Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

December 20

drafts of Pakistani dramas

should add second drafts from redirect for Pakistani dramas because i learn about putting reliable soruces by Sunuraju (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, @Sunuraju, I don't understand what you are asking. ColinFine (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

because i learns how to put citation sources today and i need add drafts for paksitani dramas for citation sources Sunuraju (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

because of sockpupprt accounts without add ciation sources which dramas wiki pages like Hook are redirected to Ary Digtal Sunuraju (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The target of the redirect can only be changed when the drafts get accepted and published into the mainspace, if that answers your question. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

See User_talk:Sunuraju. There are several draft articles that were turned down because they were improperly sourced or written like an advertisement. Wikipedia is not IMDb or a similar resource, so all articles about actors, films etc need to meet the general notability guideline.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, how long I'm waiting for an article review?!!

Help! I'm NOT patient with my article review and I'm tired of waiting for weeks and weeks. What can I do? Gnu779 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Gnu779, I find it rude to be impatient with volunteer reviewers who review drafts in their own time. We receive hundreds of new drafts a day for review with a very limited amount of volunteer reviewers. The current wait time is 8 weeks or longer. You can continue to be patient. qcne (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Having had a look at Draft:Hong Jen Yee, it has zero chance of reaching article mainspace at the moment. I could review it and turn it down today, but this wouldn't help much. It is way too short and lacks sourcing, see WP:NPERSON.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Might also be Draft: Pelles C? qcne (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Basically there are almost 2,000 articles waiting for review right now, and there aren't many people who look through them. So it's hard to say when drafts get reviewed. It could be a couple minutes or a couple months. Your best bet is just to find another thing to work on for a little while. There are countless tasks that help out Wikipedia if you're looking for more ways to participate. Also make sure that the article you submitted meets the standards generally expected. Each article should have a few good sources about the subject (like newspaper pieces about them or something like that). Thanks for your help in expanding Wikipedia! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm bad at writing articles. Sorry for that but I have big problems with that. Gnu779 (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

An average wait of weeks is actually pretty good, I've seen it as high as 6 months or more. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, dude. It took me over maybe 2 months or something. Gnu779 (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Editing a repeatedly-declined AfC draft from scratch?

Hello! I am not actually sure what the correct process is for this. I am a librarian who is killing time at the reference desk reading old Help Desk archives (because I have learned a ton about Wikipedia and its policies by doing so), and I encountered a discussion of Draft:Uman (artist) being repeatedly declined through the AfC process in January of last year. In viewing the draft, I see that it was further declined for the subject's purported lack of notability in July 2024. However, I think this person easily meets general notability guidelines if not WP:ARTIST, having received significant independent coverage (ranging from lengthier profiles to briefer exhibition reviews) from credible publications like CNN (see here), Artnet News (see here), ARTNews (see here), the New York Times Magazine (see here), Artforum (see here), and The New Yorker (see here). The artist also has a major solo show upcoming at a notable art institution, the The Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum, that has also received support from the notable Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts.

With all due respect to the folks who reviewed this page through AfC, I acknowledge that the current draft is written to be too complimentary to the subject, but I think that is a separate issue from notability, and if this were not already part of the AfC process, I do not think that I, as an extended confirmed user, would have had any issue creating a NPOV draft and passing NPP based on the subject's notability as documented through the above links. Creating an article for this artist falls directly in my expertise wheelhouse, and I think it is important and helpful to continue to contribute articles about BIPOC and female contemporary artists to the encyclopedia due to their relative lack of coverage.

My question is, because a draft was begun through AfC, do I need to edit the problematic draft that has repeatedly been declined--or can I erase it and start anew? Further, do I need to submit it again through AfC if I can completely redraft it, or can I move it to the mainspace myself--as I have no COI here and do not need help drafting an article, and the WP:AFC page says that "Established users are encouraged to create articles on their own if they do not need support from reviewers."

If this is not the best place to ask, is there a more specific forum for AfC-related issues in which to ask this question? Thank you for your time. Peachseltzer (hello!) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Peachseltzer, the AfC process is entirely optional for competent autoconfirmed editors, and you are significantly more experienced. The draft in question has not had any substantive content edits for nine months, and the editor who created the draft has been inactive since then. I think it would be perfectly acceptable for you to write a policy compliant article from scratch, and just allow the draft to be deleted in due course. Cullen328 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind and speedy reply @Cullen328! My desk shift is wrapping up now, so I will do just that on Monday. Peachseltzer (hello!) 18:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Peachseltzer: you could start a new article from scratch in you sandbox, or a subpage of your user space. If you are satisfied that notability is met via verification by reliable sources, you can move it to mainspace yourself. Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

How to properly add annotations to entries in a bibliography?

Many Wikipedia pages have a "Further reading" or "Bibliography" section. They list useful important books that the reader of the article may use to learn more about the topic of the main article. Are there any tools (templates) or best practices for adding annotations, that is, additional information for each entry that would explain what the referenced work is (e.g. a seminal work, a monography or a review), so the reader will have an easier time deciding which book to read?

Many high quality articles on Wikipedia have a dedicated "Bibliography" section. It has various names, such as "Bibliography", "Further reading", "References", "Sources". They can be found on these articles, for example:

• Philosophy
• Existence
• Cynicism (philosophy)
• Humanism
• Eliminative materialism
• DNA
• Metabolism
• Wolf
• Charles Darwin
• Binary search
• Apollo 11
• Archaea
• Ancient Egyptian literature
• Confirmation bias
• Metaphysics

Thanks for any pointers. Regards, Fantastiera (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

"Bibliography" and "Further reading" are not the same thing. Take Philosophy as an example, the "citations" section points out the specific pages of the cited sources, whereas "bibliography" section list out all the books that the entries in "citations" came from. If you click/tap on the link of an entry in "citations", it will bring you to the corresponding book in "bibliography". In that sense, bibliography is a part of the reference, while further reading is not.

To add citations like those, you'll need to list the sources in a "bibliography" section, then cite specific pages by adding "<ref>(Book title), p.(page number)</ref>" to the part of article where you want to add citations to. See WP:SFN. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, this is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for the proper way to add annotation for entries in a "Further reading" section for the purpose explained above. This is not to link the references. Fantastiera (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You might find Wikipedia:Further reading helpful. Schazjmd (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a standard format. You can follow the instructions at MOS:FURTHER. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. This looks very useful. Fantastiera (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirects

How do you make a redirect? Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

See Help:Redirect. Schazjmd (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

December 21

Marshall Brooks

This page is great but I placed the name by which he was known on top of the info box - should it be inside it ? (please see my citation which has his full title: The Hon. Marshall Jones Brooks)

Thank you Srbernadette (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Full name and title can be placed in either the lede sentence or the infobox. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I cannot work out how to place the name and title IN the actual info box. Please assist. Thank you Srbernadette (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Srbernadette I think that the infobox "rugby biography" is designed so the name doesn't go into the box. See this example in the template documentation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I wished Wikipedia supported wallpapers in pages...

It would be even more awesome if we could change the wallpaper of pages in Wikipedia. But the fonts' colors could change to adapt to the wallpaper. The button for that might look like this: Change wallpaper Gnu779 (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Gnu779. The place to suggest features is WP:VPR ColinFine (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! You replied quickly! Gnu779 (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I will add that personally, I do not want the WP developers to spend time adding features that in my view do not contribute to the sole task we are here for: building an encyclopaedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gnu779 Did you know you have a choice of five skins? See Wikipedia:Skin. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shantavira I know them. But how about wallpapers?

Thanks, Gnu779 (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

List of pages using a shortcut

Before deciding to retarget a redirect of a shortcut, it would be helpful to know the pages that are using the shortcut, so that any disruption by the retargeting can be considered in the decision to retarget. Is there some way to find that out?
(I'm asking this question because of the discussion Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16#Wikipedia:PCR, which resulted in a retargeting of a redirect that disrupted a section, Provide context for the reader, of a page that I was reading.)
Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless I've misunderstood you, you can navigate to the redirect page (for example, go to WP:PCR, and then pick "Redirected from PCR" at the top) and then pick "What links here" ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

That was what I was looking for. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

can i speak to a global renamer or steward

please FeistyRooster (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This is an en Wikipedia Helpdesk, there is information and contact info at meta:Global renamers and meta:Stewards. TSventon (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Where does the question belong? —Tamfang (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Tamfang I meant that I wouldn't expect global renamers or stewards to frequent this help desk, which I could be wrong about, rather than that this is the wrong venue. There is a helpdesk at meta:Help Forum, I don't know much about it. TSventon (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

December 22

Query re: Search Engine Optimization

There was recently a very long thread at ANI about a user who was eventually site blocked. I won’t link to the thread because, frankly, life is too precious.

The user was a promo-only account who initially attracted attention to themselves by opening multiple threads to try to rush 3 film articles through AfC. The stated aim of the user was to get the articles to appear on Google searches to coincide with the US release of one of the films – i.e. apparent search engine optimization (SEO), as can be seen here [1].

The user also went to great lengths (again across multiple threads) trying unsuccessfully to remove PAID and/or COI tags from the articles.

The intersection between these two aims is clarified by the user’s suggestion that These tags negatively impact the articles' indexing and discoverability [in Google searches], reducing accessibility for readers. This is not about SEO but ensuring that notable topics are properly represented and accessible.

I’d be interested to hear from other users on the issue of whether or not the presence of such tags would represent a serious impediment to the aims of someone involved in SEO. The film mainly in question here (It's Coming (film)) currently has 2 tags and appears 5th on a Google search for “It’s Coming film” and not on the first few pages of results if searching for “It’s Coming” (which is evidently far too generic a search term).

Any input here would be much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

My own understanding is that Wikipedia has its own objectives, rules, and policies, and ignores the objectives of SEO agents. If an editor admits that his objective is SEO, I personally would be disinclined to cooperate with him. If I read the suggestion you quote in teal above, I'd respond "That's great – I hope you'll work on improving the article until an impartial editor removes those tags." Maproom (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

See this ANI thread for further views. The now-banned Stan1900 has been remarkably effective at making enemies. Maproom (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, quite so (in response to both of your posts above). The user almost went out of their way to advertise their promotional and SEO objectives and then behaved at ANI in such as way that their conduct there alone was enough to get them blocked.

However, my question is whether the existence of the tags interferes with attempts at search engine optimisation. And also, how does it interfere?

To some extent I'm inclined to briefly remove the tags and see if the article moves from #5 to #1 on the Google search, but I'm reluctant to make an edit for such a contrived and non wiki-related reason. If I put the names of some (relatively obscure) untagged films into Google they do tend to occupy the #1 spot in a search - so there would seem to be some evidence that the blocked user was rather knowledgeable on how tags influence SEO (possibly implying a promotional background?).

If COI/PAID tags do interfere with attempts at SEO then that can only be a good thing, of course. Axad12 (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The movie in question is It's Coming (film). A Gooogle search for two common words like "it's coming" is going to produce countless false search results. But search terms "it's coming movie" and "it's coming film" have the Wikipedia article ranked about #5 on Google, which is pretty darned good. The film's own website and trailer and Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb rank higher. The specifics of Google's ever changing search algorithms are opaque, providing employment to countless SEO specialists. Of course, the prominent banners at the top of the article may deter prospective streaming viewers, but that is the result of the primary author behaving like a total ass in so many ways. The one constant that I have noticed over the years is that more comprehensive Wikipedia articles tend to rank higher than briefer articles, which is no surprise. Cullen328 (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

And hence perhaps another reason for the user having wanted to pad out the article with a great number of positive quotes from reviews. Although, in fairness, there were other (entirely neutral) ways in which the article might have been lengthened if that had been the intention.

However, that still leaves the question of why the user was so sure that These tags negatively impact the articles' indexing and discoverability [in Google searches].

Obviously it's staggering that the user felt that non-conflicted users would find an SEO-based reasoning a compelling argument to remove the COI/PAID tags - but it seems reasonable to assume that he believed what he was saying. Axad12 (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Google, and other search engine operators, do not reveal their criteria for evaluating pages, as that would make it too easy for people to game their evaluations. There are techniques that SEO people discuss and use; if you're interested, you'll be able to find such discussions. It seems to me likely that a long Wikipedia article will score higher than a short one, and that one with tags at the top will score lower. An SEO expert will know far more about these things than I do. Maproom (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Witness statements as sources

Should witness statements for court cases or public enquiries be used as sources for biographies of living people? I avoid it, even if they are available online (public enqiry!), as they may contain information of a very personal nature about family, health, etc. or can end up making the article look like a CV. I might give a brief quote: "she said in her witness statement to the public enquiry..." if there is anything very important, although if it is important it is likely to be reported in the media, but not use the statement for details of someone's childhood, etc. I ask because another editor Strugglehouse is adding content from witness statements from the Horizon Inquiry to articles of living people, for example, to Paula Vennells and, potentially, Jo Hamilton and I haven't been able to find anything in reliable sources guidance about it, although I am sure I have seen something in the past. Southdevonian (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for bringing this up. I used these sources as, as you mentioned, these are public.

While I do think some public documents shouldn't be used, I believe these are probably okay. Most very personal information within the couple of documents that I have used is redacted. Therefore, I think it's okay to use for some claims.

I do agree, however, that if claims can be proven by other sources, such a the book source used in the Jo Hamilton article, this is probably better. Strugglehouse (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this might fall under WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. Schazjmd (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's borderline. I agree that most of the time these kind of documents probably shouldn't be used. However, as I said, all actual personal details, such as dates of births, are redacted in the documents I used. Strugglehouse (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The use of the absolute term “do not” especially in a section talking more broadly about other things to avoid is very clear. Furthermore, even when covered by secondary sources, which might be permissible, when it comes to testimony, WP:UNDue must be considered as well. TiggerJay (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism help request from Bondwagon

I have noticed some persistent vandalism at Ijaw People. Namely, persistent change of the population figures to an outdated number, not reflecting updated figures and sources. Removal of multiple reliable sources confirming new figures and replacing with one outdated source still on old figure . Persistent valdalism carried out by da5ft9. A tribes population calling remain constant for over a decade, hence the single oudated population figure is null and the multiple recent population figure is correct. Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, Bondwagon (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Did you talked with the person you accuse to do this on his/her talk page ?

Each user have a "Talk page". Anatole-berthe (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I did not speak with the person Bondwagon (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bondwagon, please do not ask the same question four times. I've collapsed the duplicates below. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks you @CanonNi for your contribution. Anatole-berthe (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

thank you Bondwagon (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bondwagon I would advise you to either open a discussion at the editor's talk page or the article's talk page to settle the matter. It seems that Da5ft9 has reverted you earlier because the sources added were irrelevant and unreliable (regarding this, I don't think the 101lasttribes source is reliable since Wikipedia is one of the places they took their information from). Jolly1253 (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

101 last tribes excluded, there are other sources that should be considered and that are relaible too. If you take a loot at the sources, you will agree that not all should be discarded. Like I said earlier, it is highly unlikely that a tribes population will remain constant over multiple years.

That being said, I will take your advise on the matter. Bondwagon (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate of above

Vandalism help request from Bondwagon I have noticed some vandalism at ijawpeople. Namely, It has come to attention that there is ongoing vandalism of population figures, particularly the consistent removal of updated estimates supported by multiple reliable sources, such as the University of Birmingham, and their replacement with outdated figures from a single source, the CIA Factbook. This vandalism appears to be persistently carried out by user:da5ft9. It is important to note that a tribe's population is unlikely to remain stagnant over nearly a decade. For example, the CIA Factbook estimated the Ijaw population at 4 million in 2010, and this figure was recently relabeled as a 2018 estimate without any substantive update. This contradicts more recent and credible estimates provided by multiple sources, which suggest that the Ijaw population has grown significantly over time. Given the discrepancy and the reliability of other sources, it is evident that these updated figures are far more accurate and reflective of reality. It is crucial to maintain data accuracy and prevent the suppression of validated information. Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, Bondwagon (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC) Vandalism help request from Bondwagon I have noticed some vandalism at Ijaw people. Namely, It has come to attention that there is ongoing vandalism of population figures, particularly the consistent removal of updated estimates supported by multiple reliable sources, such as the University of Birmingham, and their replacement with outdated figures from a single source, the CIA Factbook. This vandalism appears to be persistently carried out by user:da5ft9. It is important to note that a tribe's population is unlikely to remain stagnant over nearly a decade. For example, the CIA Factbook estimated the Ijaw population at 4 million in 2010, and this figure was recently relabeled as a 2018 estimate without any substantive update. This contradicts more recent and credible estimates provided by multiple sources, which suggest that the Ijaw population has grown significantly over time. Given the discrepancy and the reliability of other sources, it is evident that these updated figures are far more accurate and reflective of reality. It is crucial to maintain data accuracy and prevent the suppression of validated information. Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, Bondwagon (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

1909 French publication out of copyright?

In Madagascar banana can we simply add direct translation of anything we want from pages 74 to 86 of https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/161596 as the author died in 1898 and it was published in 1909 so presumably it is out of copyright? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Under French law. It is out of copyright if we are talking about the right of the author and his heirs.

In France , the delay is 70 years after the death of the person.

If you want , I can show you texts from French legislation and translate this into English for you. Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It's in the public domain (it's out of copyright); so, as regards copyright, yes we can. However, if by simply adding you mean not using quotation marks (or block indentation) and not attributing the material to the author, no: for a Wikipedia editor to do either would be to plagiarize, which is unethical. Also, despite various hiccups, fads and mistakes, scientific understanding generally improves over the span of a century, and what was written and published commendably circa 1900 may later have been discredited. -- Hoary (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

timeline for responses to edit requests on extended-protected pages?

how long is it reasonable to wait for a response to an edit request on an extended-protected page? Kenfree (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

There are no guideline about this subject in my knowledge but you should read this "Wikipedia:There is no deadline" and "Wikipedia:There is a deadline". Anatole-berthe (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

thanks for these references Kenfree (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hard to say, Kenfree, but certainly no less than one week. As for your three-day-old request on Talk:Alison Weir (activist), I note that you placed it immediately below a section all but the first sentence of which is an enormity added by you in this edit, made two days earlier than your request. Do you expect people to read and digest that section too? As for your request, it's in the form "Change: [text] To: [text with five numbers for references] The sources are here: [sentence including references]." If you (i) change "The sources are here" to "The same suggested replacement text, but with working links", and (ii) remove the line break, the result would be easier for others to understand. However far better than providing mere links would be to specify author(s), title, website and link for each of the five references. -- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes,I think any editor with an interest in this page should be apprised of the point by point critique of its content by Weir's organization...As I said in summary, the Wikipedia entry on her in its current form reads more like a hit piece than an objective description of this activist.

As to the rest of your reply, I will take it under advisement and follow your instructions to the best of my ability....thank you for it! Kenfree (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)