Wikipedia:Teahouse

Melecie, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Wikipedia Police Department

Does it exist? 193.207.198.242 (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Not that I know of. NotAGenious (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You might be looking for WP:CVU NotAGenious (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! 193.207.198.242 (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

We also have an arbitration committee for extreme cases. Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pablothepenguin Actually, WP:ANI would be the correct place to go to report a wikicrime (repeated breaches of our rules). WP:ARBCOM is a higher level up, but, as you correctly say, it is indeed reserved for the extreme cases. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

With no idea what the crime would be, I would caution taking something to WP:ANI. It seems to work great for stuff like vandalism, but also seems to be very ineffective for any type of complex issue. Rjjiii (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd recommend taking a look at WP:RAA if you need help from admins. NotAGenious (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Points?

Hello,

I recently noticed that in my contributions page, on each contribution I made there are numbers in green brackets or numbers in red brackets. What do they mean? Myrealnamm (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Myrealnamm They are the size in bytes that you added (green) or removed (red) in your edit. The value can even be 0. The same numbers appear on Special:Watchlist where there's an explanatory box on the right. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

This is how many bytes your edit has added (green) or removed (red) from the article. You can hover over the "points" and see the bytes. Qcne (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull@Qcne

Thank you! Myrealnamm (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

^{Though I'd rather like it if they were karmatic points a lá The Good Place...} Qcne (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

😀 Myrealnamm (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

That does not sound too good to me, Qcne. The folks on that show were in hell and I'm pretty sure in hell you can only edit contentious articles on mobile.

Oh and also, Myrealnamm try hovering over the letters next to the bytes too. Those letters beside the edits are abbreviations to show new pages, bot edits, minor edits, etc. Rjjiii (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii Hi, Do you mean the diff and hist? I tried hovering over them but nothing showed up. Is it because that no bots, minor edits, etc. edited the article after I edited? Also what does diff and hist mean? Myrealnamm (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"difference" (as in comparing any given edit to the previous one) and "history" (as in the edit history for any given page) respectively

so for example, if someone removes a paragraph or two of text in an edit, you can click on the diff button next to it to see exactly what got removed in that specific edit cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 12:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Myrealnamm (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

How to cite different times of the same audio visual document without creating a new reference?

For written documents, you have templates like these: or . They let you point to a different page of the same document without creating a new reference each time, but I can't seem to find an equivalent that would let me point to different times of the same audio or video document. Thanks in advance for your help. Redacwiki (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Redacwiki! Maybe use {{sfn}} and specify the loc parameter? TheLonelyPather (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Redacwiki The template {{rp}} takes any text as its parameter, so you can use it just the same way: , for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I used {{rp}} like Mike suggested above for the article Apetor, e.g and . I'm not sure if there's any other method better fit for this purpose. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I wasn't sure it was authorized as the template explicitly refers to pages, but I'll do that. Thanks everyone.

Redacwiki (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Redacwiki Just for clarity in case others read this thread, the template documentation at {{rp}} says Other in-source-location information can also be used for non-numeric pages, for example: "f. 29", "A7", and "back cover", etc., and can also be used for non-paginated sources, e.g., "0:35:12" for a video source. (my emphasis). Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

References

How to find the source of lint errors?

What is the usual procedure for finding what is causing lint errors in an article? Mtanti (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Lint errors? Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pablothepenguin, they're referring to Linter errors. 💜  melecie  talk - 21:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have software for lint errors? Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pablothepenguin Please read the WP:LINT information page already indicated by Melecie. That includes information on some bots which work on these errors and also how the individual errors are logged, categorised and prioritised for attention. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

How can the title to an article be changed?

I wrote an article that was an article requesting to be created. However, the complete subject matter would necessitate changing the title of the article. It is a biography, and the person's main career was much different than the career in the original request for article creation. Starlighsky (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Starlighsky. I'm confused whether you are talking about one of the two articles you have personally created, or something your requested to be created, but have not worked on yourself. Either way, we can move articles to better-fitting titles if needs be, so it's not a big issue. You would need to be more explicit and give us a link if you wanted more detailed advice, I fear. I hope this helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I am glad to learn how to change the title before creating a new article.

Here is the article that I am working on...I was a requested article about a lyricist.

However, he had made a drastic change in careers:

Michael Grace (lyricist) Starlighsky (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I will move it to a new title. Again, thanks! Starlighsky (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure how to move the article to a new title. I would think the following would be a better title, though:

Michael P. Grace II (songwriter, Broadway producer, and oil and gas producer) Starlighsky (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Starlighsky and welcome to Wikipedia. Sorry to say this but per the Wikipedia guideline on article titles, I believe that said title would be too detailed. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 01:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The name used for the portion before parenthesis (the disambiguator) should be the name he's most-known by; unless the P. and/or II are often used in sources, it should just be Michael Grace. If the title before the disambiguator is not ambiguous with any other article, the disambiguator should be dropped. For example, there's no Michael P. Grace II article, so if that were the name he was most commonly referred to by, there should be no disambiguator. Alternatively, there is a Michael P. Grace article, so if that is the name he's most commonly referred to by, there needs to be one.

Disambiguators are supposed to be as concise as possible, not descriptive, and the one picked should be the thing they're most known for. This is a more complex case (I don't really know what he'd be most-known for), but I'd probably go with (musician) here, per WP:NCMUSIC; there are many naming conventions at hand for specific topics, and it can be hard to keep track of them, but the navbox at {{Naming conventions}} has a good index of specific naming conventions.

Hopefully that was helpful. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. As I understand it, he could be Michael P. Grace ll. Many references use that name. Starlighsky (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Would I have to create a new article to use that name? He started his career as a lyricist, but spent most of his like running a business that had nothing to do with music. Starlighsky (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a move button – I think it's on the right side under Tools in Vector 2022 (the default look for Wikipedia), and if you've switched back to the old look (Vector 2010), it'll be in a dropdown menu near the top under More. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Starlighsky (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

You can change the title of an article by moving it; see WP:MOVE. However, I would be more concerned about improving the referencing of the article rather than worrying about the title. Right now the article has 16 references but as far as I can see, not a single one of them contributes to the notability of the subject. If there are no better sources available, the article should probably be deleted. See WP:N and WP:RS to learn about what types of sources are needed. CodeTalker (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I am working on the references. The person did create a Broadway hit as a producer and songwriter which helped African Americans in the entertainment industry. Harry Belafonte was a main character in a 1950s production that made fun of politics and the "red scare". I am working on the article as time permits. I am doing the best I can. Starlighsky (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Starlighsky. I'm afraid that "I am working on the references" is a sure sign that you have written the article BACKWARDS (as most inexperienced editors do), and made your task much much harder thereby.

Note also that what a person has done has little directly to do with what we call notability for the purposes of Wikipedia: what matters is what has been published about the person. Obviously if somebody has done memorable things it is more likely that they have been written about, but it is the job of the editor writing an article to find those golden sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I added the references. There were published reference before, and I recently added more now that I had the time. The notability was written about, especially in terms of the Broadway production and the music, of which some was written with famous composers of that time:

Michael P. Grace II Starlighsky (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Starlighsky I recommend that you read the WP:RS and WP:N links that I provided earlier. Over the past few days you have added several new references to the article, but again, none of them demonstrate notability. Two references were to Wikipedia itself; these should be removed because Wikipedia is not a reliable source (see WP:USERGENERATED in the WP:RS page). Two were to ibdb.com; these are very brief database entries and not at all the type of in-depth reporting that you need (see WP:SIGCOV in the WP:N page). Two more are copies of court filings from court cases that he was involved in; these are primary sources and do not demonstrate notability. Finally there's a reference to Notre Dame News but you merely linked to the front page rather than to any specific article about Grace. CodeTalker (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I work on these issues. Starlighsky (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Several hours of input that has been almost completely deleted

The list of aircraft displayed at the Wings over the Rockies Air & Space Museum at Lowry airfield is terribly lacking, particularly in the civil section, and I have tried to complete it since I visited in April, and have a widely aviation knowledge. For each addition I generally used the 'own observation' reason, but for whatever reason you have taken them down. I also completed existing entries where tail numbers were lacking. I am terribly disappointed, but am willing to try again if I know where I am going wrong. For the most part I have photographic evidence. Better still, you could possibly restore what you have deleted. Thank you Alan Lathan 2003:C9:EF0E:8695:50A2:1B1F:7233:7E44 (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Alan Lathan. Thank you for trying to improve Wikipedia, but your "own observation" contributions are a classic violation of No original research, one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. Our content must summarize what reliable, independent published sources say. Personal observations are not permitted here. I believe that you probably have wide aviation knowledge, but that gives you no special privileges. Any anonymous editor could claim to be both a neurosurgeon and and an astrophysicist, and how could anyone check? All that matters here on Wikipedia is an editor's ability to reference and summarize published reliable sources. As for the photos, you can upload your own photos to Wikimedia Commons under a free license and then add them to the article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The article in question is Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum. Alan Lathan, I see that you added a (no pun intended) comment to that article. I am sorry, but that is not appropriate. Articles must be written from the Neutral point of view, another core content policy. Jokes and personal observations and personal commentary do not belong in Wikipedia articles. Cullen328 (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I must quibble with one point. Objective personal observations, verifiable by anyone, are not original research. You don't need to cite a source that says the sky is blue. Going through an aircraft museum and recording tail numbers is no different than going to a library to verify something. Facts like tail numbers are verifiable by anyone who goes to the same museum, as other facts are verifiable by going to a library and looking up a publication that isn't online. If an observation of a fact clearly demonstrates the cited source is wrong, then that source should not be cited. Verifiability is what matters, not the manner of how something is verified. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

To say that I disagree would be an understatement, Anachronist. Wikipedia relies on summarizing what reliable, published sources say. The recollections of an individual Wikipedia editor who visited a museum earlier today or earlier this decade are of no value, except to the extent that they motivate the editor to search for actual reliable sources. I am a devoted museum attender. If I was a troll, I could add a claim to my own observations that some small town art museum displays two Van Goghs and three Picassos, and a spectacular da Vinci. Should our readers place any confidence whatsover in such an assertion referenced to my personal observations? Of corse not, but you are arguing that they should. Notable museums publish catalogs, which are reliable sources for items in their collections. Notable museums attract coverage from reliable, independent sources that describe items in their collections. No contested text content that is not referenced to reliable sources should appear in this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you say though your museum piece is a straw man. Walking through a museum to take tail numbers is very different to *claiming* ownership of a Picasso. It may be that the tail number information is not recorded anywhere else. We have a duty to consider how to be accurate and realistic. doktorb _words^deeds 06:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

True does not mean verified. Wikipedia requires the latter. David notMD (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Things need to be true and verifiable insofar as they are published. Sending people to said museum to "see for themselves" that it is correct is not acceptable. Things need to be verifiable by checking reliable published sources. In this case, independence may not strictly be required, so if the museum lists the aircraft, on say, its own website, that's the kind of stuff that is usually OK to use as a self-published source for such an article, but it needs to be verifiable somewhere published. --Jayron32 16:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: @David notMD: @Jayron32: I think you're all taking an unnecessarily narrow view of the meaning of "published" and "verifiable". The manufacturer of the aircraft published the tail numbers on the aircraft. They are verifiable by anyone who goes to the museum to look at them. Wikipedia's requirements are therefore met. Verifiable sources are emphatically not required to be available online. It isn't unreasonable for verification to require a visit to a museum. This is no different from verifying something published in a hard-to-find book available in a particular library (which I have done in the past). The OP's edit we're discussing is a WP:BLUESKY situation, it would have been completely uncontroversial if he had taken pictures of each aircraft and uploaded them along with the edits. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't mean to be curt, but you're just wrong here. The specific aircraft in a specific museum is not WP:BLUESKY by any reasonable means, no matter how many times you say it, and no reasonable meaning of the word "published" includes a number painted on an object. To stretch the definition of such concepts as far as you have makes them meaningless. Please stop confusing the new users here, and if you can't speak knowledgeably on this stuff, please stop. They need to find the list of aircraft written down in a book, magazine, catalog, or website somewhere. It can even be on the museum's own website, but that is at least published. A hard to find book is still a published source. An object in a museum is not a published source. --Jayron32 17:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this took 5 seconds to find. Citing the information on that page and pages that link from it are not onerous. And it's a better source than "Go to the museum and look at it yourself". --Jayron32 17:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing WP:Verifiability, I was surprised to find that I (partially) agree with you Anachronist. That is, you say "The manufacturer of the aircraft published the tail numbers on the aircraft." This does seem consistent with a passage on WP:V stating

> Source material must have been published, the definition of which for the purposes of Wikipedia is made available to the public in some form.

which has footnote claiming,

> This includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives as well as inscriptions in plain sight, e.g. tombstones

However, your claims, "They are verifiable by anyone who goes to the museum to look at them. Wikipedia's requirements are therefore met. Verifiable sources are emphatically not required to be available online. It isn't unreasonable for verification to require a visit to a museum." seems to be in tension with the WP:V passage

> All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. (bold emphasis mine)

So I have a quibble (with your original quibble with @Cullen328) "Objective personal observations, verifiable by anyone, are not original research. You don't need to cite a source that says the sky is blue." While this is technically true, it appears neither relevant nor applicable to the current case of tail numbers. Why? Because the material has clearly been challenged (which is what lead Alan Lathan to post here). Thus, it is required to cite an inline citation (such as to the museum exhibit that @Jayron32 was kind enough to provide).

In any case, I'd like to express gratitude to you, Anachronist, for making me learn more today about WP's core content policies. 🙏 Philogicatician (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

DOD retry

Help? (the following is a re-try of a prior inquiry) There is a Finnish language Wiki article about , Jallu Honkonen. For now the only thing I wanted to edit is his Date of Death. It’s January 3 1969, NOT May 3 1969. I know he died in January because I attended his funeral. An obituary from the Fitchburg(MA) Sentinel Enterprise will support this. But I can’t seem to access an editable English version and I myself don’t read/speak Finnish. Eldyr88PHy$N (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

hi @Eldyr88PHy$N and welcome to the teahouse! unforrunately different languages of Wikipedia are separate projects and not just a single unified project where English is the main source and all other languages translate its articles, so not everything that has an article in another language also has one in English, and Honkonen may mot have an article here at all. this also means that other wikis may have their own policies from sourcing different from that in English Wikipedia, so we cannot really help you with editing that wiki. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 04:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @DoubleGrazing, a native Finnish speaker who offered to help you before. @Eldyr88PHy$N, do you have a reliable source for the DOD? One of the obituaries you mentioned, perhaps? WPscatter ^t/_c 05:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, @Wpscatter. I actually tried looking into this the last time, but couldn't find a definitive source. The sv.wiki article cites a Finnish not-entirely-RS website which gives May as the DOD; even the Finnish National Library goes by this [1], by way of Wikipedia (!). So I think the onus is on anyone wanting to argue otherwise to produce evidence which trumps that source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. So…. You mentioned proof, right? Ummmm…. You see the first time I went through this I thought I had provided enough evidence with SSDI records showing this person had died in January 1969. I also mentioned the same obituary source I did in this second request. {It would seem apparently that was the “wrong” thing to do, as one of your “colleagues?” said I shouldn’t share personal information …(Mr Honkonen was my grandfather) and redacted the data} So I find myself at an impasse. It would seem that if I am able to access the aforementioned obituary and post it as the proof you need the same thing would happen. Any new hints?

AND ….. I mean I was at his funeral. At 13 y/o it was my first …. something one doesn’t easily forget. Eldyr88PHy$N (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Eldyr88PHy$N, I'm not sure what information you provided before, but as long as the information you provide is publicly available (and therefore verifiable) it should be fine. Citing an obituary from a newspaper, for example. Note that you don't necessarily have to find a source that exists online. I don't know the Finnish Wikipedia's rules on original research, but I have to imagine your firsthand account is not enough to update the date (especially in the face of extant conflicting sources), unfortunately. WPscatter ^t/_c 13:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Eldyr88PHy$N, a direct link to the Sentinel Enterprise obituary you mentioned would be ideal, but if it's not available online, then the date of publication and the title of the obituary itself would be sufficient, so someone can try to look it up. Do you have those? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Let me check into that. The Sentinel might not be the ONLY source. I may need a little time so ... can anyone tell me how long this discussion will "stay awake" before it gets archived? Eldyr88PHy$N (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Eldyr88PHy$N the archiving is set at 2-3 days from the date of the last post. When you find the information, it might be better to just post it on DoubleGrazing's talk page, since they're the one who's offered to do the update for you. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Eldyr88PHy$N: always a pleasure to help those who appreciate it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll find the appropriately valid info and then post to your 'talk' page. Though to be frank I don't clearly understand talk vs reply. (it's an age thing!!) Eldyr88PHy$N (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I left some info on your talk page. Will I need to create my own talk page to see a specific reply? Thanks for helping. Eldyr88PHy$N (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Source or visual editor?

Hi. I just opened an account here. I followed directions to this page so hope I am in the right place. I have made some edits already, a few minor amendments and correcting typoes and the like, but seeing all the membership recommendations I agree it would be wise to hide my IP address. I use XML at work so I have no problem with your source editor but, that being so, do you think I should use the source editor or the visual one? Is the visual one for people who don't know markup? I really need to know if there would be any advantage for me using visual. I did a newcomer prompt edit earlier using the source editor. Thanks. ManGoBangla (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello @ManGoBangla and welcome to the Teahouse.

There is a few advantages using the visual edit as it is a new way to edit without the need to understand any code or markup compared to the source editor. Either which editor you use, the choice is up to you. For more information please see WP:VE. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 07:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, ManGoBangla. I will give you my opinion, which is not the "Official Wikipedia" opinion, since there is no such thing. I highly prefer the source editor. I am no computer geek. Instead, I am a long time self employed construction worker who has been editing Wikipedia as a hobby for 14 years. I have been trained to use the best tools for the job. In my opinion, the Wiki markup language is exceptionally easy to use for any editor willing to spend an hour or two or even half an hour learning it. I learned it rapidly by looking at the underlying code of pages that displayed things the way I wanted. Just as if I had purchased a new power saw or sander and wanted to try it out, and asked for advice from craftspeople who had already accomplished things similar to what I wanted to do. There are many people, paid (understandably) and unpaid (mostly out of idealism), who deride the source editor. On the other hand, I love it because it works well on every platform, and facilitates collaborative editing, which is the key to Wikipedia's success as a worldwide Top Ten website. If something better comes along, I will happily adopt it, but that day has not yet come. Cullen328 (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@ManGoBangla, you may find something useful at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1195#Visual_Editing_vs_Source_Editing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

And note particularly that the source editor allows you to edit individual sections, VE does not. Personally I really dislike VE because it so often doesn't do what I expect it to do. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, each of you, and I appreciate your interest and advice. I feel comfortable with the source editor so I will use that. There are obvious advantages too. I have been doing a lot of research and there is still much to read and to learn, but I think I have made the right decision by opening an account. I will have to decide what to edit now, but I have many interests. I have found this forum very useful and I am grateful for your help and kindness. I will certainly come here again if I need help and I recommend the forum to other new members. Thank you, all. ManGoBangla (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"staff writer"

is it ok to use "staff writer" for the author of a citation? ltbdl (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems like inserting <!--Not stated--> or <!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> is the standard procedure here; the former is mentioned in Help:Citation Style 1#Authors, while the latter is mentioned in the talk archives for that page a decent amount. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Nope. It will look like "a friend of my said xxxxx", to improve the skill of citing, please have a read on WP:CITE or try to use WP:PROVEIT, the latter is a helpful tool for providing citation with correct formats. -Lemonaka‎ 10:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

wikipedia page suggestion

Hi, My page was getting declined; whether there are any changes that should be made, may you suggest with that? [ Scottwilliam2609 ]THIS WAS MY USER NAME Scottwilliam2609 (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

There are numerous problems with your draft, many of which are detailed on your talk page. Please follow those links and read about the relevant Wikipedia policies. If there is a specific policy you don't understand feel free to ask here. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Scottwilliam2609 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read about conflict of interest and paid editing; declaring a paid editing relationship is a Terms of Use requirement; I note that you claimed the logo of the company as your own personal work. This was improper; by claiming the logo as your own work and uploading it to Wikipedia you made it available for anyone to use and even potentially make money off of as long as attribution is provided. Company logos are the work of the company, and must be uploaded under "fair use" to this Wikipedia directly and cannot be on Commons(which only host "free"(in terms of copyright) images. Logos cannot be in drafts until the draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia.

Please review the advice left by reviewers. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves and what they do. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself, only in what others wholly unconnected with the company choose to say about it. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Please see your user talk page for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk page

Hello. Why I'm not notified when someone has replied to my comment(s) on the talk page of an article? Every time I have to open "user contributions" page and click every single of my contributions to find out if I have replies or not! Aminabzz (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aminabzz, you only get notified when someone pings you, like I just did, or when they write on your talkpage. Beyond that, it's up to you to check threads that you're interested in, though WP:SUBSCRIBE may be of help. The WP:WATCHLIST is another way to keep some track of things in general. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have articles you are monitoring watchlisted? Then edits to the articles and their talk pages will appear in your watchlist. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aminabzz: Welcome to the Teahouse. Are you sure that they're not showing up in the icon at the top of the screen? You can check to see if Preferences → Editing → Discussion pages → Enable topic subscription and Preferences → Editing → Discussion pages → Automatically subscribe to topics are checked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I'm never get notified. But a few times Aminabzz (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

how to create a Wikipedia for myself if i don't have news articles

how i create wikipedia from my self SHASHWATPRAVEEN (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Basically, you don't. For a subject to qualify for a Wikipedia article, it needs sustained in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, it's probably more appropriate for a different venue like social media. GMG^talk 12:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello. One does not create "a Wikipedia", but a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself, it is a place to summarize what others choose to say about you showing how you are notable as Wikipedia defines it. Please read the autobiography policy. If no independent reliable sources write about you, you cannot have a Wikipedia article. You should use social media to tell about yourself instead. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

If you don't find the previous replies clear: writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

If you are in fact a big celebrity, then surely someone will write your article eventually. If you are that famous. Then lots of other people must know of you. Also, are you that famous? Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Archive Talk Page

Could someone please archive the discussion on the talk page of Emily Austin (journalist) regarding the page move. Thanks. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger I don't think it is customary to archive a section as recent as that, particularly since it is all that's ever been on that Talk Page and is not over 75 KB, which is the standard size above which archiving is advised. The methods to set up archiving, if necessary, are explained at H:ARC Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

ok thanks! MaskedSinger (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Correcting the Facts

How should I proceed? I want to correct an article on Wikipedia that's historically inaccurate. I have the public documentation to prove it.

Thanks for taking my question. Ed Morykwas (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Morykwas, welcome to the Teahouse.

You can only change or add information to a Wikipedia article if you have a reliable published source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. You shouldn't add any material for which no reliable, published sources exists. This is Wikipedia:No original research, which is against Wikipedia policy.

If you are unsure- let us know the name of the article, the changes you want to make, and the source of your information (this could be a book, a webpage, a journal article, etc as long as it is Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Qcne (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Ed Morykwas,

In addition to what User:Qcne said, you may also discuss the information you want to change on the talk page of the article, before actually making the change. This would let other editors know that you are about to change the information, and you can reason with them using the sources you have. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, here's the page I'm talking about:

Famous Birthdays

The article states that the Famous Birthdays website was founded in 2012 by Evan Britton. This is absolutely not true. I created the website in 1996 and sold it to Mr. Britton in 2011. I would like to amend the "Background" section of the Wikipedia article to reflect that fact.

Here's my proof:

The Internet Archive has a copy of my site from December 12, 1998 -- fourteen years before it was supposedly founded.

The Internet Archive has many captures over the years, showing when I owned and maintained the site. The most interesting one is from January 3, 2012, after Mr. Britton took over the site. The headline at the top says "Over 20 Million Visitors Since 1996" which definitively proves that it wasn't created in 2012. The copyright notice at the bottom also refers to 1996.

It was named "Site of the Week" by the Detroit Free Press on February 4, 2001 -- eleven years before 2012.

It was also featured on the front page of our local newspaper on February 22, 2001.

All I want to do is revise the Wikipedia article to tell the truth. Here's my recommended revision of the "Background" section:

Background

Updated to its current form in 2012 by Evan Britton, who has since described the website as "Wikipedia for Generation Z",[1] Famous Birthdays originally focused on more traditional celebrities (such as actors, athletes, musicians, etc.), but has since expanded to also feature internet personalities.[3] This shift came after Britton discovered that visitors were searching for individuals unfamiliar to him; at first mistaking the traffic as spam, he realized that the searches were of people with online followings such as Cameron Dallas.[5]

The website was originally created by Ed Morykwas, a Michigan schoolteacher, in the early days of the World Wide Web. A version from December 12, 1998 can be seen at the Internet Archive [6]. It was chosen as the Detroit Free Press Site of the Week on February 4, 2001 [7]. It was also on the front page of Ed's hometown newspaper that same month [8]. He maintained the site for 15 years before selling it in 2011.

6. INTERNET ARCHIVE - SEARCH IT FOR THE WEBSITE URL (Apparently, I cannot mention a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist, but it's easy to find.)

https://web.archive.org/

7. DETROIT FREE PRESS

https://www.newspapers.com/article/detroit-free-press-free-press-site-of-th/128501189/

8. TROY ECCENTRIC NEWSPAPER

https://riveroftime.net/troy-eccentric.jpg Ed Morykwas (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like information you should give to The Atlantic and other sources that differ from your claim, to get them to issue corrections. You may wish to discuss the sources you have in support of what you say on the article talk page, Talk:Famous Birthdays. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, done! Ed Morykwas (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

can you review this article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

the article is 3D Control Systems Stevannus rua (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Stevannus rua I don't think that it needs review, as it is already in mainspace (i.e. not a Draft). Thanks for improving it with your contributions. It still seems to have no incoming article links, so that would be something worth working on. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

+ its missing categories Stevannus rua (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to link the website

Hi,

I found an article: Daily Hive and there is no website. I added the website but realized that the website was not linked (can't click it to go to it). So then I undid the edit. How do you link the website? Myrealnamm (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Myrealnamm This is one of these things that's handled at Wikidata. If you add the template {{Official URL}} as part of the |website= parameter in the infobox, it will work. Some cases don't if Wikidata doesn't have the information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I was using the visual editor and clicked on the info box and edited and added the link. I will try it Thx! Myrealnamm (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

By the way should I add https://  ? Myrealnamm (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I added https:// and it seems to be linked up. Myrealnamm (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull I found the link on wikidata here:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q39087049

in the third column. Does that count? I tried source editor and switched back to visual, but the link was still in black letters, not in blue as a link. Myrealnamm (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Myrealnamm You don't need the link as such. Just place the template in the infobox using the source editor and it all works like magic! (I've done it now on Daily Hive). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, I understand now! Thank you! Myrealnamm (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

WikiTree

Advice, please, over a little war that has been raging on the WikiTree article (in which I have in the past been a participant but do not really want to resume).

WikiTree is a free genealogy site that generates very mixed feelings among users and ex-users. The latter tend to be disillusioned, particularly if they have been arbitrarily blocked, and to express themselves in at times non-encyclopedic ways. The former defend themselves by regularly manipulating the text of the article to plug their site and forestall criticism.

Do we just accept this to-and-fro as part of the rhythm of the universe, or is the apparent ownership of the article veering towards a breach of Wikipedia standards? If those who slant the text in their favour are actually employees of WikiTree, that would I think be wrong. But if they are just fans, what can be done? Keep countering their claims and continue the war? Belle Fast (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

If there is evidence of disruptive behavior, gather a list of diffs that show that evidence of misbehavior, and concisely explain the problem in a post at the Incidents Noticeboard. That's the usual way to handle people disrupting the productive work environment at a Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 16:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Belle Fast (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Fiction books as sources

On the page Bradley Winslow I've used a fiction book as a source for a description of his appearance. It seems accurate, but I'm wondering if that would be considered a reliable source? I've emailed the author about where he sourced his description, because from pictures it does seem accurate. I'll remove it if he based it solely of of pictures. Lallint 16:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

On the sixth page it states ‘This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, organizations, places, events, and incidents are either products of the authors imagination or used fictitiously. So I'd assume that means that he based it solely off of pictures? The description in question describes him as a "tall, somewhat portly man with short brown hair and nose ruddy with veins". Lallint 17:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

No, a work of fiction is not a WP:RS for a WP-article about a real person. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

No, and I've gone ahead and removed the claims. I'm not sure what grounds there could possibly be to use a work of fiction as a reliable source for a non-fictional subject—even if it is broadly accurate, it still is obviously written to suit the goals of the author rather than for the purpose of being descriptive. I see the argument where it's a description of a physical appearance that seems to match photographs, but you also added a blurb from the novel which described his mannerisms, which doesn't strike me as even having a decent chance of being accurate. WPscatter ^t/_c 18:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I thought so. I've removed it on the simplewiki article, too. Lallint 20:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Concur with the above. Works of fiction are not sources for anything except for direct quotes and synopses of the work themselves. For statements of fact, even attributed statements of fact, there's no way they should be used as such.--Jayron32 18:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is an inappropriate use of a work of fiction. In this case, the article contains three photos of Winslow, one taken during the American Civil War in the early 1860s, one taken in 1880, and one taken in 1898. There is no need for a written description of his appearance. Cullen328 (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Hi. I am back again with another question. Is it necessary to give edit summary and briefly describe my changes? Charsaddian (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Charsaddian Edit summaries are not mandatory, but are highly encouraged. I would recommend their use in order to better communicate the purpose of edits to other users. 777burger ^{user talk contribs} 19:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I fully concur - as an example - if you delete something without explaining why, many (if not most) experienced editors would revert your edit with the reason "unexplained deletion" - Arjayay (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Arjayay Thanks for the response. I got your point. Charsaddian (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@777burger Thanks for the response. The summary should be detailed or explaining it in couple of words is fine? Charsaddian (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Charsaddian, that depends on the nature of the edit. If it is routine and non-controversial, a single word or abbreviation is fine like "Typo" or "Rvv", which means "Reverting vandalism". Potentially controversial edits call for more detailed summaries. I will often link to the relevant policy or guideline, as in "Remove WP:BLP violations". Edit summaries are not the place for lengthy debates or deep details. Take that to article talk pages. Cullen328 (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Thank you very much. This is really helpful Charsaddian (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Protest against shameful racist attack against Ms. Upadhyaya

I would like to say I am very disappointed and upset about the racist attack of the Honorable Judge Upadhyaya who is clearly being attacked and slandered only due to the fact that she was born in India and that she is a woman. I hope people will see this attack for what it is and put an end to it. Wikipedia should be about equality and diversity and not stand for such attacks against people based on their birthplace, we've all seen that before. Here is the link to where Ms. Upadhyaya was attacked: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moxila A. Upadhyaya 2A01:CB10:9C1:B00:19FB:C740:1AB2:F46 (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Grievances about user behavior are not handled here, that should be done at WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This page says it cannot be edited because it is protected. 2A01:CB10:9C1:B00:1979:9196:7C33:303A (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

That's probably just as well. Accusations of racism in this case are completely baseless, and you would likely find yourself blocked if you continued making them at ANI. I'm not convinced this isn't trolling. But it needs to stop now. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I can assure you it is not trolling. I do not wish to upset your rules so if you say this is a blockable offence I will not continue this discussion any further. Just to conclude I invite everyone here to take a close look at the discussion and ask themselves whether they really believe it would have been held if the judge was not from where she is. Ill leave it to you folks, thanks. 2A01:CB10:9C1:B00:1979:9196:7C33:303A (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

She's a magistrate judge, and only in the news because of a duty she will soon undertake. It's doubtful that she's notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, so its deletion is now being discussed. Her birthplace and gender are irrelevant, and I have no reason to believe that anyone here thinks otherwise. If you have any evidence for your accusation, please provide it. Maproom (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I would happily !vote for deletion of a magistrate judge born in Boston of Irish ancestry or born in New York of English ancestry, if there was a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Her birthplace is irrelevant and has not been mentioned or even hinted at by any experienced editors. Nobody is trying to delete Tanya S. Chutkan, another judge assigned to a Trump case who is Black and Asian, and born in Jamaica. That is because many reliable independent sources have devoted significant coverage to Chutkan, plus she is a more senior judge. Cullen328 (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

She is not the subject of a racist attack, nor slandered. The article was nominated for deletion because it is being challanged as not establishing Wikipedia notability. David notMD (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Dear IP User,

Thanks for coming to the teahouse. Besides what everyone else has said, here are a few points for your consideration:

1. "This page says it cannot be edited because it is protected." Yes, as an IP user you are protected from AN/I, the admin noticeboard. If you really wish to raise this grievance there, you must become registered.
2. Per your editing history, you added unsourced information to the article Moxila A. Upadhyaya. This is discouraged. Please provide the related sources if you wish to put more information on her page, which you are more than welcome to do so, as it could potentially result in a keep from the AfD.

Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding info to semi-protected page

Can I add something then it will be checked before it is added? The paragraph I want to edit comes up empty but I can still type... JayElk33 (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@JayElk33 welcome to the Teahouse! Please could you link to the article you are talking about so we can see what exactly the issue might be? There is a type of protection called Pending changes whereby edits made by unregistered editors, or those who are so new that they are not yet auto-confirmed, do not appear until they have been reviewed and accepted by an experienced editor. But your account is past the point where that applies to you. So all edits you make should appear immediately once you publish them. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I just added to the section but when I hit 'publish' a message saying there was a conflict came up. That section looks blank now...

I'm trying to add a paragraph to January 6. Wait. I just looked and my paragraph is there...Ok. Forget about it...Thanks. JayElk33 (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, you can have a try for WP:ER process, especially use {{edit semi-protected}} when you want to edit a semi-protect page. For edit conflict, which meant two or more editors publish a same page at the same time, you can have a read on H:EC for more information -Lemonaka‎ 21:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Vikingskool

Could anyone come and help with Draft:Vikingskool

Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the teahouse. As commented from SlySabre , you need some more reliable source for this article. DisneyTVANews and What's On Disney are not reliable source. For the list of reliable source, have a read on WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. -Lemonaka‎ 21:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Fanoflionking, please be aware that the list of perennial sources, while quite long, is not comprehensive. It lists sources that have been often debated. Obviously reliable sources and obviously unreliable sources are not discussed. Cullen328 (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Question Artist Page

Hi! I've been writing this article about an artist that interests me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fastrose123/sandbox - some of my citations though are from galleries showing her work - is that considered unreliable? Also let me know if anything seems unbiased that I should change before I move it to mainspace. Any advice appreciated! Thanks! Fastrose123 (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fastrose123 welcome to the Teahouse. Gallery sources are probably reliable in the factual/verifiable sense, but such citations do not confer notability on a person in my view. It's the nature of art galleries that they publish a whole load of text about the people and artworks they exhibit (my fellow art gallery colleagues used to call all that pretentious guff: "art bollocks"). For notability, we need in-depth, independent sources to talk about that person in detail and in depth, or their work has been featured in notable museums. (see WP:NARTIST for details) You've included far too many sources for me to want to wade through to look for those.

What I would, however, urge you against doing is using quotations as a lame excuse for copyright violations. You can't simply put quote marks around a sentence such as "capturing the essence of the human form in all its nuances" without explicitly naming the person or body who said that. That's just text lifted from a website, not a quotation.

Does any of that help you? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that information! I did not realize about the copyright so thank you and I'll look to see if there are more in-depth articles or notable museums! Fastrose123 (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Question on submission of my article

My article is ready and has been written in plain Word. How can I submit it for publication in Wikipedia? Aut1945 (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Aut1945 Please do not ask the same question here and at the Help desk - I suggest editors only answer at the Help desk. - Arjayay (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Arjayay No. We'll deal with it here! I have already told the editor that at the Help Desk. This forum is for new editors, and this one is clearly inexperienced and needs our guidance. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aut1945 An article already drafted in MS Word will need to be copypasted into Wikipedia and all references used to write it put into the correct format. (You must have used your own words for this, and not taken copyrighted text from somewhere else).

You can create a draft article and work on it on Wikipedia until you believe it is ready for submission and review by using the 'Articles for Creation' wizard which you can find (alongside some valuable guidance) HERE.

I must advise you that creating a brand new article from scratch is a pretty hard task for a complete newcomer to Wikipedia editing. I would always suggest someone gains a little minor editing experience here first. It's essential you understand that nothing gets into Wikipedia unless it meets our Notability Criteria, and that only Reliably Published sources are used as the basis for writing the article. What is the topic you propose to create the article about, please? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The title of the article would be TODIM. This a mathematical method for helping people and organizations to make decisions under multiple criteria. Other equivalent methods such as ELECTRE and Analytic Hierarchy Process have articles in Wikipedia. TODIM has been extensively used in practice as well as in applied decision research since its appearance in the international literature in the early 90's. Therefore I do believe this new article can be quite useful to decision makers and students of the field. The article I wrote describes the main features of TODIM in less than one page and provides 15 references for those would would like to learn about the method. Aut1945 (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aut1945 Goodness, that sounds technical. I assume TODIM is the Portuguese acronym for Interactive Multi-criteria Decision Making? If so, there do seem to be a number of papers on the subject, so it could well be a notable topic - but it's beyond my small brain to comprehend them, I'm afraid! It is, however, very refreshing not to have someone come here seeking to write a biography on some unimportant TV actor, sportsperson, or anime character!

I can only repeat my suggestion to create a draft article for review. Trying to add something directly into Wikipedia when you aren't experienced in our policies and guidelines is a recipe for speedy deletion, I'd suggest. You could always pop back here and ask for comments.

Finally, if you are one of the authors of papers on this topic, you probably have a Conflict of Interest, which I would advise you to declare in advance on your userpage. There is guidance on doing that at WP:COI. It doesn't stop you editing, but it does ensure openness and clarity. I hope this helps, and 'good luck'! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I will try to follow your suggestion, Nick. By the way, the article is not technical at all, in the sense of having math formulas or anything similar. I happen to be the person who created the method in the early 90's, but I am not having any personal advantages or promoting the method from trying to publish this article and I really see it as a service to Wikipedia readers. The method continues to be very much used (particularly in China and the Far Eastern, I should say) regardless of the existence of such article. You are right: TODIM is the Portuguese (my mother language) acronym for Interactive Multi-Criteria Decision Making. I therefore consider that I can declare having no conflict of interest related to the possible publication of the article. How do I go about this? Aut1945 (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aut1945 There is no shame in having a 'conflict of interest'. From your answer, I feel you very definitely have a such a conflict (in the same way that I am the co-author of a serious and well-researched academic book about which I believe there is the possibility to create a valid article on the overarching topic covering the last 125 years. However, I know I would have a conflict of interest if I were to take this idea forward, and would 100% need to declare that connection. You do too!)

I would ask you to read through the WP:COI page carefully, and only request support should you fail to understand the processes involved. The subsection shortcut you really need to follow is WP:DISCLOSE. regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Aut1945. The crucial thing is that the article needs to be based on reliably published sources wholly unconnected with you. Anything by you, your colleagues, your institutions, your collaborators would be non-independent sources and usable only in very limited ways, and certainly not the main sources for the article.

You say that your draft "describes the main features of TODIM": that information, in particular, must come from independent sources, not from your own knowledge. If there is a feature that you know because you put it there, but you cannot find an independent sources that discusses it, then you should not put it in the article. verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Link bot in easy edits

What happened with the bot that made link-suggestions and that we just had to approve or decline? I really liked doing those   CharlesWritesOnTheInternet2.0 (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@CharlesWritesOnTheInternet2.0 I think you are talking about a feature in Special:Homepage (which as a new user you should have automatically set up). Choose a topic, then "continue" and you'll find yourself at a page where some editing will be suggested for you to try. This includes adding Wikilinks to articles. Please read WP:LINKDD first. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull I did this but Wikipedia gives zero suggestions concerning adding links. In the easy edits, I can select both options (copyediting and adding links) but only the first one gives suggestions (so no Wikilinks) even if I select all the topics. Is it possible the option got deleted or something?

CharlesWritesOnTheInternet2.0 (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@CharlesWritesOnTheInternet2.0 You are correct. I think that the issue is that the suggestions come from articles which have been tagged with the template {{Underlinked}}. Just at this moment, there are no articles with that tag: as you can see if you navigate to the template's page and click the "What links here" option. So, I guess that enthusiastic editors like yourself have temporarily removed all such underlinked articles! Never mind, there's plenty more to do: see WP:TASK. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I am writing my thesis about Wikipedia and needed to screenshot something concerning the link bot. Well, too bad! Thanks for the help though CharlesWritesOnTheInternet2.0 (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding official source

good day,

I had a small question about adding a source for citation. The source in question i want to use is an official government document that i can link, but it has the actual residential adress of the person who the wikipage is about on it as well. I hereby wonder if it is allowed to use it as a citation since although residential area is protected by privacy, everyone can go on that government website and ask the document in question up?

How best to approach this? Cause the info i need for the reliable source citation requirement is on it as well. Linking to it will show it in its whole Ubdead575 (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The link will be to the document on that government website Ubdead575 (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ubdead575: If the information is publicly available, then you can link to it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ubdead575 I would caution against using that as a source, as the "official government document" is likely a primary source. Quoting from WP:BLPPRIMARY: 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. It is better to find where a newspaper or similar secondary source has written an article that included the information in question. —C.Fred (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. What if no other source can be found? Do i just post the information then without linking to the reliable source? Ubdead575 (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ubdead575 Assuming that the article is about a living person, then by policy you should not add anything that is not directly cited to a source (see WP:BLP and WP:V). If there is no secondary source, then you have to wonder if the information is really that important. I can't judge that without more context but the best place to discuss the issue would be on the Talk Page of the article in question. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

can someone improve this article?

the article is Shared library. its made by splitting Library (computing). Stevannus rua (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Stevannus rua I think you would be more likely to attract interested editors by posting at an active Talk Page within one of the Projects mentioned at Talk:Library (computing). Most readers here at the Teahouse are new editors and people like me who try to provide help to them. This is not therefore a good venue for what you need. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

How to source Futon Critic

How does one use this <ref name="TFC"> and make it show up right? Source for The Futon Critic. See my edit on Mama June: From Not to Hot. Cwater1 (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cwater1: The name attribute of the ref tag is used to reference previous citations. So the first time a citation appears in an article, you need to fill it normally, and add the name attribute to the ref tag. That would look something like this: <ref name="TFC">{{cite web|blah blah blah}}</ref>. Then later in the page you can type <ref name="TFC" /> and it will link to the same reference with the same citation number. WPscatter ^t/_c 02:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Wpscatter and @Hoary. I got the article fixed. Cwater1 (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Cwater1. You have two or more references to the same one web page, newspaper article, or whatever. For any one of these (by convention, the first), you write all the details, e.g. <ref name="TFC">Paris Waldorf, "Tetrafluorocarbon and me: A love story", Vague, October 2024, pp. 17–19</ref>. For each of the others, you simply write <ref name="TFC" />. -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedians' generic writing on talk pages?

Hello, sometimes when I'm scrolling on user talk pages that I see someone say something like "Hello User, we appreciate your contributions, but if you..." etc. They always have an icon and they sound so generic, like a normal Wikipedian would not sound that generic right? Are they using a template or what? Waterard ^water?(talk | contribs) 06:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Waterard. You may possibly be talking about a notification left automatically by a bot telling the editor that they have accidentally linked to a disambiguation page instead of the correct article. I have received such notices from time to time over the years. Cullen328 (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but many of these are left by real Wikipedia editors. And there are lots of these messages like conflict of interest ones. Waterard ^water?(talk | contribs) 07:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@waterard: they're user warnings. a full list of them are here. ltbdl (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Waterard ^water?(talk | contribs) 07:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Waterard: Welcome to the Teahouse. That's because the users are leaving templated messages that are recognised as standard warnings. The full list can be found at Category:User warning templates. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I use Wikipedia:Twinkle which allows me to add those User templates to a User Talk Page with the click of a button. I'd really recommend Twinkle if you ever want to get involved in New Page Patrol, Recent Edit Watch, etc. Qcne (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

There are also welcome templates (Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates). Yes, they are quite generic. However, they provide quite a lot of starter information, links to gudelines and policies among them, so even if they sound somewhat non-personal they are much more useful than just 'ignoring' New users. --CiaPan (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• For an alternate view of templated messages (and one to which I subscribe), please read WP:DTA. --Jayron32 13:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I surmise that what's tripping up Waterard is that the templates are substituted, so they don't look like transcluded templates with {{the double curly braces}}. Welcome and warning templates are substituted—in imperfect layperson terms, they save with a copy of the template source wikitext instead. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Help with AutoWikiBrowser

Hi, I'm working on a AWB bot in Vietnamese Wikipedia and I don't know how to create a list with articles from a category in another languages' Wikipedia that have a Vietnamese version. Tried reading the manual of AWB but that doesn't help. How to do this exactly? Do you have to create a script for this? Hermioneswift (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hermioneswift Welcome to the Teahouse. Although we do have one or two very technical helpers here, I suspect you might get a quicker answer if you post at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser (or at WP:VPT). But try to avoid posting on more than one help page at once unless you clearly link to where you want people to answer, so as to avoid duplication of volunteer effort. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Article out of Date

Hi,

Thank you experts for helping me with this question.

In the simple wikipedia, the article macOS is out of date. For example, the latest release and the list of releases are not updated. I would like to add the "This article needs to be updated" template message, but where do you add it? Myrealnamm (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia is a separate project, but assuming it can use the same templates as en.wikipedia you can add Template:Update at the top of the article, or Template:Update section at the start of the section that needs updating. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! It seemed to work Myrealnamm (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn’t it be easier to just perform the update yourself, or am I missing something…? Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Eduardo Vítor Rodrigues

According to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, the information in the articles cannot be supported by tabloids. All information in this article (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduardo_V%C3%ADtor_Rodrigues) is supported by tabloids. Furthermore, the content on this page only concerns court cases. This content is biased and, once again, goes against the policy on biographies of living persons, more specifically against the principle of impartiality. The content should be deleted. Almeida Luísa (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Almeida. This is the English Wikipedia. The Portuguese Wikipedia is a separate project with its own policies and rules, so you need to raise your concerns there. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

... and just to comment that pt. is the only language version to have such a biography. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Video Games

I have left a couple of discussion on Talk:List of best-selling video game franchises and wondering if anyone would like to get involved P+T Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fanoflionking, you can try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Already ask thereFan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

intl not found

I have an existing Wikimedia installation. One day I upgraded my system. Then I got a message:

 You are missing a required extension to PHP that MediaWiki		requires to run. Please install:

intl (more information)

It had been installed. So I checked my system to see if any change had occured. The extension is enabled:

 cave% grep intl php.ini
 extension=intl.so
 [intl]
 ;intl.default_locale =
 ; happens within intl functions. The value is the level of the error produced.
 intl.error_level = E_WARNING
 intl.use_exceptions = 0

The file is in place: /usr/lib/php/modules/intl.souuuuuuuuuu

My questions: How does MediaWiki check for the presence of extention? Ideas on what I need to do to enable(?) intl?

for the record, this runs on an Arch system, the upgrade was part of `pacman -Syu` MichaelRpdx (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, MichaelRpdx. You are unlikely to get people here who are familiar with running their own Mediawikiinstallations. I suggest looking at mw:Manual. ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

thank you.that helps a bit. well more than others. :) MichaelRpdx (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@MichaelRpdx: This page is for help with Wikipedia. You can ask general MediaWiki questions at mw:Project:Support desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

BLP 1E

Cpeir asked me off wiki for advice surrounding Draft:Dalia Dippolito, the mainspace page currently redirects to Cops (TV program)#Impact on the Dalia Dippolito case.

I think while a mainspace article surrounding Dalia Dippolito would not be possible due to WP:BLP1E, a stand alone article called "trial of dalia dippolito" or something would be probably notable enough.

However I'm really unfamiliar with the relevant policies surrounding the subject and would like to make sure that I'm not giving the wrong advice, am I wrong about the above and is there anything else that I might have overlooked? Justiyaya 17:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Justiyaya @Cpeir - I've run afoul of BLP1E many times and often disagree with it. It sucks when it happens. I don't have any knowledge about this particular case, but Dalia doesn't really seem notable for anything else but this incident. She wasn't a celeb and didn't do anything newsworthy before or after. My guess as to why it was redirected/merged is that the merge sums up the whole thing enough to where it doesn't need its own standalone article. Obviously, that was an opinion and it could be challenged (just like anything else here), but that's my take as someone not involved in it. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

private editing/drafting

Hello, is there a way to work on a draft or severalpriv drafts privately? For a while, i thought my sandbox was a private draft workspace and just learned it was not. Thank you. L'Hommedusud (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @L'Hommedusud, welcome to the Teahouse!

You can use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process to create multiple independent 'Draft' articles, all of which can be worked on simultaneously. Qcne (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, but if you're asking if these can be worked on privately, i.e. hidden from other users, then no; you'd have to work on the drafts in a word processor on your computer and then transfer them to Wikipedia when ready. Qcne (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, L'Hommedusud, every draft page and every sandbox page on Wikipedia is visible to everyone, if they know where to look. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

understoood. Thank you guys L'Hommedusud (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

i see,the problem with word it doesnt show how things would look on wikipedia and i cant test tables, infobox , etc. , what about creating a draft to eventually submit it for approval, is this also accessible by other users? L'Hommedusud (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep, sorry- basically everything on Wikipedia is public by design. Qcne (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, L'Hommedusud, this is a collaborative project by design, and any editor can take a look at any time at what any other editor is working on. Cullen328 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

no worries thanks again L'Hommedusud (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@L'Hommedusud One suggestion is to place your draft text into your sandbox but only ever "Preview" it, never publish/save it. To be absolutely certain you don't accidentally save work-in-process you can set Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing so that the software won't allow you to save unless you have also added an edit summary: which in this case I deliberately don't do! I copy/paste the growing Wikitext to and from an editor on my PC. Word is not good for this as it has the annoying habit of, for example, converting two single ' (for italics in Wikitext) into ". So I use WordPad instead, saving as rich text. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Mike Turnbull's suggestion is a good one,L'Hommedusud. However, you will lose your work in progress if you experience a power failure. Cullen328 (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Have I installed User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors correctly?

I am a little confused is User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js installed correctly to my User:Govvy/common.js? Govvy (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Govvy There is a page of test cases at User:Trappist_the_monk/HarvErrors/testcases which should help you decide. If they don't work, you would probably be best off consulting TtM directly on their Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Philadelphia Baseball Wall of Fame

I am trying to add the 2023 class to the Philadelphia Baseball Wall of Fame. However, it is not letting me add Scott Rolen into the column. Please help. Thanks. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Pennsylvania2. I fixed the table layout by removing a wrong row start.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennsylvania2 at an unknown date/time

placeholder editor question name™

is there any particular reason you can't edit policy pages with the visual editor? cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 20:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Are these pages semi-protected by any chance? Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

i at least can edit the one that led to this question

but considering its contents, there's no actual need for any edits, it's pretty good lmao cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 21:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:VisualEditor#Limitations the visual editor is not available in the Wikipedia namespace. RudolfRed (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cog-san. Policy pages are in the Wikipedia namespace which means page names starting with "Wikipedia:". This namespace is often used for discussions, e.g. this Teahouse page. VisualEditor is poorly suited for discussions so most or all normal interface links to VisualEditor are omitted in the Wikipedia namespace and some other namespaces. You can still use VisualEditor by starting a source edit and then manually changing action=edit to veaction=edit in the url. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

oh yeah i guess that makes sense, some of the things there look pretty hard to get right with the visual layout

thank cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 21:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Novem_Linguae/Scripts/VisualEditorEverywhere NotAGenious (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

First article

There's a draft for a new help page here, intended as an improvement to Help:Your first article, prompted by this discussion.

Since this venue is frequented by newcomers and the people who field their questions, I thought this might be a good place to ask: which version would you rather point a newcomer towards / read as a newcomer? (current, draft)

If both pages end up in the Help: namespace, what titles should they be at?

Feel free to respond here or here. (COI note: I've edited both versions and haven't had a strong opinion since July). Folly Mox (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking into the nutshell: "The topic of the article must be notable, and have in-depth coverage in reliable sources." This suggests to me that being notable and having such coverage are two different matters; but actually the latter constitutes the former. -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Glossing over it, the newer one seems more friendly(?) than the old one. Honestly I don't know which I would prefer as I prefer less human articles if they get me more info. If you want extra you may want to bring this to wp:RFC. ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Username change?

I am attempting to change my username, but it appears that there isn't this option on the preferences page. Is there any way anyone can change their username by their selves? AvisCulta (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@AvisCulta: No, you can't do it yourself. Read WP:CHUN for how to ask for a change. RudolfRed (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

AvisCulta, an alternative is to simply abandon your current account and never use it again. Open a new account and move on. Cullen328 (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I see that AvisCulta now redirects to User:Ala culta. Is that the name change you want? David notMD (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It worked. Ala culta (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

shark cage diving -- self-propelled shark proof cage.

 Courtesy link: Shark_cage_diving § Self-propelled_version

How do I respond when someone tags "clarification needed". Can I talk to the person who placed the tag and how do I explain the answer. Am I on the. Wiki project Adelaide. site Regards margesson Margesson (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Margesson: Assuming you're asking about a particular edit made to a particular article, you can ask for clarification on the article's corresponding talk page. Just go to the top of the article's talk page, click on "New Section", and then post your comment/question/request in the editing window that opens up. It's also helpful if you're asking about a particular edit to WP:PING the person who made it. You can generally find the name of this person by checking the article's editing history since it lists all of the edits that were made and who made them. Once you find who made the edit, you can simply begin your post with the syntax {{ping|other person's username}}. As long as you get the other person's user name correct and properly WP:SIGN your post before clicking "Publish changes", the other person should receive a notification about your post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

(e/c) It doesn't really matter who added those flags. Clarification of jargon expressions are needed to help the general reader to understand the article. You can discuss this on the article talk page as I see you are already doing. And please always provide a link to any article about which you are asking. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Citing a 18th Century Trial Record as a Primary Source

Hello! (my first time on Teahouse!)

This week I drafted an article for an early 18th century pirate named Dennis McCarthy (primarily notable for his involvement in a 1718 trial that marked the end of the golden age of piracy). My main primary source was http://baylusbrooks.com/index_files/Page4550.htm, a site that hosts transcripts of original records, including Dennis' trial (linked). My draft was rejected because this source - the website at least - is not reliable enough and therefore a WP:NOR violation. I was asked to clarify the sourcing. This is fair, but how do I do that? What is the proper citation format for such a unique trial document?

here's a link to the draft: Draft:Dennis McCarthy (pirate) Cleophelps64 (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem is not the reliability of the source but its independence. Trial records are primary sources, and while uncontroversial factual information may be cited to them, the bulk of an article, and the notability of its subject, must depend on secondary sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

MURULE

Talk page : MURULE is still not published or has been re-directed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawiye

We want to remove redirection of MURULE, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murule from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawiye because MURULE is a separate clan of HAWIYE. We couldn't do this every other time. pls make the changes.... Dalahow (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Dalahow, I want to be sure I understand. There is a draft of an article on Talk:Murule. Do you want to move that to Murule (which is currently a redirect)? Rjjiii (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dalahow: I looked into it a bit more and see that you previously did a Murule article draft that was not approved because of the sources. Mcmatter declined the draft and I won't speak for them, but the sources look off to me as well. Wikipedia's standard for a standalone article is usually summarized as: at least 3 independent and reliable secondary sources. Because the sources in your draft are self-published, it would likely be reverted. Here are a few potential sources that I have come across in a brief search online:

• https://www.the-star.co.ke/counties/north-eastern/2016-10-17-manderas-murulle-clan-inaugurate-their-sultan-in-a-colourful-ceremony/
• https://resilience.igad.int/improved-conflict-management-between-the-murule-and-marehan-clans-in-mandera-triangle/
• https://nation.africa/kenya/counties/mandera/murule-clan-powerful-leader-word-final--2464292
• https://web.archive.org/web/20070203141815/http://www.civicwebs.com/cwvlib/africa/somalia/1995/reunification/appendix_4.htm
• https://www.slideshare.net/Johanwesterholm/accord-reportclansinsomaliarevisededition20091215
• https://www.google.com/books/edition/Islam_Ethnicity_in_Northern_Kenya_Southe/s2h5Lb6obkkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22murulle%22+somalia&pg=PA141&printsec=frontcover
• https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Economic_Review/vNc0AQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22murulle%22+somalia&dq=%22murulle%22+somalia&printsec=frontcover
• http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/8927/Hussein_Inter-clan%20Conflict%20in%20Mandera%20District%20a%20Case%20of%20the%20Garre%20and%20Murulle%2C%202004-2009.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

And to be clear this is not an issue with the content or body text of your drafts. The issue is that Wikipedia requires a higher quality source so that other editors can better verify the content. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Creating a page that I have a professional connection to

I am interested in creating a page about a band that has a unique place in history. I am the ownner of the record company that the band has been signed to for 50 years. But I am also in the band. I have a collection of public records (magazine articles, etc.) as well as the archives of my record company. Band members, roadies, etc, have asked me to create a page, which we belive to be historically relevant. How can I (or we) go about creating such a page within your guidelines? Thanks! Mdancik (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mdancik. Welcome to the Teahouse!

Thank you for asking- it is definitely important to approach topics you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with very carefully.

Firstly, you need to make a Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure: this is a requirement of Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Instructions for how on that page.

To produce the article, I would suggest going via the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. This allows you to work on a draft and submit it for review by selected experienced volunteers, who will give you feedback.

It might be worth reading Wikipedia:Your first article which gives you the dos and don'ts of creating an article, and Wikipedia:Five pillars which detail the fundamental principles of Wikipedia.

The most important thing to know is that only subjects that pass the notability threshold, in your case Wikipedia:Notability (music), are permitted to have an article on Wikipedia. The notability requirements are stated on that link, but in essence you need to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover the band in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:

- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.

- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.

- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.

- From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.

- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.

Remember that your article should be written from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Writing an article is probably the hardest thing a new editor can do on Wikipedia so I understand it is daunting. If you read and digest all the above links you will have a much better chance of writing an article that passes our requirements.

Hope that helps, let us know if you have further questions! Qcne (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, lastly, just be aware that Wikipedia accounts can only be used by one person. More than one person can work on a draft or article, but each will need their own separate account. Qcne (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Editing expertise would be greatly appreciated for an “impossible” article..

Should I throw in the towel for Draft:Erin M. Jacobson article. I’m not sure there’s any editor out there who can help resolve this situation. If you think you’re able to salvage this project, please do so. Thank you in advance! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Geo Lightspeed7. An article is only deemed "impossible" if you fail to come up with at least three independent, reliably published articles that talk about a subject in some detail and depth. Have you found those?

To be frank, I'm not willing to look through over 70 references to check for you. So please tell us what you think the best three are? Just three; no more, no less.

If we can assess those, then we might feel this person meets our Notability Criteria for Biographies. My quick look over your draft left me with the impression that you have tried far too hard to squeeze everything about this person in. There's far too much trivial mention of things they may have done, and lots of irrelevant imagery. So, if we can meet the notability criteria, it might not be so impossible. But I'd probably expect to see two thirds of the content trimmed out to get rid of the trivia, and for you to follow the guidance given on the decline notice. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

COI/IP user in AfD Discussion

An AfD discussion has a Keep comment from an IP user. A significant edit to the subject article was recently made from the same IP. WhoIs on the IP traces back to a Comcast server where an editor with an undisclosed COI for the subject article lives. The writing style in the AfD comment closely resembles that of the COI editor. I am fairly certain, but can't prove, that the COI editor posted the Keep comment. What's the best course of action here? Thanks! MundoMango (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MundoMango. I don't know which AFD you refer to, nor how you know there's an undisclosed COI. But the simple way is to respond on the AFD discussion by politely asking whether the IP is connected to the subject or the editor, and let them respond. (It's also quite possible they simply forgot they were logged out, hence the IP address appearing. So allow them the benefit of the doubt.)

You could, of course, add a COI template to the article in question if you seriously feel it's an issue and suspect a WP:COI. But AFD isn't a numerical vote, it's a discussion based on policy, and those arguments count. What we don't permit is for one editor to have 'two bites of the cherry' by making AFD arguments whilst logged on, then making a second response whilst logged out. That's effectively sockpuppetry, and grounds for reporting to WP:SPI and for a block if they're intentionally doing that. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Nick Moyes, that does help. MundoMango (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Uploading my screenshot

Hello! Am I allowed to upload my screenshot of a video game? Where do I have to do it? LegoZols (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LegoZols Probably not, is the answer!

On the assumption that there is already a screenshot in an article you want to work on, then you would not be permitted to upload a second one. The reason is that, unlike a photo you took yourself, a screenshot contains copyrighted content that you have no rights over. That rules out any upload and release under a Creative Commons licence to Wikimedia Commons (because you aren't the copyright owner so have no powers to release it).

However, a screenshot is permitted here under a 'fair use' policy on English Wikipedia (see WP:FAIRUSE) to serve purely to identify the software. It still needs an appropriate rationale to be included to justify its use in the article. And a second screenshot under 'fair use' just won't cut it, I'm afraid. Click a screenshot image in an article to see how an existing screenshot has been justified, and never try to use a 'fair use' image anywhere else - such as on your own userpage.

Oh, and whilst I'm here, just a note to say please don't base any editing you do on other people's social media posts like you did here. Even if what they say might be 100% correct, we do not accept them as Reliable Sources or as the basis for making content changes. So, you'd need to use what you read purely as inspiration to go off and search for properly published sources to support what you say, and then insert those as inline citations into the article. Hope this all helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)