How can I suggest that wikipedia entry be written about my organization, which is a notable entity with many online references on it? I want somebody else to write about it since I have a conflict of interest. Haneen Adwan (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haneen Adwan Please make the disclosure asked by the conflict of interest policy. If you are employed by the organization, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure.

My advice is that you forget that Wikipedia exists and go on about the work of your organization. If your organization truly meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization, an independent editor will eventually take note of significant coverage of your organization in independent reliable sources and choose to write about it. That's the best indicator of notability. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about an organization and what it does- any article about it must summarize significant coverage- coverage that goes beyond documenting the activities of the orgnanization and goes into detail about what they see as important/significant/influential about the organization. Such sources do not include press releases, interviews, brief mentions, announcements of routine activities, or other primary sources.

There is a place to suggest an article, but it is backlogged to the point of uselessness and any request you make likely won't be acted on for some time, if ever. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I asked a question a few days ago but my question got archived without being answered. Is it okay to re-ask? -- NotCharizard ^🗨 09:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for opinions on possibilities of rearranging a fairly obscure list article. Probably no-one had any strong thoughts about the matter one way or another.

I suggest that you WP:Be Bold and go ahead with your intention, correctly announced on the Talk page and with no response in 4 days, of revising the article how you think best. If anybody disagrees with what you do, they can perform the Revert part of the WP:BRD process and you can all proceed with the Discussion. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.173 (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Serious attacks on named user redacted] Baibuzy1 (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to present your evidence on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. If you have off wiki evidence you should present it to their arbitration committee. Cabayi (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, Cabayi, for help, I'll do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baibuzy1 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OIOP Movement ( A movement fot One India One Pension ) registered in Pathanthitta, Kerala, India registered under A Charitable Organization registered under Societies Act 1860 section 3 for demanding equal justice forall who complete 60 years.:This organizations registerd in Pathanthitta, Kerala, India this year under society act Number PTM/TC/45/2024 223.185.249.39 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question about using Wikipedia?

Sage or something (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor. We have articles about Pensions in India and One Rank, One Pension (also in India). If you have suggestions about how these could be improved, please make them on the Talk Pages of these articles, including reliable, published sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is not about WP:BALANCE. but what is the guidance/policy on ensuring that an article has a suitable degree of balance between covering different aspects that fit within the article's overall subject matter? For instance, suppose there was an article on 19th century ships and it was largely about warships and very little about merchant ships (of which there were many more), the article would be deficient by having unbalanced content. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! There is no policy that I could find, however, it it probably best to find a reasonable balance of information. Sage or something (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThoughtIdRetired: We have two "meta-policies" to use when there is no relevant guideline or policy: editorial judgement and consensus. You are an editor. If you feel that an article should be modified to make it more encyclopedic, then make the improvement. If another editor disagrees, they can revert your change, and you can then discuss the change on the article's talk page to try to reach a consensus. See WP:BRD. If you think your change needs to be discussed before you make it, then start on the the article's talk page. In the early days we tried hard to avoid prescriptive or proscriptive guidelines and to rely on the two meta-policies, adding new guidelines only when experience made it clear they were needed. For your hypothetical case, You could propose to split the article into three, converting the main article into a brief overview and adding separate articles for the warships and the commercial ships. -Arch dude (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any guidance as to how to deal with transitioning a BLP to recently deceased and why deceased people have fewer privacy rights than living persons which is generally true legally as well, right? Technophant (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any WP essay concerning the transition from BLP to recently deceased article. If it takes too long to make appropriate changes to articles (verb tenses, changes in categories, etc.), Template:Recent death can be placed on top of the article to avoid edit conflicts. As for the question about legal privacy rights, well, that's out of scope for this help desk. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BDP is a section about the recently dead or probably dead. TSventon (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a guideline for using internal anchor links to connect related info within the same article, like an internal "see also" link? Or is this discouraged?

Example:

Para A: "Info about some Thing. (See also: [#link]Para B[/#link])"

Para B (elsewhere in the article): "More info about the Thing."

Thanks. Tsavage (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found a policy on the question. Template:See also makes clear that this is possible. There might be something in MOS:LINK, but I didn't see anything on a quick scan. ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsavage: Help:Self link mentions that it can be:[a] useful application is links from article leads or overview sections to detail sections buried deeper in the same article if it happens to be a rather large one, but as nearly each article has its own table of contents, it's usually redundant. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Seems to be largely a use-common-sense situation. Help:Self link is useful to keep in mind. In the case at hand, making the ToC a quite granular, and moving the bulk of info on a particular subject to one location while keeping any other references brief seems to have mostly solved things so far. But there may be cases where the same info fits in more than one place, and would be redundant if repeated, so maybe self-links. Anyhow, question answered and thanks again! Tsavage (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why article Great Lakes, as well as articles of individual lakes in this system, use imperial units first, despite that all lakes except one are also in Canada, a country that uses metric units? Should articles that have strong historical ties to Canada use metric units first? --40bus (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss concerns about a particular article on its talk page; Talk:Great Lakes. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did in January, but I still have got no answer. --40bus (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hvad blev der lige af Jehovas Vidner i den danske udgave af Pittsburgh?

Her fra den engelske! Pittsburgh is additionally where Jehovah's Witnesses traces its earliest origins, and was the host of the 2009 G20 Pittsburgh summit.

Der er da vist nok en redaktør der skal skiftes ud.

Venlig hilsen Søren Olsen, Danmark 2.108.45.190 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP Editor. This is the English Wikipedia. If you have any questions about the Danish Wikipedia, please go to https://da.wikipedia.org/ Qcne (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to be Danish and can read your post but this help desk is for the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia languages and their articles are edited independently. Concerns about the Danish Wikipedia belong there, not here. The English article Pittsburgh is 32 times larger than the Danish da:Pittsburgh so I'm not surprised this isn't mentioned in Danish. I see no reason to suspect censorship and you can edit it yourself by clicking one of the "Redigér" links. They do have an article about Jehovah's Witnesses: da:Jehovas Vidner. The infobox says founded in Pittsburgh. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here: John Kasich, the "Electoral District" table extends to the right, beyond all other text on this page. This reduces the size of all the other text/ images to accommodate the extra wide table. Can this table's width be equal to all other text, so that the whole page renders normal size? Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ooligan: There is no "Electoral District" in John Kasich. Do you mean John Kasich#Electoral history? It looks normal to me in Firefox and three other tested browsers. If the window is too narrow for the whole table then the text size doesn't change but I just have to scroll right to see the right side of the table. Maybe you activated a zoom function in your browser. Does it help to log out, or pressCtrl+0 if you have a Windows browser? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter, Yes, Electoral History. I now see the table has "hide" on the top right. When I hide the table, the page displays normally. Can the table "default" setting start at hiding the table with a choice by the to expand the table if they wish? --Ooligan (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ooligan: Hiding by default is against MOS:DONTHIDE, and I have never heard of your problem. What is your browser and operating system, and does it help to log out? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter, the explanation is enough. Thank you, --Ooligan (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]