Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 April 15

= April 15 =

How to submit a page creation request
How can I create a Wikipedia page?
 * First, pick a subject that is notable by our definition (WP:N). An article (not a "page") cannot be added to Wikipedia unless the subject is notable. After you have found several published sources (WP:RS) that show notability, proceed to WP:YFA. -Arch dude (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Page Request
Dear Sirs, I am Prof. Vsevolod Kiselev’s personal assistant – Ekaterina Zueva. Vsevolod Kiselev is a known highly regarded Russian clinician-scientist, specialist in molecular biology, molecular medicine and biotechnology. He is Deputy Director, Institute of Gynaecologic Oncology and Mammology of Acad. V.I.Kulakov National Medical Research Centre of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of the Russia (Moscow); сorrespondent member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor, D. Biol. Sci; twice winner of Russian Government Award in Science and Engineering, a laureate of the International Prize Galen (Prix Galien Russia), a winner of the National Prize to the best doctors of Russia "Vocation". Prof. Kiselev has a personal page https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%B2,_%D0%92%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 on Russian-language Wikipedia at https://ru.wikipedia.org/. We are kindly addressing you with a request. Could you please explain to us, what we should do to create a similar personal page for Professor Kiselev on English-language Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki)? Professor Kiselev has a lot of English-speaking foreign partners and colleagues. Such a page on Wiki is very important for his further professional activities and productive professional and personal communication. We would you grateful if you send us all necessary information we need.

Yours faithfully, Ekaterina Zueva Ekaterina1964 (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To be frank, Wikipedia has no interest in furthering Professor Kiselev's professional activities or aiding his communication. Those might be side benefits of a Wikipedia article, but not our main purpose.  Wikipedia is not concerned with if an article benefits its subject or not- and often it does not.  There are good reasons to not want an article.
 * Wikipedia does not have "personal pages". It has articles.  Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.(or more specifically in this case, a notable academic).  Typically, such articles are created by independent editors, who take note of a subject in those reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it.  Please review conflict of interest and paid editing.  It certainly sounds like Professor Kiselev might merit an article, if the independent sources are there to summarize, but it isn't a good idea for you, him, or anyone associated with him to write it. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page
To whom it may concern,

Our chairman would like to open his own page on Wikipedia and we would like to know the process and requirements to do so.

Waiting to hear back from you ASAP-

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.227.252.146 (talk • contribs) date (UTC)
 * Hello! The chairman of your company would need to first state that he has a conflict of interest (COI). If he pays anyone to create the page, that editor must disclose their relationship. Furthermore, COI editing is highly discouraged on Wikipedia. It's better to let other outsider people write articles on a company; it shows that it is likely to be notable and worthy to be included in the encyclopedia. If your company do decide to go through with this, it will need to comply with editing restrictions placed on COI editors that help keep neutrality and integrity intact. Any articles relating to the company or personnel in the company will need to be created through the Articles for Creation process, and any edits to already-existing pages generally require the use of edit requests. Other volunteer editors will heavily scrutinize your writing; not out of bad faith! It's out of a desire to stick to the core pillars of Wikipedia, and a conflict of interest usually interferes with that, even in good faith. I hope this helps your chairman decide! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennecaster (talk • contribs) 11:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * To the original poster: please see the reply to the previous question on this page, much of which is pertinent to your question. Like the poster of that question, you are starting from the erroneous position that Wikipedia is a place for people to tell the world about themselves, and that a Wikipedia article in any way belongs to, or is for the benefit of, its subject. If Wikipedia has an article about your chairman (whoever writes it) he will not own it, he will not control its contents, and it will not necessarily say what he would like it to say. --ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Source?
Can I use www.statista.com as a source for futured article? 223.238.218.205 (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, IP user. There does not seem to be consensus on whether or not it is to be regarded as reliable. See WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269. I suspect it depends on what information you are citing, but reliable information from Statista will probably by available from a less questionable source. --ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edits
Hi there,

If you look at this edit or this edit, both were previous versions reverted for no good reason (link removed, information deleted). Can someone weigh in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a452:7ddc:1:e432:5bfe:cd11:6361 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 's preferred version seem to me clearly better than the version preferred by the IP editor. Maproom (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * And to me as well. -- Hoary (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

(Potentially?) wrong IPA link in Polish Phonology/Ortography pages...
Hi all! It's my first time here so I hope I'm not messing up, but I noticed that in both pages for Polish ortography and phonology, 's' in its usual value is linked to voiceless dental fricative, which sounds weird to me, as that sound shouldn't be in Polish at all and I'd have expected it to be a Voiceless alveolar sibilant instead.

I checked in the code for the page and it seems that the links are automatically generated, so I didn't want to touch anything... Could someone with a bit more knowledge in the field tell me more, and correct either me or the link?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefano thf (talk • contribs) 12:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This is too highly specialized for the general help desk, but the topic is apparently important enough that we have a page for it at Help:IPA/Polish. I suggest that you use that help page's talk page (Help talk:IPA/Polish) to discuss this. -Arch dude (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding expansion of article on Vikram Sarabhai
I wish to undertake a major expansion project of the the biography of Dr. Vikram Sarabhai, who is widely regarded as the "Father of Indian Space Programme" (see:).


 * He was the founder of many research institutions, served as Chairman of Indian Space Research Organisation and its predecessor INCOSPAR. He also received two of the highest civilian honours in India- Padma Vibhushan & Padma Bhushan. He also served as the Chairman of Atomic Energy Commission of India.


 * But many of his accomplishments such as the one just mentioned, despite being widely reported on by the mainstream Indian media, the Government and its various institutions that bears his fingerprints, his Wikipedia article fails to give account of his accomplishments.


 * He is rated as Mid Importance in "WikiProject Physics" and as High Importance in "WikiProject India" and "WikiProject Gujarat". However his article is rated just as Start-Class.

I wish to expand the article with appropriate citations for reference. However, I'm wary that I will not be able to complete the entire editing in a single sitting. I need a personal space to draft the changes to the article to make its contents more encyclopaedic but editing guidelines prohibits to edit an existing article in sandbox and copying it to the Mainspace article later. What should I do?


 * Please ping me, when you reply.

Thank you. Cheers! CX Zoom (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Completing the entire editing in a single sitting, and copying an extensively edited article back from a personal sandbox to article space, both have the same serious disadvantage: if another editor dislikes one of the changes you've made, the may revert your entire edit. It's better (and easier) to make your edits piecemeal. You could consider discussing your proposed changes in the article's talk page first. Maproom (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (Pinging as requested.) Maproom (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. I guess that's the only way to edit it.
 * Also, I suppose that discussing the changes in Talk page wouldn't help much either, as very few people actually visited his Talk page in a long time. Sections more than a decade old, still don't have any replieSo, I guess, I'll go ahead and make the changes as per Wikipedia's Be Bold policy, unless some other editor points out any issue. Thanks. Cheers! CX Zoom (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)s.

Hat collector reputation
I admit I was once a hat collector, but now I've changed my approach. If I fail my next permission request, would I risk my reputation as a "Hat collector" again? Dr Salvus 14:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about your reputation. I would worry about making productive edits in the forum/area that you want additional permissions in. There's a good chance someone in that forum will notice your work and offer the additional permission to you, or otherwise suggest that you seek the permission. Worrying too much about what your reputation is does not lead to productive editing, generally. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  15:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Reporting and removing obvious spammer?
New guy here. Hi! I just got started with making some minor edits to pages Wikipedia is requesting help on and the 3rd page that comes up had some pretty gross and unfounded conspiracy theory statements in it. If it had a reference, maybe I'd leave it alone, but I looked up the contributor's history and he/she has been dropping this same statement on multiple pages throughout Wikipedia.

I'm very confused about the warning system reporting here, but this is obvious spam with intention of adding false information throughout the site. What is the best way to report said Wiki abuser? Is there also an easy way to remove all of their past edits since they are basically the same thing? Or would this require going to each page and manually editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TriviaCollector (talk • contribs) 15 April 2021 14:49 (UTC)
 * This user has now been blocked and their edits all reverted. Thanks for alerting to this. One place if you spot vandalism is at the Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard where you can report this sort of thing. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 15:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Collapsing and Hatting Comments in a Discussion
Are there any particular guidelines about which way to collapse non-constructive material in a noticeboard or on a talk page? My specific question is that I am aware of the ability to collapse the comment or to hat the comment. These two templates are almost the same. My understanding is that hat is a little harsher than collapse. Is there any particular guidance about when to use which of them? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

To be specific, this has to do with disputes at DRN. If I am the moderator of the dispute, I understand that the moderator is "in charge", but is responsible for using judgment. Are there guidelines for when I should use which of the two templates? Also, just out of curiosity, are there any more more templates for these purposes? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

how to link to a book from a footnote
Hello:

I am the main contributor to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Powell, as I wrote his biography (www.BudPowellBio.com).

If I click on the mention of my book in any of the footnotes that I wrote, I am taken to Google Books.

Is there some way that clicking on my book title in the footnotes can take readers to my book page?

There didn't seem to be a way to get to my page from Google Books - so no one who lands there would know how to learn about my book.

Thanks in advance for any advice. Powell biographer (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Powell biographer, one thing you need to know is that a mention of a published source is not a promotional name-drop. It is solely for verification of the material in a Wikipedia article. Therefore, the Google Books ref is adequate, and a link to your website, publisher or Amazon is not called for. See Wikipedia is not for promotion.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * More seriously, citing your own book is generally regarded as conflict of interest; referring to your own book in the text (as opposed to just citing it) is certainly so; and mentioning that it was released as an ebook in a certain year is naked promotion. Furthermore as far as I can see Wail: The Life of Bud Powell is a self-published source, and (to quote that section) "self-published material such as books ... are largely not acceptable as sources" which means that anything in the article based on that book is original research, and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the footnotes that ColinFine found inappropriate. I would like his help in removing the tag that he placed at the top of the Bud Powell page. Thank you in advance for this help, ColinFine.Powell biographer (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Change the title of the Wikipedia Article
I am wondering if the article title Tuscaloosa County Schools can be changed to Tuscaloosa County School System as it is the correct name for the school system in Tuscaloosa County.
 * Hello. Please see Moving a page regarding.. well, moving a page. But, I did move the page to Tuscaloosa County School System, per your request, which I confirmed on the official website. Thank you ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  17:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Typo in image on Donington Park Circuit image, not sure how to get it edited
Hello, I am a very big noob to Wikipedia editing so my apologies.

On this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donington_Park the first image at the top right, of the circuit, says 'Starkey's Straigh' when it should read 'Starkey's Straight'. This is on the top right of the image, between corners 8 and 9.

Hope someone with the know-how is able to fix this! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.101.128 (talk • contribs) 15 April 2021 22:29 (UTC)
 * Hi 91.125.101.128. I have rudimentary skills with inkscape, but I used it to add the missing "t" to the image hosted at the Commons, which is shown in the infobox. Note that if you don't see the change when you visit the article, be sure to clear your cache. (BTW, I have no idea where the extra bytes I added to the image came from.) Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Acceptability of primary sources?
I'm a bit confused as to how we're meant to determine the acceptability of primary sources. On the article Exodus Cry, they're listed as a 501(c)3 organization with the source being the organization itself (so a non-independent, primary source). On California's AG website (an independent, primary source), they're listed as "Delinquent" and not being allowed to practice. Now, I'm fairly confident that they're still a functioning nonprofit given that Propublica and the IRS both list them as operational (having moved to Missouri, which doesn't have it's own search so I can't verify), but I'm wondering how we would handle primary sources here if they HAD lost their nonprofit status fully. My assumption would be that preference goes to the government's database, but since the current source is the organization, I'm not 100% sure. Any opinions would be appreciated. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 23:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * My opinion: an organization can act as a source for basic facts about itself, and I would have thought that 501(c)3 status fell in this category. However, any contested fact requires a reference to a reliable source. You are in effect contesting this fact. As you do, I think we should use the Propublica reference in this case. For the hypothetical case, we will need to wait until an actual example occurs. -Arch dude (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's where my reasoning fell as well (to paraphrase WP:REDFLAG, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources"). I'll update the article w/reference to Propublica instead of Exodus Cry. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 02:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The article about the cause of death of Blenda Gay, former Philly Eagles pro football player
The wiki article states that his wife, Roxanne, “slit his throat while he was sleeping.” However, another newspaper article from 1977 states that she “stabbed him in the neck with a knife during a quarrel.”  Please fact check the wiki article. Thank you, P. McLaughlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.11.35.199 (talk • contribs) 15 April 2021 23:56 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia contributors are unpaid volunteers. You have as much right and responsibility for the accuracy of that article as any of the rest of us (about 100,000 active editors). Please provide the name of the newspaper and the exact date of the article. You can edit the article yourself, or add your information on the article's talk page and perhaps someone will take an interest. -Arch dude (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)