Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 March 31

= March 31 =

Update: Janajagaran Party Nepal
Name should be (way to write correctly) Janajagaran Party Nepal. The party was founded by likeminded nationalists under chair of Lokmani Dhakal in 2013. The party secured one seat in the second constitutional assembly election (propotional). Thus was active contributor to new election (2015). The party losts its seats in the first legislative election both in federal and provintial, though it was proposedly held in joint efforts (coalition) with Janata Samajbadi Party and Maoist Center. After 2017, the General Secretary, BP Khanal take his leadership role acting president due to health issue of Mr Lokmani Dhakal. In 2020 April, the party's semi national convention put reformed its Central Bureau of secretariat and other committees placing BP Khanal on party Chair as president. On 19th February 2021, the party takes stronger stand after unification of other two political groups namely People's Party Nepal led by Roshan Khatiwada and Nayashakti Samajbadi Party led by Ram Prasad Neupane. New Central Bureau of the party list is given as follow: BP Khanal, PhD - president, Sunil Maharjan - Joint-President, Yam Lawati, Hirakaji Maharjan, Nimtolma Acharya and Dwarika Shrestha - Vice President, Roshan Khatiwada - General Secretary, Ram Prasad Poudel - Joint-General Secretary, and Bidur Adhikari - Spokesman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanaljee (talk • contribs) 01:14, March 31, 2021 (UTC)
 * Courtesy link: Jana Jagaran Party Nepal --Finngall talk  02:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * In the paragraph above, you don't provide evidence for saying that one version is superior to the other. You should do that, in Talk:Jana Jagaran Party Nepal, and get agreement there for the page "move" (retitling). -- Hoary (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Afc
Today I wanted to create a redirect, but discovered, as an anonymous user, I was unable to do that myself.

While reviewing Stachys, I found several names that were no longer accepted as valid, or that were moved to another genus, Betonica in particular. Most notably, Stachys macrantha is now placed in Betonica (see POWO; in the Wikipedia-article it is also listed as one of the species in Betonica, but the link is red although we have an article on the species, albeit under the former name). As I cannot rename articles, I thought the next best thing I could do was to at least create a redirect, so the species can be found when a user searches for it under the correct name. Trying to create the redirect, I was guided to the article creation wizard. So now there is a Draft:Betonica macrantha for the redirect, and a template showing on that page stating that it will only be reviewed after about six months. But I'm not going to add anything to that page anymore. A redirect is finished when one has created that single line. What should I do to make sure this attempt is reviewed much sooner, and the appropriate actions taken? The best solution obviously is to rename Stachys macrantha to Betonica macrantha, and leave the first name as a redirect. 77.164.133.132 (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You can request the page move (rename) at WP:RM. If you create an account, then after a few days and some edits, you will be able to move pages yourself.  See WP:AUTOCONFIRM RudolfRed (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in creating an account. What I'm interested in is to get things done correctly, as was Wikipedia's intention when it was first created. But I'll direct myself to WP:RM. Thanks. 77.164.133.132 (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

help with a draft 'James Ross Duperouzel (Australian Soldier)
Dear Wiki, I have seen this message from a Wiki editor (see below) but alas I cannot find the link to click on in order for make a specific declaration. I would be grateful if you could give me a specific short menu path in order to find this link. Thank you. Kind regards, William Thomas Duperouzel Hello and welcome to Wikipedia; in respect of this draft, please click on the link in the message above in respect of conflict of interest; there are declarations which need to be made. Please note a conflict of interest is not necessarliy seen as any sort of criticism of an individual editor, but is just one of the ways in which Wikipedia attempts to ensure neutrality. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC) --William Thomas Duperouzel (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, if you return to your talk page, in the large templated message immediately above my post there is a link in the column on the right that says something like 'do not edit where you have a conflict of interest'. However to save time go to WP:COI for more information. If you still have problems ping me at your talk page. Eagleash (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Can AfD move in draft?
If an article is proposed for deletion can it be moved to the sandbox or draft for edit it calmly? Dr Salvus 22:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It depends on the result of the AfD. Draftify is one possible option.  You can suggest it at the AfD to see if others agree. You can't move it while the AfD is in progress. RudolfRed (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If the article does get deleted, you can ask the person who deleted it to put a copy in your userspace (unless there are WP:BLP violations or like that). Or pick a name from Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles.


 * If you can substantially improve the article immediately, so as to assuage some of the objections to its existence, then you could try doing so -- obviously this is a time-sensitive task -- and then at the AfD ask for WP:HEY (the Heymann Standard) to be put into play. If you're unable to get WP:HEY accepted, and the article is deleted, and it's restored to your userspace for more work, any new version you want to publish has to be quite substantially different -- significantly improved, expanded, or whatever -- from the version that was deleted. Herostratus (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Heymann exemplified:
 * An article in a horrible state, with an AfD template being added
 * The AfD
 * A "Heymanned" version of the same article with the AfD template being removed
 * -- Hoary (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)