3BA8 (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply

There is already an article here, namely Swank (magazine) but that is about a pornographic magazine, so I assume you mean a new article describing soigneswankmagazine.com. To warrant an article here, the magazine would need to meet our general notability guidelines for periodicals. Please read that guidance before thinking about drafting anything or you may be wasting your time. A brief Google search didn't look promising in terms of WP:INDEPENDENT sources but I'm no expert in the topic. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Also notice that if you are in any way connected with Soigne' + Swank, then you have at least a conflict of interest, and you may be a paid editor. Please read those links carefully, and make whatever declarations are appropriate. ColinFine (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply

Wikipedia Library access problem

[edit]

I posted this query on the Wikipedia library talk page here, but have got no response, so I'm trying here as well. Some time ago, I applied for access to the Rock's Back Pages collection, which was granted. According to my library homepage, I still have access to the collection. But when I actually go into the Rock's Back Pages website, I cannot view any articles - they all require additional sign-in. Any help greatly appreciated. --Viennese Waltz 11:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply

Apologies if I'm repeating things you have already tried, Viennese Waltz but are you sure that you can see Rock's as one of the collections that are your personal set when logged in here on the library? This will be the "My Collections" tab, not the "Available Collections" tab. Then you must use the "Access Collection" button on that page: it won't work if you merely open Rock via another browser session. If all this fails, your best set will be to ping one of the WMF's editors to the library talk page so they can help you there. There is also a "Contact us" link at the very bottom right of the Library page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks Mike. Yes, it's in My Collections, and I have a button that says "access collection". When I click that, a new tab opens with the URL www-rocksbackpages-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org. This brings me to the collection, but clicking on individual articles requires additional sign-in. I'll contact them as you suggest. It's a pity they don't seem to watch the library talk page without being pinged. --Viennese Waltz 12:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@Viennese Waltz:, Your post inspired me to comment on the larger question of how we may improve the situation of getting users timely responses to their questions about Wikipedia Library, in a way which might help not only them, but other TWL users as well. Please see this discussion at meta. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)reply

Help for article review

[edit]

I had created a draft named Draft:Government Boys Primary School, Mothparja and submitted it to review through AFC process. But I don't know why it haven't been reviewed. So someone please check it. Thanks.FAAHS (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply

@FAAHS: Hi there! At the top of your draft, there is a big yellow box that states "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,623 pending submissions waiting for review." You may continue working on your draft while you are waiting. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@GoingBatty Thank you.FAAHS (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply

1. How to add more evidence to archived sockpuppet investigations 2. How much behavioural evidence is enough?

[edit]

I started this sockpuppet investigation months ago. I put a plenty of effort of showing the user behind the account is indeed one who has been indefinitely banned. The use of "Check user" tool was denied, I never understood why, but thought the behavioural evidence should have been enough. I have shown the users share a strong interest in the same nische topics, share the same self-declared political view, share the same self-declared, and rather unusual ancestry, use of similar wording and use of edit summaries to taunt people and know the same languages . My lastest additional evidence was denied . So my question is how can I continue with this case, and what kind behavioral evidence should be enough to proof the sockpuppetry case? Sietecolores (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply

Scanned the long report, and it was investigated and closed as "a many-year pattern of reports that don't pan out". I'd advise you to trust the process and the people administering it. If it didn't work out the way you wanted, either let it go, or come up with some incontrovertible evidence that is really new and persuasive, but absent that I'd move on. Mathglot (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Mathglot, what you say sounds like an argument by authority. I want to know how much more, despite what I already consider overwhelming, evidence is actually needed to establish user x as a sockpuppet. Alternatively, not what amount but what kind of behavioural evidence would be needed. I have wasted valuable time compilating information and it is disappointing to see it dismissed as "a many-year pattern of reports that don't pan out". The banned user is well known for his persistent behaviour and knowing how to game the system. Sietecolores (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry my response wasn't helpful. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and editors there seemed to be in general agreement about the outcome. I don't know how to help you further; perhaps someone else will respond more to your satisfaction. Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Mathglot, your ansswer is not particularly useful, because it does answer the specific questions that were asked. Sietecolores (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@Sietecolores "because it does answer". Did you mean "does not"? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the correction, 71.228.112.175 Sietecolores (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)reply

Creating a biography on Wikipedia

[edit]

I would like to write a biography on Wikipedia for someone in the creative arts. How do I go about doing so please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J86G (talk • contribs) 17:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply

Hello, J86G, and welcome to Wikipedia. My advice to new editors who are asking about creating a new article is always to spend a few months making improvements to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before even trying it.
Then the absolute first step is to find the reliable independent sources that are a non-negotiable requirement in order to establish that the subject is notable, because if you can't find them, there is no point in spending any more time on this.
I suggest also asking yourself why you want to create an article on this person. If even part of your mind is saying "to tell the world about this person", then you have a conflict of interest (this is usually interpreted as "if you are connected with the subject", but I think it applies more widely). If your purpose is to improve Wikipedia, that's great; but creating an article is not the only way of doing that, and for an inexperienced user, it is a difficult and often frustrating way to try and do so.
If you decided that there are enough sources, please read your first article. Then you can use the articles for creation process to create a draft. ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@J86G First you make sure you have the WP:RS demanded at