Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 April 2

__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ = April 2 =

How do I submit a Draft Article for Review.
Hello Wikipedians:

I have attempted to finish my Draft Article. I am not sure what to do next to get it reviewed. The only option I have is to Move the Article. I am a newbie. It took a great deal of edits to get it right.

I need help getting my Article Approved if possible for the Frisky_Business_Palm_Springs_Cat_Cafe Draft. Thank You for anybody to tell me what the next step is.

Thank You. 2024BrianK (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @2024BrianK: If you really think it's ready to go then you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page to put it in the reviewer backlog. Personally it looks nothing like an encyclopedic article, and I suspect that it will be declined (or worse, rejected) as is. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank You for your help. I appreciate your time. 2024BrianK (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Quoting/Copyright
Hello, I am wondering what to do when something is so short and terse that it is not easily put in my own words, e.g.,

from here.

This seems too terse and precise to really reword, but I feel it is weird to put it in the article as

(i.e., the whole sentence, and the whole section as of now, just in quotes).

Kimen8 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If it were copyrightable, then it would be a copyright violation whether or not you used quote marks. However, If there is basically only one way to express a thought, then it's not copyrightable, and I believe this is such a case. Since you intend intend to cite the source, it's also not plagiarism, whether or not you use quote marks. In my opinion, leave out the quote marks. -Arch dude (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is what I'd hoped, and thanks for clarifying that quotation marks/straight quoting doesn't save me. Kimen8 (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kimen8 I think that the sentence is too terse for a Wikipedia article intended for diverse readership. Wouldn't it be better expressed more like the lead for Ixekizumab which you have recently edited. Something like Tislelizumab is a medication for the treatment of .... Chemically it is a type of humanized antibody, a variant of immunoglobulin G4, which acts by etc. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I took a bad example. I was asking, in particular, about a symptom list, but while scrolling found that sentence which I thought also elucidated my point. As you say though, the way around it on that particular sentence would likely be to change it for the audience, elaborating and rewording.
 * To clarify though, can you do anything with this besides just put it inline, add some wikilinks, maybe use a synonym where it seems more appropriate? (green is (rough) quote, start is my words)
 * "Adverse effects include."
 * I'm just trying to avoid copyright violation and finding myself bumping into situations where a copy-paste really seems the most reasonable choice.
 * Kimen8 (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kimen8 That sort of list presumably comes from something like the leaflet included with drug prescriptions, which you will quote and maybe link to. Most of these leaflets say something like "anemia (1 in 10 patients), leukopenia (1 in 100 patients), thrombocytopenia (1 in 1,000) etc. As Wikipedia summarizes content, it seems to me reasonable only mention the most important adverse effects, whether based on frequency of occurrence or some other criteria like being discussed often in medically reliable sources. Note that you correctly started with the word "include", so there is no suggestion that the list is comprehensive. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Category: Important people
Under the above category, there are several important people not listed, and I can not figure out how to add/edit them in. I am spending too much time on you tube and your site, and can not understand all the instructions, with so many ins/outs, and hard to seem to get it right. What else can I do? geesh, just a few names/dob/dod/titles. Thanks SPA-Belen (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain what you're referring to – Category:Important people does not exist. Could you provide a link to the category, or the exact name? Tollens (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I just looked at your – I assume you are referring to your edit which would have added Ida Jo Anaya-Cargo to  not going through? If this is correct, please be aware that in lists of people on Wikipedia, the notability of the people in the list has to be demonstrated before they can be added – this is usually done by there already being a Wikipedia article about the person, which there doesn't appear to be for the person you were trying to add. Tollens (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reply. YES for Ida Jo, she was NM First Lady and many articles in newspapers
 * and stories in books on her. SPA-Belen (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, SPA_Belen. Please see WP:Write the article first. If Anaya-Cargo meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then there can be an article about her, and that should preferably be created first.
 * You are welcome to try to create that article, but:
 * Creating a new article is one of the most challenging things to do in editing Wikipedia, and people who try it often have a frustrating and miserable time. I always advise new editors to spend several months making improvements to existing articles and learning about fundamental principles like verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability before trying to create a new article.
 * I may be wrong, but I am guessing from your account name and the fact that the first thing you did was try to add a politician to a list, that you have some connection with Anaya-Cargo. If so, please be aware that editing with a conflict of interest makes it even harder to write an article, as it may be harder to recognise whether or not your text is neutral.
 * You might find that asking for collaborators at WT:WikiProject New Mexico will be fruitful. ColinFine (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Glory of the Seas
Glory of the Seas.

How do you want a new book From Whaler to Clipper Ship (written by MJM) and two articles in periodicals listed (one by MJM and another by Richard Jones formated by the necessary codes to be acceptable? How will the text for the book title be formated in italics? Michael Jay Mjelde (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, . If you are talking about an article about a book, then using Template:Infobox book will automatically italicize the name of the book in the article title. Cullen328 (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * this seems to be about adding further reading to Glory of the Seas (clipper). I have fixed the formatting: Template:Cite book italicises the title as default. TSventon (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Please do not add your own books to "further reading" sections. This is considered a form of spamming. If the book is sufficiently relevant and you feel that content cited to the book should be added to the article, then make an on the article's talk page. Note your WP:COI as part of this edit request. -Arch dude (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In the next weeks to follow I will modify the current "Glory of the Seas" text by  incorporating the many corrections referenced  in the main text of the article by endnotes to  specify in detail where most recent publications affect the former text. Instead of simply showing as unverified 'facts,' they will appear instead as  endnotes.  However, at the same time I  will remove certain errors and inconsistencies by endnotes which supersede incorrect  conclusions reached by  earlier maritime  authorities. An example: Richard McKay,  author of a book on Donald McKay, stated that Daniel McLaughlin took  command of "Glory of the Sea" in 1879; whereas in one of the charts, the compiler correctly showed him  as taking command in 1876'' Michael Jay Mjelde (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * there is some advice for scientists at Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia which probably applies to historians as well. TSventon (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Lua error in Module:Adjacent_stations at line 237: Unknown line "GTX A"
Lua error in Module:Adjacent_stations at line 237: Unknown line "GTX A". I have a question what that means and how I can fix it 67uy90s (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * What page are you seeing this error on? Tollens (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Seongnam Station (Gyeonggi-do) 67uy90s (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @67uy90s: GTX has not been defined in Module:Adjacent_stations. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can I define it somehow? 67uy90s (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @67uy90s: There are examples at Adjacent stations. You need template editing privileges to modify the data module. If you do not have them, or are not confident, you can make a request on template's talk page. You will need to do the hard work up front to gather all the data needed about the line and determine how it should be structured. Do not underestimate the work needed. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no perms to edit the templates. 67uy90s (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @67uy90s: I said in my reply what to do if you do not have permission to edit the templates.
 * You might want to consider whether the effort required will be time well-spent for a railway system which is still under construction. Bazza 7 (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Дидойцы
здравствуйте, хотел выразить свое недовольство насчёт поста в Википедии.

https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B9%D1%86%D1%8B

На данном посту, запрещнна правка и ее внесение, мы с нашей командой дидойцев пытались избавиться от лживоого поста, где наклеветено о нашем народа, где мы учитываемся как диалект или как субэтнос в этом посту, хотя это не так, прошу вас обратить внимание и удалить этот пост, дайте право мне самому выложить насчет моего народа пост, и все буде прекрасно 8B 185.126.180.140 (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This is the English Wikipedia, different though related to the Russian Wikipedia. Problems at the Russian Wikipedia have to be discussed there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The Russian Wikipedia help desk is at ru:Википедия:Форум/Вопросы RudolfRed (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

changing the content
there is an editor with 16,000 edits who insist on describing me in his words. when I chanfe it he changes it back. what can be done? EarthChoice2016 (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you are referring to – you have not made any edits using this account since May 2018. Could you provide the name of the article you're having the issue on, and the name of the other editor you're talking about? Tollens (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I see now – you are referring to 2024 United States Senate election in Nevada and the most recent IP edits. You say 'me' – I assume you are Allen Rheinhart. Please do not edit Wikipedia articles directly, when they relate to you – you should instead propose changes by making edit requests. The edit request wizard can help you to do this. Tollens (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

How do I send my text to wikipedia?
How can I send my text to wikipedia? Hakan Ungerth (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If you mean writing Wikipedia contents, see WP:YFA. If you want to contact the organization running Wikipedia, see Contact us. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:TUTORIAL may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Secret Nazi Bases
Hello, I am writing an article about this documentary television series, which is also known as Secret Nazi Ruins. It is ok if I put sources that are mentioning the subject in the other name? Because there are sources that say Secret Nazi Ruins and I want to know if it is ok? Ange2444 (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * As long as you cited at least one reliable source mentioning that they are the same show, then it's fine. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ange2444 Many topics are known by multiple names, for example the country Burma = Myanmar. Wikipedia guidance is to use the WP:COMMONNAME for article titles but we can create redirects for alternative names our readers might look for, so in the end it often doesn't matter which title is used. Note that you will need to demonstrate that the documentary is wikinotable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit request unaddressed
What is the policy if an edit request goes unaddressed for weeks and is then closed?

Trying to understand general wikipedia editing policy in this situation. Say an edit request is submitted and simply stands unaddressed for 3-4 weeks, without comment. Then, somebody with editing rights simply closes it, does not address any of the contents of the edit request, and claims that there is no consensus for the edit request. What exactly is the procedure here:

1. What policy says that if an edit request goes unaddressed with no comments for 3-4 weeks then that implies that there is no consensus for the proposed edit?

2. Unlike more concrete ways to determine consensus, how do I know if and when this lack of consensus still holds, or when it might have changed? Since nobody has said anything against this edit request (or at all for that matter), WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS indicates that it would only take one editor who does agree to implement the edit request in order to change the consensus to align with the edit request. However, editor availability fluctuates, people get busy or may have just missed the edit request up until now. A potential editor who would agree to implement the edit request might only become available now, but will not get a chance to see the request if it's been closed and archived. How long does the wikipedia editing policy say that I have to wait before resubmitting the edit request (if at all)?

Much thanks, spintheer (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Spintheer Since you have not specified what type of edit request you are referring to, I'm guessing you are talking about semi-protected/extended-confirmed-protected edit requests.
 * 1.Edit requests should not be closed based on how long they have been open, they should be open until the request is implemented or declined.
 * 2.There is no specific edit request cooldown, also the requests don't get Archived unless the whole talk page is Archived. You can re-open closed edit requests by changing the request template's "answered=yes" parameter to "answered=no". Shadow311 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to respond, I really do appreciate it. With respect, I don't think that #1 quite answers my question about whether a lack of consensus may be inferred from silence. Answer#2 makes sense. spintheer (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record I disagree with 1. There's a certain time after which it's clear that none of the responders to a given queue are ever going to do anything, and I usually decline at that point observing that reality since it's better than it languishing forever. The reason the lack of response implies that there is no consensus is it means many people have looked at the request and decided not to implement it. These subtle unstated objections at some point add up to a concrete lack of consensus. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but I think that declining an edit request on the basis of subtle unstated objections alone is problematic on three fronts:
 * (1) The existence of subtle unstated objections to an edit request is unfalsifiable: Technically, any edit request that has not been commented on can be arbitrarily closed using this line of reasoning, since it is impossible to definitively disprove the existence of subtle unstated objections to the edit request, by their very nature.
 * (2) These subtle unstated objections could potentially have no merit: If these unknown objections have no merit based in editing policy then, if the edit request were to be implemented, the edit would be sustained in the article. By declining the edit request in this scenario, a correct edit doesn't get a chance to be implemented.
 * (3) These objections are insurmountable: Even if the objections exist and have merit, by declining the edit request, we never find out what they actually are. As a result, it's not clear how the contents of the edit request could be modified to address the objections.
 * I am not trying to give anyone in specific a hard time, my goal here is to either (a) get the edit request implemented in the article or (b) get a policy-based reason addressing the substance of the edit request explaining why it won't be implemented. Declining an edit request without addressing its contents creates a limbo state that doesn't seem to be covered in the current policy guidelines. spintheer (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could clarify which article you've made your request at? It might help others get a better feel for what the circumstances might be and perhaps suggest a possible way forward. Generally, edit requests are only really needed when the requestee is somehow for some reason "prevented" from directly editing the article themselves. For example, some articles are protected in some way that requires certain users make edit requests on article talk pages or some users are considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to an article and thus are strongly encouraged to make edit requests instead of directly editing the article. Without knowing more about your particular situation, it's kind of hard to suggest what your options might be. In general, Wikipedia wants us to be WP:BOLD when trying to improve articles, but there are times when it's probably a little better for us to be WP:CAUTIOUS instead. If you've just made your request out of caution and are able to directly edit the article, you can try implementing the change yourself. If your edit ends up be reverted for some reason, then you should go back to article's talk page and try to resolve things per WP:BRD; remember the WP:ONUS, in principle, falls upon to seek consensus for the change. If you're somehow technically prevented from editing the article, you might want to consider fallowing the suggestions given in WP:PSCOI (even if you don't have a conflict of interest per se). The only other option is to just keep being patient since those who generally answer edit requests are WP:VOLUNTEERs the same as you and nobody just might've gotten around to answering yours yet. Now, having said that, if your request involves a serious violation of Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:BLP) that needs some attention asap and you can't edit the article yourself, you can try a appropriate noticeboard or even WP:AN to try and get others involved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Annulled/expunged/spent criminal convictions
Around a third of adults in the US have criminal convictions. Many US states permit people's criminal convictions to be annulled/expunged under certain conditions. Many countries, notably in the EU, have similar laws designed to give former offenders a 'second chance'. In the UK, for example, many criminal convictions become 'spent' after a given period of time under an act called the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The most serious convictions, such as murder and sexual assault on a person, are in each case excluded from annullment/expungement/becoming spent. In some US jurisdictions, such as New Hampshire, it can be a misdemeanour offence to promulgate information about expunged offences. In the UK, it is a tort (it can be the subject of civil legal action) to promulgate information about a spent offence. This includes on social media. My question is this: Wikipedia is not excluded from the legislation which governs the treatment of expunged offences; so what is our policy on reporting on them in articles? Should they be mentioned, deleted or dealt with in some other way? Thanking you in advance if you have a moment to answer. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Policy would include WP:PROPORTION and WP:BLPPRIMARY (and the rest of BLP). WP:BLPCRIME may be off topic for this question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it appears that Wikipedia falls under the jurisdiction of the state of Virginia . spintheer (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How interesting. I'll follow on with that, and thanks. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Charlie Campbell 28: Hi there! I was shocked by your first sentence, so I did some digging, and I don't think it's accurate.  The NCSL states "Approximately 77 million Americans, or 1 in every 3 adults, have a criminal record. A criminal record—which can be an arrest record, criminal charges, or a conviction..." which is still surprising to me.  Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @GoingBatty. Ah, I see. A criminal record rather than a conviction. Thanks. In the UK, the proportion of men with criminal convictions is around a third; I imagine it's around the same in US. Women are better behaved, apparently. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @GoingBatty@Gråbergs Gråa Sång@Spintheer Thanks very much for your helpful comments. I've followed on with a WP:RFC. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Help on this sentence
From the lead of Radio-frequency_identification:

>An RFID system consists of a tiny radio transponder, a radio receiver and transmitter.

To be clear, this is an appositive, right? So this sentence could be shorted to "An RFID system consists of a tiny radio transponder" or even better "An RFID system consists of a tiny radio" or "An RFID system is a tiny radio," correct? At least logically? This is the second sentence of the article and seems confusing to me as a reader because I dond't know what a transponder was so I thought an RFID system consisted of three things. But then I read what a transponder was an now it seems like really it is two things (a radio receiver and transmitter) or one thing a radio transponder, or simply a radio. Any thoughts on if this should be changed? I would like to change it but am not sure how best to fix it. 65.242.132.98 (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This statement does read a bit strange, because the order in which the components are listed doesn't appear to be the logical order in which the system operates. An RFID system works by:
 * 1. radio waves are transmitted out
 * 2. the object being identified receives these radio waves and emits radio waves back (acting as a transponder)
 * 3. a radio receiver reads the waves emitted by the transponder and converts them into some useful signal that is related to the identification of the object.
 * These components are logically separate from one another, but at a high level every RFID system has them in some form. So this sentence could potentially be improved by changing the order in which these components are listed, as a start. spintheer (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Spintheer Thanks for your reply. Although now I am actually more confused. At the time I read the article until your reply, I thought the RFID system was referring to a single object. This is because if you look up "RFID chip" you will see individual RFID chips (and to be clear I now realize that is likely incorrect, as it appears to be referring to the system as a whole as you say and not just the tag). And the way I read it is that each single RFID chip is made up of a transponder, which is a transmitter and receiver. The wiki page says in the lead that a transponder is "a blend of transmitter and responder." I took that to mean that since it must respond to a signal, that means that it can both transmit and receive signals, hence the name. I only ever considered that the article was referring to the actual tag in that sentence, and that the sentence was saying that that single device was made up of three things or one thing. Now the way I understand how you have described it, you are saying that the sentence is referring to the RFID *system* as a whole, and that that system is composed of three parts. Or that that system is composed of two parts and three logical steps. After I read your post I considered that perhaps the system is composed of three parts: a transmitter, a transponder and a receiver, because technically the device that emits the first pulse doesn't need to be the one that receives the response from the tag. But I don't think this is the case because the next sentence says that "the tag transmits digital data, usually an identifying inventory number, back to the reader" meaning that the device that sends the initial signal is the same one that receives the response back. Perhaps then "back to the reader" is the real issue then. Regarding the possibility that there are two objects in the system with three steps, that also doesn't make sense as you have already explained because the steps are out of order.
 * Perhaps the sentence should look like this?
 * >An RFID system consists of a tiny radio transponder called a tag, a radio receiver, and transmitter.
 * If this is the correct reading, then an Oxford comma would have solved this ambiguity. 65.242.132.98 (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * meaning that the device that sends the initial signal is the same one that receives the response back To my understanding this is just a common implementation of the RFID system, in the sense that in many settings it is convenient for the same device to do both the sending and the receiving. However, this coupling isn't fundamental: Conceptually speaking, these components are separate, and there might indeed be settings where it doesn't make sense of the same device to do the sending as well as the receiving.
 * >An RFID system consists of a tiny radio transponder called a tag, a radio receiver, and transmitter. I think that in the context of RFID, associating the tag with the transponding functionality is fair. As mentioned, I would consider changing the order of the components:
 * >An RFID system consists of a radio transmitter, a tiny radio transponder called a tag, and a radio receiver. spintheer (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If the three items listed are not logical steps in a system but simply the components of them then I don't think the order they are listed matters in that way. I think the tag should go first as it is longer and the most important part of system. For example the rest of the article talks almost exclusively about the tags and the transmitter and receiver are really trivial compared to the tag itslef because the whole point is to track some fourth object which is attached to the tag (or said differently what the tag is tagging). So given that I am going to keep the tag as the first item in the last. The only issue now is what to do with the third sentence which only mentions an RFID reader device, which is never defined in the article. 65.242.132.98 (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)