From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Most recent archives
906, 907, 908, 909, 910, 911, 912, 913, 914, 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921, 922, 923, 924, 925

Remaining newby problems of a not-so-new-editor[edit]

Dear teahouse host

First of all thank you very much for being here so that I have somebody to talk to. I started editing in September 2017, but I am still struggling with problems. Probably what I need is mostly is being redirected to the right places.Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

@Johannes Schade: We don't normally get a volley of questions like these. I'd not realised they were from the same person (hence your comment at the end!). I've split them up into subheadings, so maybe they can be answered seperately under each section. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


I feel that Wikipedia provides too many ways of citing sources. Ideally I think that there should be a Wikipedia house style for citations. I know that has been discussed and rejected, see WP:CITEVAR. I feel that the "sfn" and the "citation" templates should be recommended for newbies. The variety still confuses me and I think it gives a chaotic impression. I started with <ref></ref> and then the "reflist" template but changed to "sfn", "reflist" and a list of sources below it that should perhaps appear between "refbegin" and "refend". Originally I used "cite book", "cite web" etc. to describe the sources but later changed to "citation" template for all types of sources. I feel the parameters should always be listed in the same fixed order, but the template documentation (e.g. cite book and citation) do not seem to prescribe a standard sequence of parameters. I simply think it does not look nice (or professional) in the code when editors add source descriptions which show different orders of parameters (e.g., url at the end or after the title). The "efn" template should be recommended for explanatory notes.

I had problems with the "sfn" template in the article "Jean-Antoine de Mesmes (1640-1709)" where I cite passages in three volumes of Saint-Simon's Memoirs: The link between the notes and the references in the list does not work.Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

I've run over the article for you. First I added standard headers to differentiate notes, references and citations. Next I've forced these aristos to just use surnames which fits the sfn/citation templates. Hope that helps, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Martin of Sheffield, thank you for fixing my link problem on "Jean-Antoine de Mesmes (1640-1709)". It seems to me that the link is on the parameters "last=" and "date=". I also looked at Siege of Derry and got it going there by changing from "cite book" to "citation" template. It seems it must be either citation or cite book etc. with ref=harv. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Martin of Sheffield. Thank you again for fixing my link problem in Jean-Antoine de Mesmes (1640-1709. I understand now much better how this linking works. However, without wanting to lack respect, I am not convinced that it is a good idea to force these aristos to just use surnames as you say. In fact, I changed the "last" parameter back from Rouvroy to Saint-Simon, because I fear that most readers will not understand. The memoirs that I cite are generally known as the "Memoirs of Saint Simon" and not as the "Memoirs of Rouvroy". If I understand it right, the Manual of Style instructs us to use the title and not the surname when writing about noblemen. Wikipedia:Surname prescribes: 'A member of the nobility may be referred to by title if that form of address would have been the customary way to refer to him or her; for example Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester, may become "the Earl of Leicester", "the Earl", or just "Leicester" in subsequent mentions.' For me the learning curve for becoming a good Wikipedian is long and sometimes I get confused. With many thanks for your help Johannes Schade (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
You are quite correct, the link is formed from the last name (or all of the last names for multiple authors) and the date, prefixed by CITEREF. For instance the link for your last comment would be CITEREFSchade2019. In general you should avoid mixing or changing cite XYZ and {{citation}} templates, some editors get very worked up about CS1/CS2 differences. If the article you are working on uses cite XYZ, just add |ref=harv. If the article uses {{citation}} |ref=harv is automatic. Personally, when given the choice, I use {{citation}} and let the system sort out the fine details. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Martin of Sheffield, thank you for alerting me to the danger of changing an article from CS1 to CS2. I know from WP:CITEVAR that one should adhere to the cutation style established by the first reference added unless this style is changed by consensus. I must admit that I forgot about CS1 (comma separated) and CS2 (point separated) in the list of references. There are many thorny details in this rule where an editor might be accused of disrespect to the established style. - Besides I see that you double-space after points (periods) when you write is that recommended? - I am not so sure how to seek consensus: by writing a note on the article's talk page? or do you also need to write on the talk page of the user who added the first citation? With many thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The WP manual of style covers this: "Software condenses two or more spaces to just one when rendering a page, so editors may use any spacing style they prefer (e.g., a single space or two spaces after a period/full stop ..." (MOS:PUNCTSPACE, subsection 10.13.1). For monospaced type I always use a double space, it makes it much easier to read. Not surprising really, this is the style developed during the manual typewriter era for typewriters that are inherently monospaced. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Martin of Sheffield, I did not want to attack you on the double-spacing. It is good to know about this, it probable is another thing that one should not edit and should probably be then done consistently through an article. I learned a lot from you. Thank you so much. Bye. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


I still wonder how you can join a project. Do you need to be invited? Do you simply barge in by adding yourself to the list of users of the project? There are a lot of local projects. In my case that is Project Northern Ireland as that is where I live. Such local projects could eventually take over some of your Teahouse workload. They might be ready to go beyond this and really mentor newbies because the local project will be able to profit from it.Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

There is no formal 'joining up' process. You can either add your name to their 'participants' list, or simply just align yourself with their activities and ambitions. Projects are very good places to give specialised advice on a topic, and the Hosts here often send people to specific Projects for that guidance. If you wish, you can even add a Project 'Userbox' to your main userpage to show which projects you support. (also forms a handy quick link to get there, too!) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Nick, thanks for your advice. I added myself to the list of participants of Wikipedia project Northern ireland. I will see whether this leads to something. Thanks for encouraging me. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Promotion[edit]

Articles should be created as stubs and then be assessed and improved. After substantial improvement they should be promoted to Start-Class, C-Class, B-Class, GA, A-Class and finally Featured Article. This does not seem to happen. Who should do all these assessments and promotions? Probably not the editor who did the essential improvement. What is the procedure to be followed? There seem to be big backlogs of articles to be assessed and promoted.Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

So as not to be seen as congratulating oneself, editors who put in a lot of work improving an article tend to not also upgrade it. Any editor can upgrade from Stub to Start to C-Class to B-class, although if articles have glaring shortfalls, a subsequent editor is free to downgrade. Getting to GA and FA requires an article be nominated and another editor conduct a review process, identifying weaknesses of the article in question and requiring fixes. Before a GA or FA nomination, the editor intending the nomination is expected to do a lot to improve the article first. GAs and FAs can also be downgraded via a formal process. Lastly, many experienced editors work on a draft until it could be considered to be past Stub class. The person conducting the Article for Creation review might be willing to approve and rate it Start- or even C-class right away. David notMD (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Content assessment for more info on this. Assessment is very subjective, apart from WP:GA and WP:FA which involve a review and scrutiny process. I try to avoid creating stubs; I think any good editor using their sandbox to draft a new page ought really to be able to begin with a 'Start' class article at the very least. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Nick, I surely agree. I thought there were automatic review bot.Johannes Schade (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Contents Template[edit]

The Contents template is automatically added to articles that have more than 3 sections. The Content box always lists all headings. The Content box therefore can become very long and this may discourage editors from adding deeper levels of subdivisions. Sometimes the citation apparatus with its headings Notes, References, Further reading etc. contributes more headings than the body of the article.Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

@Johannes Schade: Yes, true. Sensible section headings help users find the right information that they need. I've set my system up so that each heading and sub-heading is numbered, thus allowing me to navigate more easily within a long page. (For example, this subsection currently appears as 66.4 when I view it. I've had it this way for so long I've temporarily forgotten how I set it up. Let me know if you're interested in doing that, and I'll nip off and refresh my memory. (Or somebody else may remind us). Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Spell Checker[edit]

There does not seem to be an English spellchecker. That would be a useful tool when editing.Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

I know what you're saying, but many browsers like Firefox and Chrome (to name but two) allow built-in spellcheckers which can assist you with that task. (A nifty trick, if you're aiming for the highest quality work when you're editing, is to save your edits and copy the displayed page into a wordprocessor (like MS Word) and do a spell and grammar check there.) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
But... Be aware that Wikipedia has several different spelling conventions (UK, US etc). If starting an article from scratch, that's not a problem - you can write using whichever national convention you normally use and set the spell checker accordingly. But, when editing or adding to an existing article, you must follow the convention already established on that page. Emeraude (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Johannes Schade, a note on the above. Whereas it's fine to copy info into Word to spell check it, it will not work to copy from Word to Wikimedia software. There are invisible formatting artifacts that will copy with it if you copy from Word to Wikimedia software, and it is a pain in the rear to remove them. If you compose offline, use a non formatted word processor like Notepad. Also, a further addition regarding ENGVAR. If you start a new article on a British topic it's best to use British English. If you start an article on a US topic, use US English. If the topic is international in nature, then you can use your choice. John from Idegon (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Nick Moyes, Emeraude John of Idegon, I found that the spellchecker in my Chrome browser was not switched on. Now I get unknown words underlined in red which is very helpful.Johannes Schade (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Warning Templates[edit]

Templates like "More citations needed" display warnings indicating that the article has some shortcoming, e.g. does not have enough references. Having done something to fix a shortcoming should I remove this warning? I feel that somebody else should do it as I am now biased. Un unbiased person might find that the the fix does not go far enough (e.g. added too few references) or was of poor quality (e.g. the references were not not reliable). The article Siege of Derry has a warning "Needs additional citations" at its beginning, but there are 51 footnotes.Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

Yes, if you address the issue flagged up by the notice, then feel free to remove it. Another editor can always add it back in if they feel you haven't addressed the key statements that still need citations. Complex or contentious pages contains many 'factual' statements; each needs to be supported with a reference. The Siege of Derry article still has many elements unsupported by references. One should read through and consider each statement in turn. Are there citations to support each one? If not, it's under-referenced. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


I feel that quotes in the footnote are not used often enough. References often cite a source like "A Smith, 2010, p345". The reference might be a recent book that is difficult to access unless you buy it and the reference is therefore difficult to verify. The editor who added the reference obviously must have had access. I feel he should have quoted the relevant passage. Another reason to quote is that in some works pages are huge and without quote it becomes difficult to decide which passage on the page might have been intended. On the other hand having a quote also makes it easier to identify which piece of information in the text is supported by the reference.Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

Once again, I tend to agree with you. I have mixed feelings about seeing quotations within a reference/footnote. There are obviously copyright issues over long quotes, and a bad-faith editor can potentially create a false quotation. But, in general, my own view is that these would be helpful...and I should probably start doing it myself on the rare occasions I use references to real books, rather than online sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Johannes Schade, First, you aren't talking too much. You are asking some very good questions. I agree with you that the quote function in footnotes should be used more often. I say this as someone who hasn't used it often but I'm going to make an effort to try to use it more. That said, use it with care. there is no exemption with respect to copyright (unfortunately), so make sure to use a short enough quote that it doesn't fall afoul of our copyright policy. In some cases, you might feel that it takes a long passage to support the point, but a short quote will help solve one of the other issues you raised — on a long page it may not be obvious which passages meant and a short quote is included the reader can search for that short quote and feel comfortable they are in the right section of the page. This can be even more important on some documents which are long and do not have page numbers. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


Images are not numbered in Wikipedia. I find it difficult to refer to an image in the text. The text is sometimes a better place than the caption to discuss information that can be gleaned from the image. WP:CAPTION does not seem to forbid Figure numbers, but I have not found an article yet that does use them.

Perhaps I talk too much. Just tell me to go somewhere else.

Johannes Schade (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Crikey, Johannes Schade if you think you talk too much, you should read some of my replies here. They can go on foreveeeeeer! Oh, and Wilkommen to the Teahouse. Erm, as scientists, we're used to reading journals that refer to Fig 1, Fig, 2 and so on, and that's really helpful on a static page. We know precisely what to look at and when. The problem with a user-edited encyclopaedia is that content changes all the time. An image that might have been used for some years could, one day, be replaced with a completely different one, or simply removed as unnecessary, or the whole article restructured or rewritten. So, it's really unwise to try to link text and images in the way you allude to. One of them is bound to be changed sooner or later, and would bound to cause confusion. What we do is use images and write captions for them that stand on their own merits, yet which nevertheless add to the encyclopaedic value of the text on the page. Does that make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Johannes Schade: Not wanting to appear rude, I had not realised every one of the above question were yours. Wow. Prizes for the longest TH post, eh? Maybe in future you'd consider just asking specific questions about editing issues at the Teahouse. But I really welcome your comments, though it can be quite a drain to respond to general observations like these. WP:VP is the place to suggest changes; your own userpage is a good place to collate suggested improvements, until the time comes to unleash them upon an unsuspecting wikiworld. My own personal list is here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Johannes Schade: @Nick Moyes: I have numbered images and referenced the numbers in the text before for clarity. See Hexacyclinol. shoy (reactions) 01:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
That works for me. Thanks for the example page. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's a very good idea at all to add location/numerical identifiers either to image captions or to inline references to images, and a properly captioned and inserted image shouldn't require such a thing to be done. If there are concerns that an image's location or description is confusing to the reader, then perhaps the image should be moved, recaptioned, or even removed. People read Wikipedia in all kinds of ways so an image that you see to the right side of some text may appear below the same text to someone else; there might also MOS:ACCIM issues for people using machine readers. The same thing can be said for numbering because there's no way to ensure the numbering remains consistent, esepcially for articles that are frequently edited, and trying to do so might be seen as more of a personal preference than something in accordance with MOS:MOS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Johannes Schade, Numbering images is harder than it might sound, for reasons that have been mentioned above. In short, virtually all articles are works in progress, and inclusion of a new image anywhere other than at the end of an article would require renumbering, unless the software were revised to do automatic numbering and renumbering. I'll echo the comments of Marchjuly — you can achieve the goal by adding a unique text caption, which is probably a good idea on its own merits, and would make it relatively easy to refer to a specific image. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Philbrick. You convince me. I will use captions and refer in the text to the image by some unique designation, for example in the article Jean-Antoine de Mesmes (1640-1709) I talk about his portrait by Rigaud. I will just add a warning for future editors <!-- Do not remove or change the image without adjusting the text. -->Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

how do i[edit]

how do i add a picture and how do i make my own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason113113 (talkcontribs) 00:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Just read this article, first of all, then the relevant articles listed on your Talk page. PS: plus this one.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I need a help please? Dashti.88 (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

how many hours should be allowed before deleting draft article reviewed 1x[edit]

I submitted an article for the first time Friday afternoon. At 2PM Saturday it was declined politely for a fixable copyright problem with 1, possible 2 of more than a dozen references. HOW DO WE RESTORE THIS ARTICLE Deleted as G12 three hours after review board gave me their first assessment? I do not believe this warranted a G12 at all and in fact the reference cited was the one of the last minute additions to the article that has a 7 month history.My article is on a relatively new agency within the NIH. Why would you delete an article on a government agency so hastily? Mrphilip (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

17:14, 16 March 2019 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of, (thank)

There is also a thread about this here User talk:RHaworth#DELETION SAME DAY AS ARTICLE FIRST REVIEWED BY WIKI?. MarnetteD|Talk 04:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no editorial board, and if there is so much as a hint that material you've added may be a copyright issue, it is going to be deleted. No one has done anything wrong in regards this. Very simply, PD or not, write in your own words. They will never be removed for violating copyright. John from Idegon (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The answer to the question "how many hours?" in this context is "zero hours - instantly". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Let's try this one more time, Mrphilip. First our policies on copyright are more restrictive than the law. As this is a privately owned website, we are allowed to do that. Second, the holder of the copyright on Northwestern University's website is Northwestern University. They are a private institution too. Everything that appears on their website, even material that originally was published on a public domain website, is copyrighted by them. If you had copied the material from an NIH publication, there would not have been an issue (although, copying anything is weak practice and should be avoided). Copyright is a highly nuanced subject and can be difficult to understand. If you would have simply asked for an explanation nicely, and then waited until you got it, there would have been no problems. But instead, you were insulting and belligerent and you opened multiple threads in multiple places on the subject. There is no user manual here, and collectively, all of us are "the boss". Beligerence serves no purpose here. Decisions on all subjects are made by consensus. Consensus is formed by reaching agreement with the parties involved. Query: Do you think being insulting, belligerent and demanding is more, or less, conducive to forming a consensus? John from Idegon (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I very much would like to try this again John from Idegon and do so without the copyright infringements or use of any non-attributed sources. If my draft article were to be undeleted, my efforts would move more swiftly as the corrections would take under five minutes. I appreciate the lengths all have taken to clarify how the train derailed. As I have tried to relay, a simple revert to an earlier version seen that same day could have eliminated all the elements which have no place on WP. There is an historical timeline going back to last August which likely did not warrant a g12. As far as I know, that was not given a thought. There was a moment in the last 24 hours of the draft when another editor stepped in and updated the section titles quite astutely. The offending references were not there at that time, why could't a revert use that outside event as the possible landing place? What I most want to know is if it possible to see the undelete happen or must I begin again? Mrphilip (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Likely the latter. It's doubtful any administrator would undelete a copyvio. My suggestion would be that you apologize to the deleting admin and ask him to email you a copy. You'll need to have email enabled in your preferences. Oh, wait. You said others had worked on the draft too? Then the answer is definitely no. Because every edit made is copyrighted by the editor making it and immediately licensed to Wikipedia on a license that requires attribution. The only way the history would be intact to provide the attribution is if it were restored, and that will not happen, because of the copyright violation. Sorry. It appears you are going to have to start over. Two things before you do. First, write everything in your own words. I'm guessing that should be pretty clear by now. Second, I have doubts the agency you were writing about meets our guidelines for inclusion. See WP:N for the concept, and WP:GNG and WP:ORG for the details. In short, you will need multiple sources that a) discuss the subject in detail, b) meet our standards for reliability, and c) are completely academically independent of the subject. Any sources from the government will not speak to the notability of another government agency. Before you waste a bunch more time, you should consider whether you've even got an article or whether you should be making an addition to the agency in question's parent agency. Come back if you want help with that, Mrphilip. John from Idegon (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Does RS conflict with NPOV[edit]

It appears to me, that much of the reliable sources editors constantly bring up on talk pages are propaganda pieces meant to push an agenda. "Fake News" if you will. Now I personally believe most, if not all, news sources to spurious in nature. So if we rely so much on these "News" sources, does this not conflict with providing an neutral point of view ? After all, I don't think anyone would dispute that CNN or Fox has an agenda to push. Cheers Baldr The Brave (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Baldr The Brave: Welcome to the Teahouse. To a limited extend I can agree with the suggestion that many very reliable and trustworthy newsmedia outlet can sometime tend to have an intentional or unintentional slant in one political direction in their reporting (eg The Guardian newspaper (leftwards-leaning) versus The Times or Daily Telegraph(rightwards-leaning) newspapers here in the UK. I would certainly dispute your suggestion that this is synonymous with Fake News of the type that Fox News comes up with. To suggest that CNN and Fox News are equivalent and that they take the same approach to their reporting is risible. All the stories I've ever heard on Fox News about the UK are utterly laughable. I would never say that about CNN, who's reporting would be regarded as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Sometimes Wikipedia editors may selectively choose to use only one news source that fit their personal agendas, whilst intentionally ignoring multiple other sources that do not. I am concerned you state "I personally believe most, if not all, news sources to [be] spurious in nature". I hope, therefore, you never attempt to edit articles on Wikipedia that are based on reliable reported stories on well-regarded news outlets. Where else would you propose to get your 'facts' from to use as citations? Personal opinion? Reddit? Fox News? Instagram? YouTube videos? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)  

With the widespread use of Cameras and the prevalent use of the Internet I tend to rely on the rationality of my mind to analyze clips on events. Of, course I will watch fox or CNN in order to get bits of the Story. My reason consists of the fact that if the one outlet represents the left and one outlet represents the right I get most of the story. The man I trust most (well 2nd from my own mind of course) is a journalist by the name of Tim Pool. I'm not entirely whether or not he could be listed as an reliable source. Overall I approach all media sources with the same level of distrust a wild beast has to a cage. Cheers. Baldr The Brave (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

For print (New York Times, for example) newspapers have a policy of separating news content from editorials. There can still be a subtle-to-obvious bias to what stories are being covered and what not. I agree the distinction is not as clear for e-media. But even for Fox, there appears to be a divide between the newscasters (recently attacked by He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named) and the network's opinionators. Facts are a better foundation than opinion. The hot debate on what is NPOV appears to be about facts versus opinions, especially when some of the facts are in dispute. David notMD (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, WP:NPOV doesn't meant that we can't report what biased sources say about a topic, so long as due weight is given and the POV is attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Consider the possibility that reality may have other angles then left and right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
NPOV imposes a requirement for neutrality on the content of the WP article, the sources used are not required to be neutral. For many topics there simply is no such thing as a truly neutral source. Thus we are required to evaluate a variety of sources, and use them according to considerations such as reliability and due weight. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Baldr The Brave has been blocked in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a dark mode (aka 'night mode' / 'light-on-dark mode') for Wikipedia on the web?[edit]

I can't find native support for dark mode on Wikipedia (Chrome browser, Windows 10).

Dark reader extension for Chrome gets the job done, but if I browse typography articles I get 'black on dark' font specimens, so this gimmick is not viable for all the situations. How comes that the Android app of Wikipedia is so rich, advanced and customizable in comparison to the web version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid Hey GBE (talkcontribs) 14:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia, Kid Hey GBE. As you say, there are various Wikipedia apps for Android and iOs available (see WP:MOBILE, and some seem able to offer a nightmode. The only thing I'm aware of on the website version is to experiment by changing your 'skin' in Special:Preferences from the default (Vector), but none of these offer anything remotely approaching your needs, but you might find one you like more. Sorry I can't offer more help with this. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Kid Hey GBE: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has the option "Use a black background with green text". PrimeHunter (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Thanks for that helpful answer. Whilst it looks horrendous to me (reminding me of my first computer, an Amstrad PCW, from c.1990), I wasn't aware of this colour setting as an option in 'Preferences'. Good call. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Thank you very much for your help, and bravo for finding at least a hidden feature that emulates a dark mode! Unfortunately the 'green on black' setting performs even worse than the Dark Reader extension, as specimen from pages about typefaces becomes even more harder to tell from the background (ex. Of course such contents are displayed without any issues on the Android app of Wikipedia... For now I managed to switch Dark Reader from Dark to Light, which at least shows Wikipedia on a sand/cream background (still better than full white, and allows me to view font specimens). Kid Hey GBE (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia page for Films[edit]


I am trying to create a page for my upcoming movie. Kindly suggest the right way to create the page.

Regards Arunava — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunavachowdhuryfilms (talkcontribs) 13:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia, you shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. For more information see WP:COI Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.I would suggest that you not attempt to write about your film. Please click on and read WP:COI and WP:PAID. If your film meets the notability guidelines for films written at WP:NFILM, someone independent of you will eventually write about it; Wikipedia is not for promoting films. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
In addition to the above, if it is an upcoming movie, it is almost certainly WP:TOOSOON for it to have a Wikipedia article – that alone disqualifies it until after it is released and written about in independent Reliable sources that can be cited. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Help Creating a Page for a County Supervisor[edit]

Hello. I have tried multiple times to submit a page for a county Supervisor and I have been denied for many reasons. One editor said my page read more like an advertisement. Another said that the notability isn't created enough (even though her career as Mayor for a city with a population of 85,000 wasn't enough). This is frustrating and I need some guidelines that don't further frustrate me. Thank you!

Was any of those reasons WP:BLP (biographies of living persons)? JohnSmith13345 (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suefrost2019 (talkcontribs) 17:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Suefrost2019: - there are several issues. The first is that your user name appears to make the article about you, which is a violation of WP:COI, a policy against editing articles about yourself. The second issue is that the article is poorly sourced - all the sources I see seem to be government sources - either by the city, county or board - with the exception of one blog post. You need independent third party sources, ideally independent media, to demonstrate notability. The title of mayor isn't in itself sufficient unless the city is much larger, or there's coverage suggesting notability for something else. The info given during the article rejection is accurate but somewhat more succinct. Hope this helps. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Your use of "even though her career" suggests you are not Sue Frost even though your User name is Suefrost2019. So, lets set that aside. Most important issue behind the decline is that as already written above, being mayor of modest-sized city does not meet criteria for notable. David notMD (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Suefrost2019. I disagree with my esteemed colleagues timtempleton and David notMD. I believe that the main claim of notability is that she is an elected member of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors. Sacramento County has 1.5 million residents and that is an important elected office. Consider that we have 83 biographies in Category:San Francisco Board of Supervisors members and San Francisco's population is about 900,000. Similarly, we have 67 biographies in Category:Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. I do agree that the current refererences are inadequate and that you should search for more significant coverage of her political career in newspapers like the Sacramento Bee or local magazines or Citrus Heights newspapers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Error generated by Template:Designation within the Cemetery infobox?[edit]

Hello! Trying to understand why the infobox for Mount Royal Cemetery indicates 1999 as a national historic site designation date when its wikidata entry states 1998. The wikidata is correct - it's fed by a Canadian historical sites database that indeed indicates 1998 (on Dec 15). The page uses the Cemetery Infobox, which appears to use Template:Designation to produce the (faulty) date (am I understading this right?). I'm really not familiar with the way wikidata interacts with wikipedia pages, but is it possible that Template:Designation somehow misinterprets the data?Robincantin (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done fixed by @Deor:. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
(ec) @Robincantin: I've emended the date in the infobox. I don't understand all the details of Wikidata usage myself; but, as I understand it, Wikidata should never "override" data that is explicitly entered in a Wikipedia article, and in this case the date 1999 was explicitly entered in Template:Designation in the article. Deor (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Deor:So I was in error - it was manual input, I completely missed it, the template is fine. Much obliged.Robincantin (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

My title won't come out as a title but comes out as a heading.[edit]


I am working on my school project and my title comes out as a section instead of the title. Is there a way to change it to make it a title. In the sandbox, it is already set as the title font but counts as a section in the table of contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yangbr (talkcontribs) 17:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yangbr: You had the article title at the top as a section title. The name appears automatically when the article is put into namespace. I corrected it, and formatted the first mention of the title in the lede correctly as well, with three apostrophes on each side instead of two. Here are the revisions side by side. [[1]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Leaving page[edit]

Hello, sorry for silly question, but I can never find my page again once I have left it. I have drafted a page in the sandbox, but it needs additions (pictures etc.) and obviously I will need to visit it again. Obviously, there will need to be updates etc., and hopefully refinements from others. How do I get the page back in order to edit further? Thanks

@Proklam: Your article is here User:Proklam/sandbox. Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ so we know who you are. Cheers. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Proklam: A quick shortcut to anything you've been working on is Contributions in the upper right of your page (next to "Log out"). Click that to see all of your contributions and click any of those to go directly to that page. Schazjmd (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Schazjmd and Tim Proklam (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Publishing an article[edit]

Hello, Once I have finished the draft, how do I submit the article for publishing?

7light77light7 (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

7light7 I have placed a template at the top of the page that has a submit button. You can use that to submit it for review. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


can i create a Wikipedia about a Youtuber his life story and behind the scenes. Prakash Killer (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Prakash Killer

Hello Prakash Killer. Welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article about someone is the hardest thing to achieve here, especially for an inexperienced editor. We judge whether or not to accept an article based upon Notability. We only care what other independent, reliable sources have said (in some depth) about that person. We don't care what they or their followers say about themselves. Your soon-to-be-deleted user page suggests you are trying to promote yourself or your YouTube friends here. That is a bad idea as you will have a clear Conflict of Interest and are likely to be unable to write in a neutral, even-handed manner about the topic. You would need to declare your involvement according to our policy written down at WP:COI. You subject would have to meet our criteria laid out at WP:NBIO. If you can't find sources to support the claim of notability, you will have no chance, I'm afraid. So that's the thing to look for first... ... have they been covered in the news media, in books or magazine? Having now got those references to hand, you should only use their content to create an article, leaving out all your own personal knowledge or opinions. Do read Wikipedia: Your First Article and try out The Wikipedia Experience interactive tour, before ever considering drafting a new article at Articles for Creation and then submitting it for review. Hope this helps a bit. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Am I allowed to use 'Dr.' on a page for others who are not the subject of the page?[edit]

I understand that the title 'Dr.' should not be used unless the person is known best by that name (i.e Dr. Phil). However, I am currently editing an article about a researcher. The researcher has received a lot of training from other researchers in the field, and they are mentioned in the article (to give credibility on her training and her prominence in her field). I would like to use Dr. for the other researchers she has worked with in the past (there are a few) and they do not have their own wikipedia pages (so I cannot add a wiki link to their full name). Would it be more appropriate to use Dr. or use PhD following the researcher's name? (as mentioned in MOS:DOCTOR that you can use it if there needs to be clarification on their qualifications for the article). Thank you Kgywu (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The use of titles you describe is excessive. Such titles will (rightly) be removed by other editors.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I volunteered at the Art + Feminism Wikipedia and want to write an accurate article and need statistics about Wiki I can't seem to find.[edit]

"91% of Wikipedia editors identify as White and 77% identify as men" I'm trying to discover the following a) approximately how many Wiki biographical entries are about women? b) How many Wiki biographical entries are about people of color? Is there a way to get that information? The gender and color identification of editors should not relate to the number of entries about women or people of color or white men.

The cultural myth that white men do "it" (everything, anything) better relies on the plethora of biographies we have about white men.

I humbly submit this - I don't know if we can get an answer or an approximation, or a "you should look..." NOTE: I can't see where to 'thank' Nick Moyes for getting back to me immediately - there appears to be a place to thank editors for their citations contributions, but not for their input. Do we not thank one another for input, or is this considered extraneous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityfolk (talkcontribs) 12:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we're all trying to round out the global encyclopedia Wiki has become.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityfolk (talkcontribs) I think we're all trying to round out the global encyclopedia Wiki has become.

Hello, Cityfolk and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume there's just one of you, not a whole town-load? I hope you enjoyed your Editathon; they're fun, aren't they? I got rather confused by the second half of your post, but to attempt to help you source data, you could try: WP:STATS and especially WP:EDITORS and Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia?. These pages are full of links to other useful pages, but check the sources and especially the dates as some stats are now quite old. You could seek up-to-date stats on numbers of articles about men versus women at The Women in Red Project, and they may have ideas on determining other types of article ratios. Offhand, I can't think how one would get an article ratio of "white:people of colour" as this would require some sort of categorisation that separates the two. I'm not really into biographies that much, but don't think I've seen such blatant categorisation used in that way. There are of course numerous categories which do help you get an understanding of some ethnicity of article subjects, but I'm not confident you will be able to find what you seek. If someone's done it, I'm sure a good Google would reveal some useful links for you. Hope this helps a bit. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Why a ban on NoDerivs?[edit]

I wanted to upload a flickr image, but the Flickr guided uploader says you cannot use photos with the "NoDerivs" attribute. I'm curious as to the reasoning behind it. I understand wikipedians sometimes want to crop things, but other than that, I don't see what else they'd want to do to an image. Seems to me that Wikipedia could just have a NoDerivs-images category where images cannot be altered, similar to how there's the "non-free" images category. GeekInParadise (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@GeekInParadise, the aim of Wikipedia is to produce a free (i.e. free from restrictions and fully reusable) source of information. Anything we publish needs to be reusable for any purpose, including commercial use and modification in any way. Because we need to be fully re-usable, except in a few very limited circumstances where fair use applies, we can't publish anything that has any kind of restriction on re-use. ‑ Iridescent 22:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

making wiki page for artist[edit]

need someone to inform me on how to make a wiki page for my music — Preceding unsigned comment added by THEGENARAL (talkcontribs) 22:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@THEGENARAL: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In short, you should not attempt to write about yourself or your music. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves, or for musicians to tell the world about their music. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. For musicians, that is written at WP:BAND. You would need to meet one of the listed criteria there to merit an article here; and if you do, you shouldn't be the one to write it. Please read the autobiography policy; autobiographies are highly discouraged. If you truly merit an article, someone independent will eventually take note of you and write about you. Also keep in mind that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable; anything good or bad can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@THEGENARAL: You would also need to declare your conflict of interest (WP:COI) JohnSmith13345 (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

First time publishing an article.[edit]


It is my first time publishing an article. It probably has a lot of mistakes. What happens after I publish? How long will it take for contributors to review and give feedback?

My current draft for the article is in sandbox mode. How do I know when it is ready?

Thanks for the advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiP Messenger (talkcontribs) 22:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@BiP Messenger: Please could you supply a title or a link to the page you are referring to? I can see no article in your sandbox. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes I haven't published anything yet, so I'm not sure if my page is public-facing. Is there an easy and direct way to contact you? I would really appreciate the help. Thanks!

@BiP Messenger: Note that the blue button marked "publish changes" simply is eqivalent to "save changes"; clicking it only saves what you did and does not "publish" anything to Wikipedia(if creating a draft). 331dot (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@BiP Messenger: Your username seems to be that of an app; if that's the case, you will need to change your username at either Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

331dot Thanks for the advice. I see "Publish Page" on Sandbox mode, but no "Publish Changes". If I change my username, the page I'd like to publish won't be affected, right? Is there a way to DM you? Maybe would be easier to chat?

Changing your username will transfer your edit history to your new username and will not affect anything you have edited. You can communicate directly with me on my user talk page, but as a matter of policy I prefer to conduct almost all Wikipedia related business on site, for transparency. I don't know what "sandbox mode" is referring to but again, "publish" only means "save". It's difficult to help you with your draft(even before you submit it for a formal review) if we cannot see it, so you will need to save what you have done for us to help. If you somehow accidentally "publish" the page as a non-draft article, I can move it back to draft space for you. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Feedback - Tissue Engineering of Heart Valves[edit]

Hello! This is my first wikipedia article, and I am just about ready to move my article (Tissue Engineering of Heart Valves) from my sandbox to the main space and was wondering if anyone could help give me any useful feedback on content, structure, organization, etc?

Here is my sandbox link:

Thank you so much!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carokim (talkcontribs)

Hello, Carokim, welcome to the Teahouse. My first impression is "Wow!" - you appear to have done a good job (albeit in a topic I know zilch about). So, forgetting the content (which, to be frank is really the key thing!), my pedantic minds says:
  • The draft is missing the absolutely essential WP:LEAD
  • Fix all the faulty dates in your citations (- they're all showing red)
  • Only use capital letters in sub-headings for the first word and for proper nouns

I apologise for it now being so late I've not actually read the draft or checked the references, but I hope this starts you off. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Tissue engineering of heart valves now in MainSpace. Congratulations on a remarkable effort at a first article. I hope your teacher acknowledges the extraordinary accomplishment. I added last sentence to lead, clarifying not yet in human trials, and reworded Research to reflect same. If I am wrong, fix that. At the article's Talk I gave it a C-class ranking. Not a high priority, but references are a mix of styles that therefore go to either the PubMed abstract or to the journals' webpages. (I prefer PubMed.) P.S. When you comment here or on Talk pages, sign your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Carokim: Yes - a really, really great job. Fancy having a stab at getting it on the front page of Wikipedia? If so, you've got seven days to submit it to Did You Know...? with a suitab;le 'hook' to attract interest. That would be an impressive achievement, though I warn you that the instructions to submit your first DYK are not at all easy to follow. Just for future reference, please be careful not to create further drafts on your userpage. That's the place for you to say a few words about yourself, and introduce yourself to others by explaining your interests in editing, etc. You have a special Sandbox link at the top of the page where new pages should be prepared. I'm going to take the liberty of editing your userpage to get rid of the WP:REDIRECT so that it doesn't take people directly to the article. Hope that's what you'd want. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)  

Creating Articles[edit]

So let's say I want to create an article called "Hytale". When I search Hytale in the search bar, it redirects me to the "Hytale" section on another page, which stops me from being able to create the article. How do I create the article about Hytale then? This issue has happened other times, too. When I wanted to create an article called "Mineplex", it redirected me to Minecraft, so I wasn't able to create it. UnsignificantEditor (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, UnsignificantEditor. Thanks for your question, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you can demonstrate that a name is definitely notable (according to Wikipedia's use of the word), you may 'unredirect' that page and use it for your new article, probably adding a WP:HATNOTE to both new and existing article to help users understands the differences and go quickly to the right article.
So, let's take "Mineplex" as our example. Currently, Mineplex redirects to Minecraft, yet there is not one single mention of the word 'Mineplex' within that article. I find that odd. Yet, on further investigation, I found this deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mineplex which tells me that the Wikipedia community doesn't think the topic of 'Mineplx', as then described, was notable. They voted to redirect this page to the Minecraft page. If your use of the word "Mineplex" is completely different from the one discussed there, then you may have a case for using that page for your new article (on the basis that it meets our 'Notability' criteria. But, if all you want to do is resurrect that separate article, you would need to provide and insert into that article new references to independent, reliable sources to show that the original deletion/merge decision was wrongly concluded. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Why is there no rule against misleading redirects? JohnSmith13345 (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, UnsignificantEditor. In principle it is possible for you to get to the redirection page and edit it to make it an article. But I would advise nearly anybody contemplating creating a new article not to create the article directly in main space (which you would be doing) but to create a draft using the articles for creation process. If you do that, then when you submit it for review and it is accepted, the accepting reviewer will move it to the most appropriate name, and sort out things like existing redirects. --ColinFine (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


what do i do?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamlover8 (talkcontribs) 23:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dreamlover8: None of us are mindreaders here. Give us a clue what you need help with, please? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
don't know what to doDreamlover8 (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dreamlover8: You seem to have gotten the hang of reverting vandalism. Are you looking for helping improving articles in other ways?--Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Need to learn all the features of wikipedia Dreamlover8 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dreamlover8: I'm sorry I'm still confused about what you're referring to? Do you mean stuff like Twinkle and Huggle? Or what templates mean? Or something different?--Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Where do i access twinkle Dreamlover8 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
""Need to learn all the features of wikipedia" Nine years later, and so do I! Take it easy my friend. You can activate Twinkle in the 'Gadgets' section at Special:Preferences. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dreamlover8: Ah I'm sorry! I should have been more specific. Twinkle is a gadget that can only be used when you become "autoconfirmed. To become autoconfirmed, you must have 10 edits (which you have 23) and your account must be more than four days old. You can request being confirmed here but such requests are rarely approved. Once you become autoconfirmed (Special:Preferences shows what your user rights are), you can go to here to enable Twinkle. Does that answer your question?--Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dreamlover8: You might enjoy The Wikipedia Adventure, a guided introduction to editing Wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Breawycker so I can't use twinkle now? dangit Dreamlover8 (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Need advises or suggestions on the AFC got denied recently[edit]

Hi Teahouse, thanks for giving us a place to ask questions first of all! I'm looking for help to improve my company page Hubb. I'm trying to be as neutral as possible and only added the information that's from 3rd party sites for citations. However the comments still think it's not follow the guideline. Any tips, suggestions, or directions to go to will be super appreciated!

HHW (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Henhuawang. Your draft includes the following language: "provides solutions to automate the complex workflows and tasks required to collect, manage, and market content". There is absolutely zero useful encyclopedic content in those 16 empty words. That style of writing should be relegated to promotional brochures although I doubt that those anodyne, uninformative words would be effective even in a company pamphlet or on a company website. Read and study about our core content policy, the neutral point of view, and ruthlessly eliminate every trace of promotional or empty language from your draft. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much Cullen328! I removed as much as the promotional and empty language from the draft page, would you mind take a look at it again and if it is still not align with the standard. Really appreciated your time and feedback! Best, HHW (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Submitting article for review[edit]

How do I submit a draft to be reviewed on mobile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitou012 (talkcontribs) 07:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Vitou012. Welcome to the Teahouse. Take a look at Draft:Paulo Victor Soares - there should now be a blue 'submit' button visible for you to send it to review. Do make sure this person meets WP:NSOCCER. It is an incredibly short page for an encyclopaedia. Is there no more information for this so-called 'notable' person available? Nick Moyes (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Soundwalk Collective[edit]

Dear Teahouse,

I would like to clean up a page. Soundwalk Collective has got two banners and I believe it is because editors believed me to have a personal connection with the subject. I have declared my lack of connection to subject on my user page. Please can you let me know how to proceed in cleaning the page, how the process works? Thank you! Sonnenalle44 (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sonnenalle44, welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds like your name should now be removed from the displayed list of alleged WP:COI editors. But you might just want to think about rewording your userpage statement which says: :I would like to declare my impersonal relationship with the Collective and it's founder Stephan Crasneanscki. It's a bit ambiguous, but I'm guessing you really mean you wish to declare no personal or professional relationship with them? Nick Moyes (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes Yes, thank you, I've changed the wording. Do you know how I can clean up the mess on Soundwalk Collective's page? Sonnenalle44 (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sonnenalle44:  Done I've also removed the multiple external links which I think are unnecessary and too promotional. Could you fix he 'Background' section? It's a bit of a wall of unreadable text. Try splitting it up to tease out notability and add references or removed unreferenced content. The lead should say more clearly why this subject is notable. i.e. specify one or more significant awards that can be expanded upon later, but avoid using phrases like "award-winning", which means nothing. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Nick Moyes Great thanks, very helpful. Sure I'll edit the 'Background' section. Do you advise a list format for the awards instead of sentences? Sonnenalle44 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Updating Wiki page for my mother, Jill Melford, Actress. (deceased)[edit]

If I were to supply information can someone please help update the wiki page for Jill Melford? She died last year on the 21st February 2018. She was born in 1931 not 1934 as thepeerage website wrongly suggests (I have both her birth and death certificates) and her work over the years was far more prolific than suggested as can be seen on IMDB. I am not a coding expert and have tried to edit the page to be more accurate but I throw my hands up now and hopefully someone to do with this can help. Best Alexander Leon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajl12no (talkcontribs) 14:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ajl12no: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry for your loss and sorry that you are having difficulty. Your initial edit to the article about your mother was reverted because it was not sourced to a reliable source. While I'm sure people believe what you say, we can't just take your word for something, as any user can claim anything here without a source. I see that you have already posted on the article talk page, that is the correct thing to do. Do you have an obituary for your mother that was published in a newspaper? That would be sufficient to establish her date of birth and date of death. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there 331dot and thank you for the prompt response and kind words. The times wouldn't do an obit because there was nothing on Wiki, which was somewhat upsetting seeing as Wiki is so woefully short of info in this instance, and sadly seems now to be the benchmark for newspapers. I am merely trying to at least get the right information on Wiki albeit too late now for a proper obituary. IMDB has a good source of the work done by my mum and I can provide both birth and death certificates. Mum being born of a different era always made herself younger for her profession, hence the 1934 birth on thepeerage page! Are you able to at least update my mother's work from IMDB in the meantime? Thank you again. BTW her middle name is/was Irene! Kind regards ajl12no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajl12no (talkcontribs) 16:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ajl12no: IMDB is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia as it is user-editable. However, the only source you need that she appeared in a production is the production itself, as it can be viewed to confirm her involvement. They just need to be added to the article. I'd like to invite other editors to comment on this discussion as for what to do to be able to source a date of death. I don't know if you could just upload an image of the death certificate or not- or if it is a publicly available document. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Your local newspaper would not run an obituary because it was not mentioned on Wikipedia? That seems odd to me; my local newspaper runs death notices for free and paid obituaries of anyone that will pay for them. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Birth and death certificates are publicly available as far as I am aware. The theatrical agents all use IMDB and the productions are easily verifiable if someone has the time and inclination to sit and watch all of them! I don't have a local newspaper in Chelsea, London and the Times (UK) was approached with the chance to write an obit and felt after looking at Wiki there was not enough to write. Her widower didn't pay or bother to put a mention in the smaller announcements. This digital world we now live in is a pain and as such, I am now on the verge of giving up on this, as the whole affair now seems pointless and if someone is faintly interested they can always ring me up! Why do I not count as a verifiable source; I lived with her for 53 years and can prove my identity if required... If we leave her alive on this site she'll end up being the longest living human and break all records...digitally anyway! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajl12no (talkcontribs) 16:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ajl12no: I can imagine how frustrating this must be for you, especially when other reliable sources such as this Encyclopaedia of Film and this entry from the National Portrait Gallery also use the date 1934. Might I respectfully suggest you take advantage of the link provided on that form to update the NPG of your mother's birth details, and even offer to send them a copy of the birth certificate as confirmation, if they require it? Once we see details published on reputable websites, we can use them. Sadly, we have to rely on such (usually) reliable sources as we would otherwise be inundated with false information if we allowed everyone to simply add 'stuff they happen to know' - even if it is absolutely correct, as here. Individual paper archives can't be checked by users, so we have to ignore them unless reliably published by someone. Bear in mind that Wikipedia doesn't even regard itself as a 'reliable source'. Just like, it is user-edited, and anyone can add anything there. We do our best to weed out unsubstantiated statements on Wikipedia, and we try not to rely on other websites like imdb that don't have any editorial oversight. Whilst I could find no obituary online, do bear in mind that we are happy to use references to printed news sources and books. Oh, and please be careful if editing the article itself (see WP:COI), and only add content that you can show is reliably sourced. Someone has made quite a mess of adding unsourced content which has damaged the page appearance. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I would add, as Nick ably did above- that I absolutely believe what you say. However, please try to understand that on the internet and here in particular, anyone can claim to know anything about anyone. We need to be able to check what is claimed. Please also understand that an important principle of Wikipedia is verifiability. You aren't going to be around forever to call up on the phone and ask to confirm the information given. It needs to be documented somewhere. I get that is probably incredibly frustrating, and I again state I am sorry. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I cleaned out the mess that Nick noted, and also removed the unsourced CV material. Nick's advice about working with the National Portrait Gallery to update their website is the best way to go to get that info corrected. 331's advice on the verifiability of her appearances in various productions is correct, but omitted a very salient point. Simply being verifiable does not make content encyclopedic. For a highly noted performer, likely every production they ever appeared in is encyclopedic, right down to school productions that can be verified. For a relatively minor performer however, we should only list productions where she is mentioned in reviews from respected sources, and verify that content to the review. This isn't LinkedIn. Our content is based on what reliable secondary sources have noted. If a topic is discussed in secondary sources, then you can use primary sources to add color. If you want a complete record of your mom's career published, you'll need to either convince or commission an author to write a book (or newspaper article) on her. I appreciate your motivation, Ajl12no, and you have my honest sympathy for your loss. None of that however has any bearing on the questions at hand, and I hope you can appreciate that. Article in question is Jill Melford. John from Idegon (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Although we cannot give the correct date of birth without a reliable source to that effect, we can probably remove the incorrect one, which I did in that edit. I am not sure this is strictly within policy, but the benefit/risk balance seem positive. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that removing all visible clues as to date of birth completely from view is the best approach here - especially when the disputed discrepancy is just three years. I suspect the family would not wish that to happen. I have added in a source to some of her other film work which includes the oft-repeated 1934 date, but with this diff have just referred her birth as being in the 1930s. It is unfortunate that during life (one supposes) a birth date was promoted which made her a few years younger than we are now told she was. Perhaps this is a good case in point of why we are reluctant to accept the word of people who tell us things about themselves, preferring instead to rely on citable, secondary sources, even if those sources have, themselves, been misled by the subject. I can see an interesting colour supplement story of the forgotten actress, the lost years, the Wikipedians, and the frustrated relatives trying to correct historical and possibly vanity-promoted misinformation, so typical of that period and perhaps profession, yet being unable to make headway. If a journalist would only write about the life of this clearly beautiful redheaded filmstar and these post-death issues then we would all have the information correct and new sources to cite, too. I mean this in no disrespectful way - I really can envisage their frustration. I feel we are rather powerless to correct this great wrong, but should not overly water down what other published sources have repeatedly said in print. But one final thought to fellow Wikipedians: would WP:OTRS be able to utilise a physical certified Death Certificate (the type we legally require for probate) to confirm such details? Or is checking archival paper documents way beyond our limited volunteer resources? Nick Moyes (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Nick, IMO, it's not so much a question of if we could but if we should. If her correct birthdate has not been the subject of secondary sources, where in policy does it say we look to a primary source? I'm asking here, not arguing. John from Idegon (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
We could certainly look at a death certificate at OTRS and confirm what it says, Nick Moyes, but that wouldn't obviate the need for a published source that readers can check, unfortunately. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @John from Idegon: It's an interesting question. I don't think anything obliges us at all to look to primary sources such as birth certificates. Quite the contrary. We ought really to say, in effect: go away - we're using what's out there in print and don't care a jot if we know or believe it to be wrong. That is the true Wikipedia way - of using published secondary sources. But is it the right way to ensure accuracy here. Of course, we could have a troll here, trying for some obscure reason to get us to change an article by pretending to hold a legal document- but I seriously don't believe that to be the case for one moment, and it would be offensive to suggest that. I guess I and others are trying to inject a bit of compassion, whilst trying to point out that our hands are really rather tied, and that it's not really for us to take it upon ourselves to fact check and correct a likely rather unfortunate self-inflicted error made many decades ago. Just maybe there are odd times when we should if we could. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking for template to invite an editor into a discussion[edit]

Good morning, Wikipedians. I remember seeing somewhere a template for inviting an editor into a discussion, however I can't find it now. I'd greatly appreciate any assistance in locating it. Thank you. GGSloth (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@GGSloth: You could try a ping with a text of your choosing. Lectonar (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
{{Please see}} can be used on user talk pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hah! "Please see" -- That's the one I saw! Many thanks to you both. :) GGSloth (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

uploading a photo to a website[edit]

I am in a Chinese finger trap with Wikimedia. I attempted to upload a photograph of a person, claiming ownership, but it was flagged for copyright reasons that confused me. I had someone else attempt to do it, claiming a different owner, same photo. Although my attempt was flagged, citing copyright problems, his was flagged because I'd claimed ownership. I would sorely like to change the image on a person's wikipedia page to a better image, especially since she's about to be given a major honor and her current photo is terrible, but don't know how to proceed. I'd like to resolve this as quickly as humanly possible. I am willing to relinquish ownership (this is for a university professor and I work at the university) of the image (I'd claimed ownership because I work in the university communications department and thought it would just be most efficient for me to claim to own the photo). Now Im in a quandary: I want the university to own it and get that on her site before the awards ceremony. HELP please. I can't remember what the copyright issues were, and can't find the archived string of comments from those who flagged the image. Kgberg (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • The image is (I assume) one of Jelena Kovačević. Here is a link to a discussion you had with the good folks on the Commons help desk (your last edit was on March 5).
I can rephrase the advice you were given in that thread, but the substance has not changed:
Since the photograph's copyright belongs (very likely) to the university, you need to have the university's permission to upload it on Commons under a free license. You might have to check who has the authority to make such a copyright release - the head of the communication team (who can be you) might have it, but you might need to check with your legal/IP department or such.
Once you have that permission, see the instructions at commons:Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS? under the "I am an employee..." bullet point. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Pinging Kgberg. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much, that clears this up for me. I'll get this moving. again, thanks. Kgberg (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Just a quick semantic point. The university will not have to relinquish "ownership" of the image, they just have to license it for free reuse or modification, without restrictions, irrevocably, with the only requirement being attribution. Effectively there isn't much difference between that and relinquishment of ownership, but it is different. John from Idegon (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

upload a photo[edit]

hello, i want to upload the second photo from this tweet:

i want to use it as a photo for Sam Retford's article, but i’m unsure whether it’s copyright free. it’s a still from Ackley Bridge, which is on Channel 4 and produced by The Forge. would i be able to upload this? – DarkGlow (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: No, absolutely not!!! If you didn't take the picture, it's not yours to give away, is it? We take copyright violations very seriously so, "when in doubt, leave it out" Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: wow, keep your hair on. i didn’t upload it, did i? learn to respond to innocent questions without being rude. i expect a certain level of grace and etiquette from such an experienced editor... – DarkGlow (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@DarkGlow: Likewise. But, just an afterthought for you: If he's on Twitter, why not tweet to him and ask him to upload to Wikimedia Commons a selfie for the whole world to use? He can't give you one of his own images for you to upload on his behalf - as we need it to be properly licenced - though he could post a selfie (not some other person's photo of him) on Twitter, accompanied by the words "This photo of me may be freely used by others under a Creative Commons CC BY 3.0 licence. Please acknowledge Sam Retford as the source." Our WP:OTRS could check and confirm the licencing, and we could then use it on Wikipedia. But could he bothered? Only one way to find out...! Nick Moyes (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: you’ve seriously got attitude problems. like, seriously. – DarkGlow (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
DarkGlow, you need to chill. Everyone here is a volunteer just like you. Nick correctly answered your question. He didn't accuse you of anything he didn't threaten you with any consequences. He informed you. If you didn't like his tone, which I see no problem with, perhaps you may wish to reflect on the fact that no one who edits here at Teahouse has any obligation to do so. And also perhaps reflect that your question was answered for someone else immediately above. We are peers here dude, not employees. No one has to answer any questions here. John from Idegon (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, NM's first reply included No, absolutely not!!!, which is totally understandable for Teahouse regulars who see copyright queries everyday, but can be a surprising answer for someone totally unaware of copyright basics. So I see where DG got the impression of being shouted at. That being said, it was certainly not rude and DG might have overreacted. Let's all forget that, shall we? TigraanClick here to contact me 12:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@DarkGlow: There are basically two types of images you'll find used on Wikipedia: "non-free" and "free" (freely licensed or public domain). Non-free images are subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy which is quite restrictive. One of these restrictions is that a non-free image of a still-living person is almost never ever allowed per WP:FREER because it is almost always deemed possible for a free image to be either created or found to serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. Most photos you'll find online are going to be assumed to be protected by copyright, unless it clearly states otherwise; if it says nothing about file licensing at all, then it's going to be assumed that it is a copyrighted image. So, you almost wouldn't be able to use any such images unless copyright holder of the image gives their explicit consent and agrees to release the file under a free license that Wikipedia accepts. Sometimes it can be hard to figure out how a files been licensed, so when in doubt you can ask for help at WP:MCQ. In some cases, it may be possible for you to contact the copyright holder and ask them to release the image or an image under a free license; sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. You can find out some more about this at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.
Finally, one last thing to remember is that it is the person who takes a photo, not the subject of the photo, who is generally considered to hold the copyright over said photo. So, the copyright of that photo is held by the photographer who took it, not Retford himself. The fact that he posted the photo in a Tweet does not make him the copyright holder, and he cannot really give you permission to release the photo under a free license even if he wanted to without first getting the permission of original photographer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Can someone disable captcha? It's getting in the way[edit]

Dreamlover8 (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dreamlover8:. Welcome to the Teahouse. The simple answer, I'm sure is 'No'. But where are you seeing it and are you actually logged in at the time you're editing? I thought CAPTCHA was only commonly experienced when editing as an IP. I don't think I've ever encountered it whilst logged in. But were you adding external links to articles? If so, maybe Special:Captcha might give you an idea why it is still deployed. i.e. to defend against potential spam links being added automatically. Does this make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm just regularly editing and it sometimes pops up Dreamlover8 (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dreamlover8: OK, I've just checked your contributions and I see you're a very new editor. I suspect this will disappear after you've become autoconfirmed - a process of making a certain number of edits (which you have) and being registered for over 4 days (which you aren't yet). See WP:REGISTERED for an explanation - they'll disappear after that time, and you'll just have to accept it if you do want to insert external links - sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
See this user's query above, #help. It ends with a sock-block notice stamped 20:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC), barely half an hour after Nick Moyes' answer just above this. --Thnidu (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Thnidu: I was actually very suspicious of this 'new' user because their initial editing - although of a positive nature - was extremely suggestive of some with prior experience here. I guess I wasn't alone in that conclusion. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments on an article.[edit]


I am a new editor attempting to create a new article. When attempting to do so, I did not realize that this was not a recommended practice for new editors; however, it has been very helpful to have the guidance from the Teahouse to help navigate the process and to have the opportunity to learn from more experienced editors. I wanted to ask you if it is appropriate to request for a reviewer to remove their comment from an article - if another editor assisted to address their concerns? The article is [Draft:Kent Tate]. To me it looks like a red flag and the tone in the comment was not my intention for this article. Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The short answer to your question is no. All the comments will be removed when and if the article is published to the encyclopedia itself. Draftspace is not indexed to search engines, so effectively no one but you and other Wikipedia editors that are aware of the draft will see them. They are not incorrect. Your draft is a work in progress. John from Idegon (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: HelloJohn from Idegon Did you leave a message (John from Idegon left a message on you talk page in "March 2019" ...The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting topic.... I would like to respond but can't locate it? Did you delete it?LorriBrown (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I did. I had not noticed you had addressed that on your userpage. No worries. John from Idegon (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: HelloJohn from Idegon That is odd that you would post that because that is the attitude that I am up to no good - that I was referring to in the comment....LorriBrown (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

My comment (under the reviewer's comment) was to make clear that the draft has undergone MAJOR changes after the first submission was declined. This was intended to suggest that the next reviewer evaluate this as a fresh start. I had also suggested a declaration of not PAID and the nature of the COI, which you added to your User page. Again, intent to inform the next reviewer that a concern has been dealt with. Counsel patience. David notMD (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: It is not unreasonable for any normal editor with vast experience such as John from Idegon to see your single-minded edits to one article and wonder whether you were (or were not) using Wikipedia to promote a personal interest, to the exclusion of all else. I often wonder whether an editor has a WP:COI that they've not declared, and it's great that you did declare yours. Hence JfI's removal of his post. Here are all 1,326 of your edits thus far. To be quite frank with you, it is not an unreasonable conclusion to wonder whether you are here solely to promote one article and will disappear once the goal has been achieved. You have not made even a single edit to improve one other existing article thus far in your Wikipedia career. I find that odd. Typically (and this doesn't necessarily apply to you) these are the actions of single-minded editors who are trying to take advantage of Wikipedia. You have no need to be so defensive; just edit the article and gain some experience of editing other live pages. Why not try WP:TWA? Your contributions will be all the better for some wider experience in editing. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@David notMD and David notMD: Oh my. Maybe that was a poor choice of words in my reply to John from Idegon. It was not your comment David notMD I was referring to. It was the one left by the reviewer User:Legacypac "You have to tone this down. It is over the top promotional with tons of buzzwords and hype. Also you need to declare any WP:COI. I could have this quickly deleted as SPAM as it is." I understand that was their opinion - but I was hopeful since you helped to correct this issue - I could just ask them to modify the comment so it was not so alarming. That is all. Just wanted to know if it is appropriate to even ask. I have absolutely no intentions of offending or challenging anyone - and most certainly not you. You've been very patient and most helpful to me and I really do appreciate the information and participating that you've very generously provided!. I was surprised to receive the message John from Idegon in response to my inquiry as it seemed to a bit harsh. Thank you again. LorriBrown (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
My comments were spot on I'm happy to reassess the page when you are ready. Legacypac (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Legacypac and Legacypac: Sure that would be helpful Legacypac! I've submitted it for review again - is there be something else I need to do? Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 10:13 am, Today (UTC+9)
@LorriBrown: I'm not sure why, but you moved another editor's post with your last edit. Most likely this was just done by accident, and I've restored the post back to original location. Just try and be a bit more careful because moving another's post might disrupt the flow of the discussion and take things out of proper context. It might, in some cases, also be seen a sort of "editing" of another's post which we should really try and avoid per WP:TPO unless there's a really strong policy-based or guideline-based for doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Yes I tried to move my response to be next to David's post as I was responding to his post. When I was writing it the other post wasn't there but appeared above when I published it. Thank you for correcting it LorriBrown (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

New question[edit]

How do i protect a page from vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakhe123 (talkcontribs) 20:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sakhe123: If it is a persistent problem, make a request at WP:RFPP. RudolfRed (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

theatrical animated features[edit]

a lot of wikipias list of animted films inculde flims witch are not animted here the list

and many more see

some of these are live action animted i.e Woody Woodpecker (2017 film) while some are just live action i.e Bumblebee (film) or using puppets Team America: World Police, ertc where do we stand on this i suject using the acdmay award ruling witch is use on An animated feature film is defined as a motion picture with a running time of more than 40 minutes, in which movement and characters' performances are created using a frame-by-frame technique. Motion capture by itself is not an animation technique. In addition, a significant number of the major characters must be animated, and animation must figure in no less than 75 percent of the picture's running time.|source=—Rule Seven – Special Rules for the Animated Feature Film Award : I. Definition[1] this is use on Highest-grossing animated films and List of highest grossing live-action/animated films thoughs Fanoflionking


  1. ^ "88TH ACADEMY AWARDS OF MERIT" (PDF). Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
@Fanoflionking: This is an interesting discussion, but probably better in a forum that focuses on animation. You could add a section in Animation describing the different definitions, providing you can find proper sourcing to validate the added info. You could also err on the side of caution and start a discussion on the talk page beforehand to see if this is something that would be supported by consensus. Good luck. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

View deleted article[edit]

Hello teahouse–

I am not a new editor but always appreciate Teahouse's advice when I get stuck. I know I can challenge deletion of an article but I'd like to first read it before I challenge the deletion. The topic seems important enough but the content may or or may not be useful. I've tried to track down the article following different internal WP links. I can go to "Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles", where there is a list of 122 different administrators and my eyes glaze over -- how many do I have to ask before I get the help I want?

The deleted article: List of world stocks of beehives

Thanks for your assistance, GeeBee60 (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@GeeBee60:My suggestion would be ask one administrator first. If they don't respond within 24 hours, ask another. Mstrojny (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, GeeBee60, thanks for landing at the Teahouse. Should we offer you tea, or nectar? The purely 'Wikipedia' answer is that you can't see a deleted page unless you're an admin, or request a copy of an article to be emailed to you by an admin. One off-wiki way to see deleted articles is often via Deletionpedia which keeps copies of all the dross (and occasional good content!) that the community has decided to clear out from here. However, maybe because it was WP:PROD-ed, rather than WP:AFD or WP:CSD-ed, there isn't a copy on there that I can find. So what to do? Well, quite a few other sites like to mirror us, and I managed to find this for you: - a simple count of world stocks that appears to have been extracted from Hope this helps you decide whether a WP:REFUND is worthwhile. I would have thought that all we'd need was an external link to data like this from a page about beehives. Perhaps that why it was 'prod-ed'. No need to pester an admin when a good bit of Googling gets results! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Tea hee thank you Nick Moyes and Mstrojny - I hate red ink in Wikipedia articles which is the start of all this. Colony collapse disorder has a couple of red ink links to the above-mentioned article and I'm not fully decided on how to proceed -- i'll probably just remove the links.
In the meantime, Nick Moyes you have opened a whole new bit of information when I see the (edit conflict) you used. If I knew I could've done that during some excited simultaneous edits a few weeks ago, this would've saved me a lot of frustration.
GeeBee60 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@GeeBee60: Yeah, it can be really annoying to have worked up an answer to someone, only to find you can't post it because someone else has just posted to that thread or article before you. It happens to me a lot because I tend to write interminably long, complex, yet hopefully, helpful, replies to people and so, by the time I've worked out where all the punctuation ought to be placed around all the numerous sub-clauses so as to not confuse the reader, I find someone else had made a far more effective and succinct reply ahead of me. And then if I'm brief, someone takes offence. Can't win. But what I have done is deploy the Beta test gadget called 'Two column edit conflict' at Special:Preferences which seems to make seeing one's edit conflicts a little easier. Now, regarding red links - just get rid of any redlinked article in 'See also' as, clearly, there's nothing to see. Had the article link actually been useful to the page it was on, then maybe you could have tried to find the source data for the list and linked to it in 'External links'. And another little tip for you: don't sign your posts by creating a new line... the convention is to just put the four tildes right at the end of the last sentence in a post. Like this. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
And FWIW, I always delete red-linked entries that I come across on DAB pages, as well as entries on lists that can't be sourced. Those tend more often than not to be somewhat spammy. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
A very good point indeed. Nick Moyes (talk)

Spring Hill, TN TN Children’s Home Memorial[edit]

I have a death certificate for an infant buried in the Spring Hill, TN cemetery by the TN Children’s Home (sites as place of death) in 1933. I’m having trouble editing the site, however, it is inaccurate if it does not include this infant born 4-25-1933 died 9-26-1933; buried Spring Hill, TN cemetery by TN Children’s Home on 9-29-1933. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Welcome to Wikipedia's Teahouse where we help users having problems editing articles on this encyclopaedia. Forgive me, please, if I've misunderstood your question, but does this relate to a specific Wikipedia page, or are you trying to change content on another website? If the latter, I'm really sorry, but we have no way of helping you. If the former, could you please link to the Wikipedia page you are concerned about? Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[edit]

The United States never declared war on Vietnam. I think the term would be a ¨police action¨ label the action as The Vietnam War is incorrect. Millions of Vietnamese were killed during our occupation of their nation, and i think it should be at least noted on your page that we never declared war on their country. thanks for hearing me out J.Barnes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:406:300:5B5:7426:C6CC:32A:7F4 (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Content in Wikipedia must be verifiable by a reliable source. Please review WP:RS for more info. Mstrojny (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The article's first paragraph begins "The Vietnam War . . . was an undeclared war in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia . . . . It . . . was officially fought between North Vietnam and South Vietnam. . . . South Vietnam was supported by the United States . . . ." [my italics].
Thus the article makes clear at the outset that neither the US nor anyone else declared the war, and the linked article Undeclared war includes the term "Police action."
Moreover, regardless of its status in US or International law, Wikipedia articles by convention use as their title the term by which their subjects are most commonly known, even if that name is incomplete or technically incorrect. This conflict certainly was and is most commonly called "The Vietnam War", and it is not Wikipedia's business to try to right great wrongs by misrepresenting the World as it was/is rather than how we would like it to be. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


I've been editing Millie Bobby Brown's wiki page and I've been trying to add the award she's been nominated for in the Kids' Choice Awards. The thing is I can't figure out how to control the rowspan so that it the Stranger Things column continues down to the award. I've been searching things up tirelessly but i can't seem to find any information on how to actually use the rowspan code part. Does anyone know how to continue this rowspan and could give me a small crash course on it? thank you so much!! P.S. I also don't know how to center the reference- how would i do that? i added the 'textaligncenter' bit but it's still not working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebekahbird (talkcontribs)

Hi Thebekahbird. The first row of a cell must have a rowspan with the total number of rows the cell covers. It's text-align:center. Fixed in [2]. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)



Hello, IP editor. Typing in ALL CAPS is equivalent to shouting. Please don't do that. The first word of the name of that series of political groups is "Ku" rather than "Klu". The lead section of our article Ku Klux Klan says, "Historically, the Klan used terrorism—both physical assault and murder—against groups or individuals whom they opposed." Isn't that clear enough for you? What more do you want? Please be aware that there have been three distinct waves of Ku Klux Klan activity in the United States, with many different distinct Klan organizations active at various times over 160 years. Please see List of Ku Klux Klan organizations for more detailed information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding picture/media[edit]

How would i add picture/media on wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William MMXCVIII (talkcontribs) 05:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, William MMXCVIII. Image use policy is one of the most complex areas of editing Wikipedia, so it is difficult to answer a vague non-specific question. I will give you some general guidelines but we can give you a more specific answer if you ask a more specific question about a specific picture. Wikimedia Commons contains over 50 million freely licensed images that you can use on Wikipedia (or elsewhere) with no restrictions other than attribution in some cases. If you have taken a photo of something that is not itself copyrighted, then you can upload that photo to Wikimedia Commons under a free license and use it here on Wikipedia. Random photos that you find online taken in the last 95 years are likely to be restricted by copyright and if so, cannot be used on Wikipedia. Photos first published before 1924 are copyright free and can be used anywhere. Photos that are the work of the US government and its employees are copyright free and can be used freely. That is just a brief introduction to a very complicated area of editing. Please give us the specifics. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm struggling making a page for a charity ogranisation[edit]

I have tried to submit the article with references which discuss the charity in depth (around 5) and i keep getting declined — Preceding unsigned comment added by M8ms2 (talkcontribs) 06:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Bread Charity
It appears to me that this organization's short existence illustrates its noble intent, but time is required for it to accomplish enough to be written about in mainstream sources. Wikipedia should not be used to assist the promotion of your organization; it's a perverse motivation. The cart should follow the horse.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello M8ms2, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, the three references you provided in the draft article are not sufficiently detailed, or in depth, to show that this charity meets our notability criteria. Yes it exists, of that we can be certain, but you simply need to find greater coverage in other sources if you are to have any chance of successfully creating a page here. Many small don't and never will meet that criteria - but that's not to say they don't do great work. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding blocked users[edit]

If an account is abused and blocked, then the user returns as a "dynamic" IP and a sock, with one IP being blocked, and, finally, the user comes back a third time with a dynamic IP and has the same behavior and language, are they welcome back to Wikipedia? Or are they considered still blocked?--Quisqualis (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: Any blocked user remains blocked until the term of their block has expired, irrespective of how many user accounts or IP addresses they attempt to use. If you see identical patterns of editing from a blocked user and then subsequently from other new accounts or IP addresses, you should collate the evidence and submit a report to WP:SPI. It is possible to put blocks in entire IP ranges, though I'm not familiar with the details of how this is done. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Quisqualis, all edits, IP or not, that definitely originate from a blocked account should be reverted. If you believe that the edit is indisputably useful, then make the edit on your own behalf, and be prepared to take full responsibility for it. Any blocked editor who wants to resume editing must submit a successful unblock request from their master account. All other edits by that person are invalid. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Unsure about this article[edit]

Can a reviwer please take a look at the article Aaron Carotta. I nominated it for deletion, but unsure now so I closed it. It was alright for the 2nd nomination. To me it seems like all puff pieces though. I just am not sure. Need some professional help with this. Welcome to take a look. I will stand back with nominating it myself though. Thanks! --TalksAndMore (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Minimally, needs clean-up. Refs 6, 10 and 18 are to Aaron's own website, which is a no-no for other than the most basic information. Other refs are naked URLs or dead. David notMD (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks David notMD. I am going to remove the own website links. Will leave the notice up for now. Any reviewer is welcome to look for its notability. Thank you --TalksAndMore (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to How to contribute in a debate?[edit]


This article that I submitted is subject for deletion. They asked me for more sources in 2 sections and I provided several citations to reliable sources, the template in one section was removed. But in the career section, the template saying that there are no sources is still there. They did not remove it even thought I included new sources. Could you kindly advise on what I should do?

Also, There are no more comments on why the article is still subject for deletion. And now the article is "relisted". Could you kindly advise on what I should do next? Should I wait or is there anything I should improve in the article? Best regards, JoanneNaoum (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

JoanneNaoum, you can post to the article's talk page asking if the deletion debate ends up decided as "delete" whether the article can be placed in your userspace, where you can continue to work on it at your leisure. Creating an article is very difficult for a brand-new editor with no other editing experience, and there's a lot of reading you'll need to do.
You can also post to the deletion discussion; there's a link to it in the notice box at the top of the article. I would suggest you choose your three BEST sources -- nonaffiliated sources that are of unimpeachable reliability and provide significant coverage, not just a short mention -- and point those sources out to the other editors in the deletion discussion. The only way an article will survive deletion is to prove notability, which again is not easy for a brand-new editor to do. Sheer numbers of sources won't do it. There have to be at minimum three that are BOTH reliable and significant.
If you are a family member or representative of Mr. Sfeir, you need to let us know. There are special difficulties when someone close to an article subject creates that article. You can read about them at WP:COI. It's not forbidden that someone close to the article subject create the article, but it is important to disclose any relationship. --valereee (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the explanation valereee. I will do that JoanneNaoum (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I am the "they" who added a citations needed tag for a section, and have now moved it to a different section. You can comment at the AfD; will help if you identify yourself as the creator, and which of the refs are paramount in establishing notability. "Relisted" means that the deletion discussion has been extended because there were not enough comments to date. As valereee pointed out, an option to ask for is that the article be moved to Draft space, allowing time to work on it before submitting to Articles for Creation. David notMD (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Why did my fan-made movie draft got deleted?[edit]

My draft for a fan-made movie was deleted, I wanna know why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperMarioLoganFan (talkcontribs) 10:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? You can check the deletion log to find out why your article got deleted. Does this help? Mstrojny (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, SuperMarioLoganFan, welcome to the Teahouse. Actually, there is a very clear explanation on your talk page at User talk:SuperMarioLoganFan - did you not see it? It explains that Draft:Rayman: The Legend Rises was speedily deleted as not conforming with our policies. Furthermore, the reason for its deletion is that it was regarded as a Hoax. Now, I'm not an administrator here, so I can't view the deleted content, but a quick Google search shows me you were trying to promote a YouTube video clip that has so far had 27 views (maybe 28 now I've looked at it). This is an encyclopaedia of notable subjects, not a repository to promote any old stuff that someone's put online. So that's the explanation, I'm afraid. You might like to read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia before attempting to add more content like that, as you'll simply be wasting your time trying. Maybe you might also like to take a look at this explanation of what we mean by 'Notable'. (Sorry - that all sounds rather terse - it isn't meant to be. I just hope you appreciate we have set criteria for what is acceptable content here.) Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It was definitely a hoax full of false claims about participation of real stars and production companies, and an alleged box office above the World record. It also violated Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which applies to all pages including drafts. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

But why the ****, did you deleted, an movie which is in someone's imagination and don't care about it? Look, It doesn't even violate ANYTHING, It's just fan-made, I can also do this in IMDb, No offense, but still, It doesn't violate anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperMarioLoganFan (talkcontribs) 15:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It covers topics that have been discussed in reliable sources. Your madeup film has not and will never be. If you can get it into IMDb then that is on them. It still won't be allowed in Wikipeida. ~ GB fan 15:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

But I'm trying the website bigger with my fan-made feature-films, If you can let me make the website bigger, Let me make the fan-made films, No offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperMarioLoganFan (talkcontribs) 15:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@SuperMarioLoganFan: I'm afraid your fan-made movies are simply not noteworthy enough (see Wikipedia:Notability (films)). We only want Wikipedia to grow, based upon quality factual content which meets our strict selection criteria, namely that a topic is covered in depth by reliable, independent sources. If you can demonstrate that by supplying reliable references to verify everything you want to say about it, then we would welcome your contributions. But home made videos fall well short of our encyclopaedic standards, I'm afraid, so until they become famous, it is simply WP:TOOSOON. (Oh, and do keep the language polite - I hate having to edit another person's post - but yours needed it.) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
SuperMarioLoganFan, Wikipedia is not in need of content, especially content such as what you are offering. Wikipedia is in need of improvement. It is not a repository of its users' creative efforts or descriptions thereof. If you had any familiarity with Wikipedia, you would realize that there is a vast gulf between "that anyone can edit" and "that anyone can post in". Who recommended that you offer your "movie article" to Wikipedia? They were seriously mistaken, it seems. Sorry, but you will need to find another venue more suited to your requirements.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I think his new userpage says it all. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

New article- Romanian singer[edit]

Hi, please help me... I was creating a new article about the Romanian singer and vlogger Bibi, now the article is in draft. (the article has good sources). Please help me to publish the article on Wikpedia English. Thank you very much ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladMihai1 (talkcontribs) 11:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Also asked, and answered, at the Help Desk. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

References and Significant Coverage[edit]

Hi , I am actually editing a draft article Draft:Ashi_Singh.

 I would just like to know if these references would count as significant coverage and help ascertain notability. 


It would be quite helpful if someone could confirm if these could count as significant coverage so that I can add them to the draft and please explain with their respective numbers why it did or didn't count as significant coverage. I am still on shaky grounds in this matter. Thank you for taking time of your schedules and helping me out .

--Peter025 (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to know if I can use references from IWMBuzz previously known as Indian Wiki Media . It isn't present in the the list of reliable sources from India i.e this page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources as the discussion that led to the creation of this list was in 2015 while IWMBuzz(Indian Wiki Media) was created only in 2017. So can someone please check if IWMBuzz could count as a reliable source ? There were other publications as well but they already were discussed on and I couldn't find anything about it here , which is why I asked . Thank you so much for hearing me out.

--Peter025 (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Peter025. The first two references are substantial, and may or may not be reliable, I don't know. But they are not independent of the subject, since they are based on her words. They could be used as references for the fact that she said something, but not for the content of what she said (and her having said it may or may not be encyclopaedic). But they cannot contribute to notability, and only a small proportion of the article should depend on such sources. The third reference I cannot see, for legal reasons.

As for IWMBuzz: if it is a Wiki, then it is almost certainly not reliable. Unless the Wiki is limited so that only recognised experts can contribute, or it is strongly edited by professional editors, it will not be accepted as a source. RSN is the place to ask about reliable sources in general. --ColinFine (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response ColinFine , in my experience majority of articles that we do get about TV Celebs in India always contain personal statements or words . The only articles where personal statements aren't present are where the actor or actress in question wasn't successfully contacted... So is there anything else to do about it? I read somewhere on Wikipedia itself that in such cases a person could combine such references and create something like a unified reference which in turn may help attain notability , is this true , because I see very little chances of finding articles without a personal statement for TV celebs generally (in India) . So is there any way to go about it now , as this isn't the only draft I want to edit and I am putting of editing others as I want to go about it one draft/article at a time. Thanks .

Would this be something closer to what might be significant coverage ColinFine ? --Peter025 (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC

I don't know the answer to your general question, Peter025 - I guess that that might be why WP:WikProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force has its source guide, and you would do better to ask there. As for IWMBuzz: now that I've looked at it, and seen "We are committed to make your business grow", I believe it is (entirely appropriately) completely focussed on its clients' needs, and therefore not a source that Wikipedia would count as reliable. Again I say, ask at WP:RSN. --ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine for the reply. I will act on your suggestions . Thank you . Peace --Peter025 (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

new to this[edit]

hello. I am embarking an a writing expedition. It's a biography on Doctor C.C.Busby. I have begun to look at his pages on wikipedia and find untrue things said about him straight away. I have tried time and time again to remove the word 'deceitfully' from the first page, as the word is incorrect and could be defamatory to the reputation of Mr. Busby. I notice other writers have been at liberty to state what they like about my friend's husband, Dr. Busby and would like to know how I am to right the wrongs and write the truths. Thank you for your help. Lucindaseeks (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The article is Christopher Busby. I can only agree that it seems to need expert attention. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Lucindaseeks: I have corrected (and then deleted) the reference and statement you added to the lead - see the edit summary for an explanation. I have also deleted the word 'deceitful', and replaced it with the description of your friends medical product as "useless", per the citation quoting leading scientists. Please do not "embark on a writing expedition" with this article, but do read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You have a clear Conflict of Interest, which you should declare on your userpage, and in future avoid editing under two accounts - one when logged in and later on when logged out. Stick to one or the other or you could be blocked as a 'sockpuppet', as we like to call editors who cheat by using two or more account names to bolster their side of some topic or other. See Wikipedia:Edit requests for ways to address issues over which you are conflicted when, as here, you should not be editing the article. That said, you are perfectly entitled to delete immediately any content that is unsupported by a reliable reference which is damaging or libellous to the subject. You may add {{cn}} to the end of any sentence unsupported by a reliable reference. This little beauty renders like this[citation needed] and helps flag up unsupported 'factual' statements.
I did draft you a much longer reply with more advice, but I've stupidly managed to delete it before saving (and tea now beckon), so I hope this helps get you on the right track. Do read WP:REFBEGIN for good advice on how references are inserted, and maybe try The Wikipedia Adventure before you embark on further expeditions. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Lucindaseeks As others have pointed out about neither you, Christopher Busby nor anyone else associated with him should be directly editing the article, except in some very limited and specific cases. So, please read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for some more information on conflict-of-interest editing. You should also take a look at (perhaps even ask Christopher Busby himself to take a look at) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself. The subjects of articles don't have any final editorial control over article content, but there are ways for them to express any concerns they have about article content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


Hi,if I write an article and it doesn’t get verified how does it affect my account or if I make change to an existing article and it was reverted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebwriter534555 (talkcontribs) 17:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Celebwriter534555: If it's a one-off type thing, it won't affect you at all (for example, my first edits were reverted! I'm fine now) but if you make a habit of being reverted, editors will begin to view you as a time sink, and you may be blocked, or held in a generally unfavorable opinion. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 17:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding image and video on my page[edit]

Hello Iam Roosmi from damak can you tell me what can i upload any photo or video on my created page.please send your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roosmi (talkcontribs) 17:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Roosmi. I guess this is about User:Roosmi/sandbox, which you have created and put an almost empty infobox in. Please don't spend time on infoboxes and images at the moment: they are the little touches which finish an article, but a page with only images and an infobox is worthless. Almost all the value in a Wikipedia article lies in the well-written, neutral text, based on citations to reliable published sources. Everything else is a minor detail.
This is probably not what you want to hear; but the truth is that writing a Wikipedia article that is of any value is difficult: if you only do the easy parts, then you won't have created anything of any value.
If you want to write an article on your school, please start by reading your first article, and take note of what it says. You might also find the shorter list in User:ian.thomson/Howto useful. --ColinFine (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


hello, how to modify his language I put it on french but it is still in english

@Feyanox: Looking at your edits, you have made two, one of which was this. The other edit is still the newest edit, so it should be there; try purging the article. If you are referring to your own preferences, I can't see them, but they only change menus and things like that, not the articles. And lastly, I see you are slightly active at things are probably a bit more French there! -A lainsane (Channel 2) 18:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to moving a page[edit]

I made changes, as suggested, and don't understand why the article has been archived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplewriter (talkcontribs) 19:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Purplewriter. Nothing has been archived, your draft is now at Draft:Nadine Epstein. JTP (talkcontribs) 19:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
"Hi Purplewriter! You created a thread called moving a page at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread."
Note that the Teahouse is a busy discussion forum, and must be archived every few days so that it doesn't become too long and unwieldy.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
There had been an old Draft:Nadine Epstein before Purple started, so Purple's draft was Draft:Nadine Epstein(2). The old draft gone and Purple's is now Draft:Nadine Epstein. What has not been resolved is that a current search on Nadine Epstein redirects to Moment (magazine), which is where Epstein works. David notMD (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Uploading files[edit]

How can I upload a file? Thanks Kappa Kappa Mu (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello! To upload a file, you must be "autoconfirmed", which means you need 10 edits (which you have) and your account needs to be more than four days old. If you wish to upload a file, go to files for upload or if you're uploading free content, stuff that you own the rights to or you know has been released under a free license, you can upload it to Commons.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kappa Kappa Mu File use and licensing can be trickly things to figure out for even the most experienced editors; so, before you upload anything, I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Copyright#Guidelines for images and other media files and also c:Commons:Licensing so that you better understand which type of files can be uploaded and where they can be uploaded to. Lots of files uploaded each day by well-meaning people end up being deleted (sometimes quite quickly) because they've been licensed improperly. Mistakes are OK to make, but making too many mistakes is never a good thing. So, it might be better for you to ask for more specific help at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VPC unless you're absolutely 100% sure there are no issues with the licensing of the files you want to upload. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I edit my company's wikipedia page?[edit]

Hi there,

The company I work for is changing names, locations, and what we do slightly and need to update, but don't know how. My boss said he tried to edit once but it got changed so he doesn't know how to make the edits permanent. Do we need a wiki account for the company? If we have one already, where do we go to make permanent changes to the information about us. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeAnneMitch (talkcontribs) 22:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LeeAnneMitch. User accounts shouldn't represent companies, but you can use your personal account to request changes to the article by posting on its talk page. There are instructions for doing this at WP:COIREQ. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. This is not a Conflict of Interest edit though. We are called by one name and our company is changing the name. We are also moving to a different state and have expanded on services we offer. So it's simply an information edit. I need a general place to make edits, but I need to have them be permanent, not changed back within a week or a month. Apparently they just did the general edit once before, but the information was changed back. I need to be able to edit as an administrator and then protect it from being changed back to the old information. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeAnneMitch (talkcontribs) 23:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi LeeAnneMitch. You are considered to have a COI when it comes to anything written about the company on Wikipedia; so, you really should avoid directly editing the article and follow Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure instead, and use the article's talk page to make Wikipedia:Edit requests. A change in article title requires a moving of the page which is pretty much not going to be considered to be a minor edit per WP:COIADVICE. What you should do is request that the page be moved as explained in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves and in the |reason= parameter of the template provide information (i.e. links to reliable sources) which allow the name change to be verified).
As for the part about "permanent edits", you be might be misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. Your company has no final editorial say or control over article content as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content. A Wikipedia page may be protected in cases where an administrator deems it necessary to prevent serious cases of disruptive editing, but it's not going to be protected just because the company wishes to preserve a certain version of the page. Neither you nor anyone else associated with the company is going to be granted administrator privledges just so you can "lock" the article to prevent others from editing; moreover, even if you were an administrator, you would still be subject to Wikipedia's conflict of editing guidelines and wouldn't be able to use your administrator access to lock the page. If you would like more information on conflict of editing and how it applies to you as a company employee, you can ask for assistance at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and someone will try and help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @LeeAnneMitch: I understand your desires, but when you say "I need to be able to edit as an administrator and then protect it from being changed back to the old information.", that's a wee bit of a misunderstanding on how we work here, to put it mildly, and it simply ain't going to happen - ever. Becoming an administrator is absolutely not a requirement of changing an article's name to the best format, nor do articles need protecting unless they are prone to repeated vandalism. (See WP:RPP in that instance). Now, I could lecture you, ad nauseam, on how becoming an administrator takes many years of experience, many thousands (often tens of thousands) of edits to understand and implement all our key policies, plus how that editor then needs to gain the trust and formal support of the wider community before taking on that role, but it's 100% not relevant here. Admins aren't all-powerful gods or defenders of the faith; they are more like simple janitors, mopping up other peoples sh*t when they make mistakes or intentionally cause problems. Providing someone (you?) supplies reliable sources which show that a name of an organisation has changed, any editor can make those modifications. Nothing here is permanent, nor do companies 'own' the articles that talk about them. That's the simple reality. Whenever anyone finds their edits being reverted, it suggests there's some disagreement over what's the right thing to do. That's the time to take to the article's talk pages and discuss the changes required, and gain consensus.
Do be aware that we have a policy (shortcut: WP:COMMONNAME) which says that we should always title articles by how the broader public refer to something, and not by how that something wishes to be called. So, if McDonald's changed its name to "McDonald's Burger Company" we would not change the article title until the world at large started calling it by that new name. But we would include that name change within the text of that article. I doubt that would be an issue here. Hoping this rather pedantic explanation is of some use. So, why not tell us what you'd like changing (with references), and we might be able to do it for you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Help with inline citations and footnotes[edit]

Hello! I am a new wiki contributor and recently had an article (Joe Sola) denied due to the following reason:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

I'm unclear if I simply need to support the statements made with more references, or remove sentences altogether. Another used questioned the reasoning behind my use of external links... I found that a lot of the references I was using were not found on wiki and therefore I did external links.

Please help! I'm not sure where to start and how best to fix it so it will be considered again.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbuko (talkcontribs) 23:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Alexbuko. Writing a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, so don't get discouraged if you don't get it right first time: that's why we have the articles for creation process, with Dreft space, and reviews.
It sounds as if you are confusing references, wikilinks, and external links. References (or citations) are notes to tell the reader where they can in principle go to check the validity of information in an article. All information in an article must be found in a reliable published source, and it is desirable (and sometimes obligatory) to cite the source for each statement. Since the source does not have to be available online (eg if it is an old book or newspaper) a link is not an essential part of a citation, though if there is one it is helpful to provide it. But the important part of any citation is what you might call bibliographic information: title of book or journal, date, author's name if available, publisher, that kind of thing. There are several acceptable ways to format citations: Referencing for beginners is a helpful guide.
Wikilinks are links to other Wikipedia articles, which a reader can follow if they wish to find out more about something mentioned in an article. They are not references: Wikipedia, being user-generated, is not regarded as a reliable source, and may not be used in a citation (nor, in most cases, may other wikis, forums, or blogs, iMDB, or social media).
External links, other than in citations, are discourged in articles, except as permitted by the article I have just linked to. --ColinFine (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this! Yes, it helps a lot. I'll give it a second go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbuko (talkcontribs) 02:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

If groups such as the SPLC label an organization as a "hate group", should it be included in the lead? Because I've noticed there are certain articles where editors tend to remove the label but the same label persists in other articles. DA1 (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi DA1. You can find more in MOS:LEAD, but bascially the lead (or lede) section of an article ahould basically just summarize the main points found in the article body; it should not be the only place where something is mentioned. In some cases, the wording of the lead might also be subject to a sort of editorial WP:UNDUE, where it's deemed that while it's OK to mention something in the body of the article, it's not really significant enough to warrant a mention in the lead. There's not really one specific way of writing a lead (beyond some basic formatting issues, etc.) which applies across the board to all articles, even articles written about similar subject; so, you'll often find differences as explained in WP:OTHERCONTENT.
It seems that refering to an organization as a "hate group" has a fair chance of being seen as contentious change by someone; it also seems like its probably something which has come up before. Therefore, check the talk pages of articles (including any archives) to see whether the subject was previously discussed before and whether a consensus had been established. Even if a consensus was established, it can change over time; so, there's nothing wrong with bringing the subject up for discussion again. If you don't find any record of any discussion at all on the talk page, then you need to decide whether you want to be WP:BOLD or WP:CAUTIOUS; if you decide to be BOLD, you should follow WP:DR if someone disagrees with the change and reverts your edit.
Finally, one other thing that is sometimes a good idea can be to check the article's history to see if the change was previously made and then reverted. Often from looking at edit sums, you can tell why a change was made and then why it might have been reverted. If you see any edit sums which refer to specific policies or guidelines for not allowing the change, then it probably would be a good idea to be CAUTIOUS and propose the change first on the article's talk just to avoid any chance of edit warring from taking place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi DA1 - to add to the above comment, if the group has been labeled a hate group specifically for their anti-LGBT stance, you can certainly add them here as well: List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_anti-LGBT_hate_groups. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 02:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Appreciate the responses. @Marchjuly: It certainly can be contentious and it always is depending on a person's POV regarding a subject. I would like you to look at the article "Clarion Project". I don't see any discussion on the label on Talk, which I do certainly believe has a place to be there in lede. I was actually researching something else and Clarion Project's role in right-wing conspiracy theories tends to come up, and I see that it's labelled an 'anti-Muslim hate group' by SPLC but the article's lede makes no mention of it, and the 'Criticism' section all the way at the bottom of the article doesn't even mention "hate group" just 'anti-Muslim group'. You do understand my concerns especially with established fact that the far-right has a strong presence online, and people crisis managing Wikipedia content like a soapbox is very much a thing that happens (having broad participation helps with consensus building but I've seen plenty of times the 2 vs 1 game over even trivial matters).
Currently the lede is short and seems to more so highlight the [controversial] films it put out while adding little more to it, seems a bit of a dueweight issue (as they are most notable for their controversy and being criticized, and is not exactly your average film company to be presented this basic). Certainly I would contend that half the things cordoned off into the 'Criticism' section should actually be in the lede. Thoughts? ~DA1 (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@DA1: As I posted above, you can be bold change the lead if you feel it's necessary; however, you need follow WP:DR if someone disagrees with the change and reverts/modifies your edit. Even so, the best place for you to discuss your concerns about that particular article's content would be on it's talk page. It's better for things to be determined through a consensus established through talk page discussion than trying to decide things here. You also need to be willing to accept that a consensus established through such discussion may not always be something you may personally agree with; understanding that is part of the difference between being WP:HERE and being WP:NOTHERE. The best consensuses tend to be ones which are strongly based in relevant policies and guidelines that focus on the article content being discussed and not the people discussing them. Everyone who's interested should be encouraged to participate in the discussion regardless of their POV. So, any arguments you try to make should stick to the content being discussed and avoid commenting on those participating in the discussion. You also need to be a bit patient if you propose something on the article's talk page and not expect an immediate respose. If a reasonable amount of time has passed and nobody comments you can either assume WP:SILENCE or seek further input per WP:CONTENTDISPUTE or WP:SEEKHELP. You have to try and understand that it's not Wikipedia's purpose to try and set the record straight about something; moreover, the point of discussing things is not necessarily to WP:WIN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I'm well aware, hence, why I asked community feedback before even editing anything. I'm not trying to "win" anything, there's been plenty of articles I've simply walked away from because I dislike the 2 vs 1 tug-wars that happen. Which is why I mentioned 'broad consensus' otherwise it really isn't much of a consensus and becomes a dragged out tug-war with whomever it is on the other side of the rope, and as you noted, it's not necessarily that the other side is following the guidelines as we each should to the best of our ability. So getting as much feedback involved is always the best case scenario when dealing with contentious editing disputes if and when such arises. -DA1 (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Laser speckle[edit]

Laser speckle redirects to Speckle pattern. But it also means Eye testing using speckle. Can somebody make Laser speckle a disambiguation page that links to both? Brenton Clutterbuck (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Brenton Clutterbuck I think adding a hatnote, a message on top of the primary topic also mentioning the secondary topic, would be appropriate. DA1 (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks mate! Brenton Clutterbuck (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
DA1, I am sure that must be a typo and you mean hatnote. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah! Edited it now. DA1 (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Requesting unprotection[edit]

Hello, I recently came across this article Cricket World Cup and found that it has been move protected for almost eight years now. That seems unnecessary and it looks like it is long overdue for unprotection as there doesn't seem to be any current issue for which protection is currently in place. I've seen the guidelines and the correct protocol is to ask the protecting admin first, but there have been multiple admins who have protected and unprotected it over the years. I would therefore like to know the correct procedure for requesting unprotection in this case. TheGeneralUser (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @TheGeneralUser: I suggest asking the admin who most recently added or amended the move protection. If they're inactive you can make a request at WP:RFUP. Neiltonks (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Looking at the protection log, it looks like the first time indefinite move protection was applied was by Nev1 back in 2011, after a short move war between KS700 and AshwiniKalantri (KS700 has been blocked since 2012, and AK hasn't edited since 2011). All protection changes after that have only added semiprotection for short periods. You could ask this at Nev1's talkpage, otherwise the correct place is at WP:RFPP. rchard2scout (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

How to continue translation after a few section is tranlated[edit]

Hi wise Wikipedians,

I am translating article from EN to ZH Wikipedia. When I find an EN article that doesn't have any corresponding ZH article, I can click on the gray link of another language and then it will open the "Translation tool" UI. But if I translate only a few sections and created that ZH article, I want to continue to translate un-translated sections, I don't know where to open a translation tool any more. Does anyone know?

Thank you for your help.

Xinbenlv (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Two accounts[edit]

Hi, I have seen a few people running two Wikipedia accounts. Can I do this and is it allowed? If so, how can I? Catinthedogs (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I think that's against Wikipedia policy. See WP:Sockpuppetry. Kappa Kappa Mu (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Catinthedogs. An editor is allowed to have multiple accounts, but only in certain specific cases as explained in WP:VALIDALT. However, as Kappa Kappa Mu pointed out, any attempt to use multiple accounts to get around relevant policies and guidelines is not permitted, and those who try and do such things can be blocked by an administrator as explained in WP:ILLEGIT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
You have created a second account User:Catinthedogs2 but it is not clear whether your reason(s) qualify under what is allowed in WP:VALIDALT. I recommend not making any edits with that account, and ESPECIALLY, not making any edits to articles you also edit as Catinthedogs. David notMD (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

How can I add a table in Wikipedia?[edit]

Hi, I'm a newby in Wiki. I have a simple question. By editing, I saw some tables with some lines, and I was wondering how to make one. Could you answer me 'how to make a table, and add some rows and columns?' Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 방민현 (talkcontribs) 08:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 방민현. Basic help for tables can be found at HELP:TABLE, and you'll see there's an insert table icon in the 'Advanced' section of the Source Editor you used when you draft your post here. Tables can be quite complicated to manage, but for both creating and adding data into simple tables in articles, I find using Visual Editor is far, far easier. I advise testing any table in your sandbox before inserting it into an article. There are lots of complicate tricks to collapse, expand, nest or sort tables, but just experiment with the basics for now. It took just a few seconds using source editor to create the basic table below:
Header text1 Header text2 Header text3
Example1 Example2 Example3
Example4 Example5 Example6
Example7 Example8 Example9

If you copy the source code above and paste it into your sandbox, you can then edit with either editing tool. You'll quickly see there that the 'Edit' tab opens Visual Editor and that you can add or remove extra rows and columns, or change the cell contents very easily - probably one of only two good features of Visual Editor that I've found, so far! Do come back if you get stuck or need further help. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


I set up my talk page for archiving by a bot. However, I did not archive the post Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!. Is there a reason behind this? Can you fix this for me? Mstrojny (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Mstrojny. I think archive bots intentionally leave welcome message templates unarchived, so that their helpful contents are always available. (We had a template added to a Teahouse post here some weeks ago which stubbornly refused to be archived, and just stayed at the top of the page for ages. I simply edited the page, copied and cut out the text from here, then pasted it into the relevant archive. I think this is the practical way to deal with it (or simply delete it altogether) Unfortunately I'm not sufficiently experienced with archival settings to know if there's actually a setting which ensures that welcome template messages are included in archive actions. I suspect PrimeHunter may be able to shed more light on this, if they're around. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mstrojny: I think it's because there is no standard time stamp in the section so the bot does not know whether it's old enough to allow archiving. It says "15:10, Sunday, January 6, 2019 (UTC)". A time stamp from a signature would have said "15:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)". You can try changing it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes and PrimeHunter: In your opinion, Is it better to keep that post as is or try to archive it? Mstrojny (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes and PrimeHunter: Also, the bot archived my welcome message. There could be some exceptions. Mstrojny (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


Big Bus Tours
Big Bus Company 10-5-07.jpg
ParentExponent Private Equity (85%)
Merlin Entertainments (15%)
Commenced operationMay 1990 for Les Cars Rouges / June 1991 for Big Bus Company
Service areaAbu Dhabi, Budapest
Service typeOpen top bus operator
Alliance"Les Cars Rouges" and "Big Bus Company" merged in 2011 and formed "Big Bus Tours"

I want to ask, that infoboxes are very common in articles. How do you make one?

Example from Big Bus tours:

Harold Hutchins (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Harold Hutchins. There are many different infobox templates. The code {{Infobox Bus transit|...}} means that Template:Infobox Bus transit is called. The template page has documentation for its parameters. Other infoboxes have other parameters. You can only use parameters which are known to a template. See more at Help:Infobox. You can choose an existing infobox template and call it. It is difficult to make a new type of infobox template if you cannnot find an existing type which is suitable for an article. I recommend against trying it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello, Harold Hutchins. Thank for brightening up the Teahouse with a nice big infobox! You clearly know how to copy and paste them, so I'm guessing you want to create one from scratch? This is not something to be started lightly - try using an existing one first. Often the best way is to find one already in use in a related article, then copy and edit the contents. Testing in your sandbox is always a good idea, too.
For general information, see Help:Infobox and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, where there's this section on the approach to take to gain acceptance for new infoboxes. In general, I'd like to think there was already an existing infobox in use that you should deploy, (see Wikipedia:List of infoboxes). Then perhaps visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes for detailed help and support on the advisability of creating a nerw template, or how best to deploy an existing one. My basic experience of using existing ones, or helping others, is that one can't simply add in a new field and hope it will display. Quite the reverse - the box will omit fields it doesn't recognise. I hope this answers your questions? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I publish an article regarding a narcotics investigation and my information is all first hand knowledge- because I'm the case agent?[edit]

I attempted to publish an article about a drug trafficker in New Orleans, LA that I arrested for 8 murders and distribution of multi thousand pounds of cocaine. I tried to publish using newspaper articles referencing my investigation but there were copyright violations, hence not published and was deleted. So I don't have references other than my firsthand knowledge. The copyright info is my info. Where would I go? Can it be done? Do I need references to publish the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaholl (talkcontribs) 14:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jaholl:. Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid Wikipedia is absolutely NOT the place for this. We only collate and condense content from existing Reliable Sources. We do not publish any sort of original research, especially ones involving allegations of criminal activity, based on what you happen to know personally. If you are genuinely a law enforcment official, I am gobsmacked that you're seriously suggesting this. Maybe consider writing a book instead? Nick Moyes (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Oops - should have checked your contributions before responding: I thought you were saying that newspapers had rejected your attempts at publication, not us, so am striking my over-reaction. Follow guidance from GGS as listed below. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello. You can use information from for example The Times-Picayune, but you can't copypaste it. You must summarize in your own words. I suggest you take the time and read the following:

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I created an article in the wrong place[edit]

The page above should be deleted as I created a new one in the Russian version of Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddizh (talkcontribs) 15:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done (but not by me) Nick Moyes (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

what are the green plus numbers on your contributions[edit]

Hi, I've started edited and hopefully will soon produce some new, historic pages as well. Can you tell me what the green figures are when I look at my contributions so far please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Almond 1968 (talkcontribs) 16:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@David Almond 1968: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It it the number of bytes added to the page. It roughly corresponds to the number of letters/characters, but not exactly. If the number is red, it refers to the number of bytes taken away. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah - thank you--David Almond 1968 (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I name a character of a show in the cast if I do not know yet who has played them[edit]

Can I name a character in the cast section of any show, if right now I don't know who is the person who played that character. This way, the name of the actor/actress can later be added. King Armaan 17 (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@King Armaan 17: Welcome to the Teahouse, your majesty. I'd say, 'yes,' so long as there are sources that show that the character's name does actually play a part in the programme. It's important not to put anything into an article that you happen to know, if you haven't got that information from somewhere else - a programme listing, for example. But we do seem to allow a lot of leeway with TV programmes which (in my personal view) tend to be far, far too long and far too detailed, yet all based off editors' experiences of watching the programme, rather than more succinct content based on articles about those programme (film and TV reviews, etc). Hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you help me with posting photos?[edit]


My name is Rick Bella and I am a board member for the Oregon Mandolin Orchestra (, a nonprofit, community-based orchestra in Portland, Ore.

I redit the orchestra's entire Wikipedia page ( on March 19 to reflect major changes in the organization since the first version of the page went up years ago. I returned on March 20 and posted three photos to the page -- and ran into a problem.

One photo came from Wikimedia Commons:

The other two photos were from a photographer in Portland, Ore., whom the Oregon Mandolin Orchestra hired in December 2017 to provide photos for the orchestra's unrestricted use. Both of those photos were removed from Wikimedia Commons because of perceived copyright violations.

I spoke yesterday to the photographer who was puzzled at Wikipedia's reaction and reaffirmed to me verbally that the photos were for use any way the orchestra sees fit -- including entering them on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons.

What is the proper channel for using these photos? One is of the orchestra's new executive director; the other is a group photo of the orchestra.

Thank you!

Oremandos (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Oremandos (Rick Bella)

Hello @Oremandos:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please make sure to read and follow the COI-related advice on your user talkpage. Some promotional parts of your recent edits are not suitable for an encyclopedia, and you should suggest new content or changes on the article talkpage instead. Regarding your original question: you'll find detailed information about verifying a free license via mail at Commons:Commons:OTRS. Such a verification should be sent by the copyright owner (or an authorized representative) and must include a completely free license permission without restrictions. You'll find more details and a link to example emails in the linked page. But please feel free to ask here if you have additional questions (Commons also has a Commons-specific help desk at Commons:Commons:Help desk). Hope this helps. GermanJoe (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

no review needed[edit]

I just today (March 22nd) created an article which I really felt is needed ----- VOC Exempt solvents ------ However, in the past when I have created an article it has said "pending review" or similar. This article is a work in progress and I am adding references and inline cites. But it has been published straight away. I am not complaining but I think it should at least have some review/input by a senior editor even though I am an expert on the subject in my own right. Why did the system allow me to create the article without review when all previous article have said "pending review?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRALISTAIR (talkcontribs) 17:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Unprotecting a protected page[edit]

"Bettiah",is a protected page.there is no way to unprotect this page to edit it to add content or fix a typo.plz help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. In the desktop version of the site you can click the "View source" tab and then "Submit an edit request". I see you are in the mobile version. It's harder there but you could start by clicking "Desktop" at the bottom of the article, then "View source" and "Submit an edit request". PrimeHunter (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)