Help desk
< May 1	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

May 2

Shortcomings of a policy prohibiting original research

I was recently reading the List of railway electrification systems article, when I noticed an unexpected entry for a railway shortline that I live nearby. As far as I knew from seeing it in-person, this railway is not electrified. I dug into the citations and discovered that, at least at one point, the railway was, in fact, electrified. Working through Google Street View imagery, I was able to determine that it was de-electrified some time between 2008 and 2013.

So, in my mind, there is no doubt that while this line was once electrified, it no longer is. So, I removed the entry from the article (this was about two months ago). Another editor reverted my edit, asking me to source it, which was totally fair! However, further research brought me to the realization that there were no reliable sources noting the de-electrification of the line, even though it occured over a decade ago. In fact, the only decent source online about this railway at all is the one cited by the article, published in 1999! (at which time the line would've been electrified).

Thus, have I found a flaw in a policy prohibiting original research? It is obviously incorrect to include the line on an list of electrified railways, as it is not an electrified railway. However, there is a wiki-worthy source stating it is an electrified railway which was published when that was true, and no more recent source claiming to the contrary. The evidence I have to indicate it has been de-electrified is original research, and therefore not acceptable on Wikipedia. I'm not arguing in opposition of such a policy, in 99% of cases I think it is a positive one, but is this the cost of such a policy? Or am I just missing something somewhere? P1^{(talk / contributions)} 05:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might help us to answer if we knew which article is under discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the first sentence of my question. P1^{(talk / contributions)} 06:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I realize you probably mean which entry on the list. I'm referring to the TXU Martin Lake line, under the 25 kV AC, 60 Hz subsection. So sorry about that! P1^{(talk / contributions)} 06:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P1, the first sentence of that article reads This is a list of the power supply systems that are, or have been, used for railway electrification. (Emphasis added). Accordingly, this listing should remain. Cullen328 (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did miss that before; thanks for pointing that out! My fundamental question about the original research policy stands, however, at the Martin Lake Line article, where the uncited claim that the line has been de-electrified is made. I wasn't the one to add that claim, but it appears that whatever editor did based it off original research. The articles two sources are the 1999 source used in the list article, and a database of locomotive photos. Other issues with the article and its lack of inline citations aside, wouldn't it face the same problem, that it must, inaccurately, claim that it is an electrified rail line because no reliable source exists (or likely will ever exist) to the contrary?

Or, is the problem that the article does not meet notability standards since there aren't enough reliable secondary sources to provide an accurate picture of its subject's nature? P1^{(talk / contributions)} 07:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, P1. The problem is verifiability. Because Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, it is fundamentally unreliable. What makes it valuable nevertheless is its citations. Arguably, an article (or indeed a single claim in an article) without a citation is completely worthless.

Suppose you add that claim that you know to be true, without a reference. In a couple of months, somebody else comes along and changes your claim (Denies that it was ever electrified, or claims different years from you). It makes no difference whether they genuinely think you are wrong, or they are a vandal wanting to disrupt. Either way, a reader in Birmingham the following month, or Buffalo next year, or Bangalore in five years hence has absolutely no way to tell which of you is right (in fact, in most cases they won't even look at the history and see it's been changed).

Having said all this: policies can be changed, and the place to argue for change is at WP:VPP. But to be honest, I think you're onto a loser with this one.

On another subject: please change the colour of your signature. It's almost invisible on a white background. ColinFine (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, photographs can be used for verification. I've put in a request for assistance at WT:TEXAS and WT:TWP. Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@P1: a citation has now been provided. Mjroots (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one that added it, lol 🙃. It wasn't easy to find, but it was out there. P1^{(talk / contributions)} 06:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith and bad faith edits

Good faith edits are not colored, however, bad faith edits are colored red. How does Wikipedia knows whether an edit is good faith or bad faith? Vitaium (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reverting editor makes the decision. For rollbackers there is a menu of "[rollback (AGF)] | [rollback] | [vandalism]" at the top of the difference display. "rollback (AGF)" is "assume good faith". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vitaium: If you refer to a background color at Special:Watchlist or Special:RecentChanges then I guess you have enabled revision scoring at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist or Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rc. See mw:ORES. If you refer to a red negative number then it's not about quality but size. See Wikipedia:Added or removed characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Please start an RfC to add instances of Love jihad to that article as mentioned here. I have no idea how to start it.-2406:7400:98:E812:641B:4F0D:329D:B41C (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How (and whether) to start an RFC. -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes balanced...

I know I've seen something that indicates that where a navbox links to and the articles that a navbox is in should be the same (or as close as reasonably possible), Can someone please point me to the policy or essay?Naraht (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht That's pretty close to what WP:NAV-WITHIN says. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Turnbull Not quite. If pages A & B have a navbox in them and the navbox contains links to A & C, WP:NAV-WITHIN indicates that the navbox should be added to page C. It does *not* say that either a link to page B should be added to the navbox *or* that the navbox should be removed from page B. I'm looking for something that indicates what should be done in regards to page B. Naraht (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so WP:BIDI says "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional." Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Turnbull Thanx. Exactly what I was looking for.Naraht (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on Reliable sources

I just need to ask a quick question about reliable sources, specifically the usage of primary sources. Would it be ok, if at all, to include a citation to a primary source, specifically a blog post, for something small like a sentence mentioning an update, if there are no reliable secondary sources available? LordEnma8 (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, blogs typically aren't considered reliable sources, though if it was clearly by the creator of a product, for instance, then that might be an exception. You might be better off discussing this at the Talk page for the pertinent article to get a consensus. DonIago (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LordEnma8, WP:SELFPUBLISH provides guidance about limitations on the use of blogs and similar sources. Cullen328 (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need help registering for Heinonline

I registered with JSTOR a ways back, but don't recall the procedure for doing so. Hence, I'm unable to add other research services, in particular, HeinOnline. So I need to know 1) where the list of resources is located (I'm interested in adding other resources as well) and 2) specifically what I need to do to register for HeinOnline. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Allreet: The Wikipedia Library is at this page. I've not used Hein there yet, but I just clicked on it in the list and got in. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill, thanks for the speedy reply. I'm on my way! Allreet (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a note for others: Once you access the Wikipedia Library (and meet the criteria that's outlined), you don't need to register but can access the resources directly. I don't think that's the case with JSTOR, where I had to set up a username/email address and password, but with HeinOnline, I just click the link in the Library and can go right to work without signing in. Allreet (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Allreet The Wikipedia Library gives immediate access to JSTOR, via the URL https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/. Confusingly, the banner at the top of the JSTOR page does have "Register" and "Log in" links but there is no need to do that: the search box works directly to find content. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike, it was confusing but I understand it now. I did register with JSTOR the first time around, so as long as they accept my log-in and nobody minds, I'll continue to use it. Elsewhere, I'll just use the direct access links. Allreet (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about appropriateness of an addition

I recently stumbled on this stub article on the unix/linux indent command. I am, in fact, the David Willcox mentioned in the second paragraph.

I'm amazed (maybe a bit overwhelmed) that my little side project/first big C program is still around (though much evolved through many hands) after more than 45 years.

I wonder if it would be appropriate add a short story about how and why the program came about in the first place. And if so, just how it would fit in the Wikipedia format. DAWillcox (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DAWillcox, if the story has been published in a reliable source, you could certainly add a summarized version to the article. If not - for instance, if it's purely based on your own knowledge/experience - you should not add it to Wikipedia. That would fall under the heading of original research (WP:OR). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about the source code for the BSD distribution of indent? DAWillcox (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, would this be considered a valid reference? https://github.com/ildus/bsd_indent/blob/master/README DAWillcox (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DAWillcox, the readme file of a piece of software would be a WP:PRIMARY source. Those are useful only in limited circumstances. What information do you want to use it as a source for? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is an earlier source than what's in the article now. The existing source mentions the README I'm suggesting adding, but with no link thereto. (So I'd consider the existing source secondary for at least some facts.)

It also contains the "short story" about its origin, which actually what I was wondering about adding. When I first asked I was suggesting adding that as personal knowledge (I was the original author, after all). But then found that README. (Interesting that something I wrote in '88 or earlier would be considered a primary source, but not if I wrote it today. :) )

So, I'm considering just adding a phrase to the existing entry thusly: "The original version of indent was written by David Willcox at the University of Illinois in November 1976 after a group starting a project in C spent a week arguing over the proper formatting of C code[new source]." DAWillcox (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DAWillcox, do you have a published, reliable source verifying this week long argument? Cullen328 (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the above conversation, which implies that yes, this qualifies: https://github.com/ildus/bsd_indent/blob/master/README DAWillcox (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DAWillcox, in my opinion, since it's not a secondary source (and since I have no idea how reliable a github repository is), it's not sufficient in this case. I also think the addition edges into "trivia" territory. That's just my opinion, though - you're free to disregard it and add the factoid anyway (though I'd advise you to declare your WP:COI, either in the edit summary when you add it or on your user page). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DAWillcox I agree; what's in the Readme is a first-party recollection. David10244 (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself rather bemused by this. At what point does one declare that a historical first-person account is not true, absent alternate information? It's clear that the participants in the discussion included that README accepted that David Willcox was the author of indent. (I knew Keith Bostic and he was in the conversation. I later worked on the POSIX standard with him. I'm listed as an author in those standards documents.)

And what would you consider a "reputable" copy of some computer document from that pre-internet era? It's doubtful that any physical media would still be readable. And if you don't trust a GitHub fork by someone with no skin in the game, what would you trust? For that matter, how would you trust anything you find on the Internet?

So maybe you don't believe I'm that David Willcox. Fair enough. I could be somebody else that just happened to pick this user name, and if I sent an image of my driver's license or passport how would you know it wasn't doctored? The best I might do is extract from the University that I was, in fact, a grad student during that time.

So, speaking as someone who happened to run across an interesting hint about how a program, written in 1976, came to be included in the BSD 4.1 release of Unix, on its path to inclusion in most operating systems running today (Heck, it's even on my Raspberry Pis.), would that rate an "External Link" with a comment to the effect of "See here for an account of the origin of indent." DAWillcox (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually here’s a more reliable link to the README in question. This is in an image of the release of FreeBSD-5.3. It’s as reliable a copy as you’ll get, not a GitHub clone that yes, could possibly have been altered.

https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=FreeBSD-5.3/usr.bin/indent/README 140.141.192.228 (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would I have to do to become a helper on the IRC channel?

I was wondering what the process was for becoming a helper on the IRC channel for beginner users? I feel that this would be good for me, as I like the idea of sharing my knowledge with those who need it, in order to make Wikipedia and the world better places. Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pablothepenguin, see here (and here further down the page). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Start by registering with nickserv on Libera.chat. DS (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me improve my page

I need help adding those cool little boxes with stuff about me and I also need help with adding a chart of my top 10 favorite rollercoaster so if anyone can help please message me on my talk page but you don’t have to. PokiBeni898 (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PokiBeni. For the first, please see WP:Userboxes.

Please note that our purpose here is creating an encyclopaedia, not social media. It's OK to spend some time and effort on your user page, as long as it conforms to WP:UPYES; but don't let it distract you from the real work. ColinFine (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PokiBeni898: What kind of "chart" are you looking for? If a table would suffice, try Help:Table. GoingBatty (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can I change my user name?

I didn't put spaces between the words, and I should have. 2600:1700:31D0:5D90:680D:ED2B:517B:D523 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may request a rename at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my "about me" page to Wikipedia

Hello, I'm a new user and would like to be included in the page on Homewood Illinois, Notable Residents. I am a composer and piano teacher born and raised in Homewood. I keep editing my information on the above named page, and it disappears within 24 hours. It may be because there is no page currently linked to my name here. Can you tell me how to compose a new page with information about my background? I have included references including being published in Keyboard Magazine in May of 1988 and a link to my entry on Ultravillage.com. Thanks for your help! Tom Parsons Tomparsongs (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Tom, but you have given not a hint of evidence that you are notable enough to merit an article in a global encyclopedia for a planet with eight billion inhabitants. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomparsongs: Lists like that are not really lists of "notable residents" at all. Instead they are lists of Wikipedia articles about notable residents. If there is no article, then there can be no entry in the list. Therefore, a Wikipedia article about you would be a prerequisite. But each Wikipedia article must be about a notable subject, so for such an article to you would need to meet our notability requirement, and you do not. -Arch dude (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Simon’s birth year

I see conflicting years as to singer-songwriter Carly Simon. Wikipedia says 1943 where it once said 1945. Doing a search, both years show up in various websites. Her website does not reveal that info. Can you confirm which year it is? Her books all say 1945. 2601:645:B00:63A0:6413:CD2E:7F87:CC84 (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issues about the Carly Simon article are best discussed at Talk:Carly Simon. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources give conflicting information give both with proper citations. It is not that uncommon for there to be some confusion about the year of birth of people in the entertainment business, e.g. Joan Crawford. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In show business, especially, it is not at all uncommon for performers to try to present themselves as a few years younger than they really are. I am not saying that Carly Simon has done that, but it happens quite often. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information about the Kimmorley Name

The Kimmorley name 110.143.194.241 (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, there is no Wikipedia article titled 'Kimmorley'. You can always perform a web search. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be sad no more. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]