Wikipedia:Teahouse

Dbfirs, 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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hello @Nick Moyes. Thank you for welcoming me to Tea House! I didn’t know that regarding the three “independent, reliably published articles that talk about a subject in some detail and depth.” After it was declined the first time, I thought it’d be beneficial to cram in everything that I could find about the subject. Anyhow, let me go over it again sometime this week and I’ll see if I can make it work with what you mentioned. Thank you @Nick Moyes for your expert advice! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Cut some, but still so much more to cut. David notMD (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello @David notMD. Thank you very much for your help! I really appreciate it! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Geo Lightspeed7 the decline notice says significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. You might start by removing absolutely everything that doesn't come from a source that meets those criteria - just cut it, don't attempt to rewrite or anything. (You can always go have a look at the draft's history to find anything you cut out, so don't worry about cutting something "important"!) That will help you see what in your draft is actually likely to contribute to "notability" as wikipedia understands it. It will be easier to edit and rewrite from that point than from trying to pare down less important references bit by bit. There's nothing wrong with using some of these less-important references to fill out the article, but make sure you've got a core argument for notability first. Remember that reviewers are volunteers who want to help but probably don't know or care much about your article subject, and are staring down a 4000+ article backlog. The easier you make it to read your article, the more likely reviewers will do so instead of skipping it in favour of one of the other 4000+! -- asilvering (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Asilvering. Wow! Thanks very much for the extremely helpful information! I see where you’re coming from. I will follow your expert advice and see what I can come up with. I did find about five articles that seem to qualify regarding her notability, so I guess I will start with those first. It might take a few days for me to rework it all, mainly cutting the fat, so to speak. Anyway, thanks again! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 13:01, 6 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)

Some editing needed in the article "History of the Boy Scouts of America

My mind insists on an explanation for cases where what I read at one point disagrees with or is inconsistent with what I read at another point. I stumbled in reading the above-named article about BSA when I came to the second-to-last paragraph before the subtitle "World War I and Beyond." That paragraph ends with the phrase "West stopped his campaign to rename the Girl Scouts." The problem is that nowhere earlier does it say that West tried to rename the Girl Scouts. I assume that the last phrase is using as its antecedent the sentence, "When the Girl Guides of America started, West discouraged the program." It may just be picky on my part, but, as I say, I stumbled because earlier it was not made clear that "Girl Guides o America" is synonymous with "Girl Scouts." And, as a follow-up note, SOMEBODY must have renamed "Girl Guides of America" as "Girl Scouts of America." Sharethegrass (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Sharethegrass. The phrase that bothers you may be a remnant from content that was previously deleted. You can read more about the history of the rivalries among various US girl groups in the history section of Girl Scouts of the USA. Girl Guides of America was the original name of Girl Scouts of the USA. The group changed names in 1913. Girl Scouts of America was an entirely different group which is long defunct. You should feel free to remove any ambiguous, confusing, unreferenced language. Cullen328 (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Adrenaline Rush (stable professional wrestling)

I want to create this page. Skyangel15 (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You have created Draft:Adrenaline Rush (stable professional wrestling). It needs content and references before being submitted. David notMD (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Skyangel15 The "early lives" and other parts of your draft are full of assertions about what may or may not have affected the people you are discussing. Wikipedia has very strict sourcing requirements for statements about living people, insisting that there be no speculation, only factual content backed up by reliable sources. Your draft will not be accepted if it has such content. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Do signatures require 4 tildes or not?

If signed in, and editing is Visual mode, do we absolutely have to use the 4 tildes for our signature? I didn't know to use 4 tildes to sign my name in the talk section, and yet, my name automatically posted as my signature just from being signed in and hitting "post" anyway. Is this true? Am I missing something? Lilaponi (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@lilaponi: the "new section" and "reply" tools do indeed automatically sign comments. ltbdl (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Lilaponi (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

New Page no longer showing up in Search

I created Jeremy Leibler and it was showing up in Google search but doesn't appear to be doing so now. Did something happen to cause this? It's showing up in Bing which makes me think its some sort of google issue. Has anyone seen something like this before and can shed some light on it? Thank you. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Whitemancanjump23. The Wikipedia article shows up as the #2 hit on my Android smartphone Google search in California. Please be aware that Wikipedia has no direct control of how Google indexes Wikipedia articles. The only known path here on Wikipedia to improving Google search results is to expand the article, add relevant images, and improve its references. The Google algorithms, though imperfect, are generally biased in favor of higher quality. Cullen328 (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Really appreciate it! Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Whitemancanjump23, vacuous promotional phases like "thought leader", which are utterly devoid of substantive content, may lead Google to downgrade the visibility of an article. I recommend that you remove all such non-encyclopedic terminology from the article. Stick to the neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

ok. but what do you do when someone is a thought leader? is there an appropriate way to say it? Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Does it mean anything more than "people sometimes listen to what he says"? Maproom (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Google search results are not the same for everyone. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

What's a "roof body"? -- Hoary (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Roof body appears to be a term used by some Jewish umbrella organizations. I wouldn't use that term without explanation in a general encyclopedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Publishing Page

I’m trying to start a page about an old Chicago Irish band that my father in/law was a member of in the 1970-1990’s called The Irish Minstrels. ChicagoCymru (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You have begunm and can continue, at User:ChicagoCymru/sandbox. You have the same content on your User page, which is the wrong place and needs to be deleted. However, keep the conflict of interest statement. Others here may be able to advise on music notability. David notMD (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Currently no article is titled "The Irish Minstrels"; so if your draft becomes an article, it can be so titled. (The complication in "The Irish Minstrels (Chicago)" is unnecessary.) Remember that everything the draft says must be based on what Wikipedia regards as "reliable sources". -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone has already given this to you, but in addition to Reliable sources as given by Hoary above, you may want to also read these other guidelines Notability for music topics and Your first article to guide your editing. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

A question about the 2014 Olympics medal count

2014 Winter Olympics medal table - Wikipedia In this part I found a error about Aleksandr Kasyanov. It is said about this part that he is a composer amd died in 1982. It doesn't make sense. Can you change this part to the right person? 116.45.228.142 (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. His name was misspelled and I have corrected it. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Add a page in English to the Hebrew page https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/אהרן_מרדכי_פריימן

I would like to create a page in the English wiki, translated and possibly improved from the Hebrew page referenced above. Accelerator-physicist (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Accelerator-physicist You can certainly base a biography here on one in Hebrew. Please see WP:TRANSLATE for some general considerations. Also note that our notability guidelines here are likely to be more restrictive. As I don't speak Hebrew, I can't judge how good the sources used there will prove to be. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Mike. I will look up the WP:TRANSLATE page. As a bilingual English-Hebrew person, I can evaluate the quality of the sources. However, many of these may be available only in Hebrew.

My intention for follow up action is to link this page to other English wiki pages such as Rishon LeZion, where I noted significant omissions, such as the names of the ten founders of the town. Accelerator-physicist (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

English refs are preferred for English Wikipedia, but non-English refs are allowed, even to the point that those are the only refs available. However, this may cause a delay in a draft being reviewed, a reviewers tend to select drafts for which they have competence. David notMD (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Cathleen Mann

Asking if someone can reconsider the pictures that accompanyCathleen Mannbio. I was looking her up and noticed there is painting OF her painted by her father but no paintings BY her. That seems… outdated? Cheers. 24.1.32.126 (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia can generally only use pictures that are not subject to Copyright, which is a very complicated issue, partly related to laws which differ between countries. Since Cathleen's father Harrington Mann died in 1937 (94 years ago), all paintings by him are likely now in the public domain: Cathleen died in 1959 (64 years ago) so her own pictures are likely still in copyright. An expert of this topic would be able to give more and accurate details, which however are beyond my ken.

(To clarify a point that others may otherwise raise. If a person is dead and no public domain pictures of them can be found, we are allowed to use one in-copyright picture of them to illustrate their article on this Wikipedia only (but cannot place it on Wikimedia Commons for use on other-language Wikipedias). If they are still alive, we cannot because in theory someone could visit and photograph them, and then donate that photo to Commons.)

The only way to legally include pictures by Cathleen Mann in her article would be for someone (presumably her heir) who owns their copyrights (not merely the paintings themselves) to voluntarily release them using the correct legal forms (which I will not bother to link) to Wikipedia unpaid and for unrestricted re-use on Wikipedia and elsewhere, for any purposes. It is unlikely that the copyright owner of such works would do so. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

User:DefenderTienMinh07

User:DefenderTienMinh07 asserts that this is NSFW content:

Talk:Blackout gag

• search: "Tex Avery" "blackout gag"
• search: "Ernie Kovacs" "blackout gag"

....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

So what? Even if it wasn't NSFW content, it still has to be reverted for its meaninglessness. ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay...I'm not sure why this is at the Teahouse, rather than at a dispute resolution forum. I don't see the point of 0mtw's post to the talk page, either, but nor do I see any particularly pressing need to revert it, either, or to label it as disruptive editing. I'd say it'd be best if y'all just leave it, and each other, alone. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

ok I'll ignore that. ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is social media not a reliable source?

Social media is not allowed as a source in articles. That includes comments too. But however, can you please explain why social media is not a reliable source? And can you please give me more information about this? Can you provide examples of why it is not very reliable? How though? 2600:1010:B193:5833:D57A:88E0:EF64:685A (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)