Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 894

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 890 Archive 892 Archive 893 Archive 894 Archive 895 Archive 896 Archive 900


My First Denial

How can I get my draft to be accepted despite the fact there arent enough sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwpom (talkcontribs) 01:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Cwpom: I will assume the article in question is Draft:Chaleb Pommells. The first thing to do is to read the comments the reviewer (SamHolt6) left when it was declined. There were two main problems: the article does not establish that the subject is notable (in Wikipedia's special meaning of that term), and the tone of the article reads more like an advertisement. Read through the links provided by the reviewer to understand these issues, and if you have specific questions about how to address them after that then please come back here are ask. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: Can you define what specifically makes it seem like an ad because the intention is to be a bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwpom (talkcontribs) 01:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps one thing that makes the draft seem like an ad is that it talks about a 14-year-old middle-schooler's "career." In four years he may be eligible to run for the legislature; if he is elected then, it will be time to start talking about a career. —teb728 t c 05:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Cwpom: In answer to your original question, you can't get a draft accepted without references to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. What references your draft has provide none of that: Neither the Teen Council page, the legislature page, nor even his company page even mentions him. The Pines Telegram page only gives him bylines, and his tweet only mentions him as the tweeter. So there is no indication at all that he is notable enough for an article. —teb728 t c 04:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I hope what I have written above does not come across as harsh, Cwpom, but I don’t want you wasting your effort on something that is not going to be accepted. It is very rare but not impossible for a teenager to become notable enough for an encyclopedia article. (Malala Yousafzai became notable at 15 as a result of her attempted assassination and David Hogg at 17 as a result of his activism following the MSD shooting.) Wikipedia is looking for the kind of subjects that they write whole articles about in newspapers and magazines. Have The Miami Herald or the Sun-Sentinel written articles about Chaleb? (They certainly have written about Malala and David.)
Your draft was nicely written for a first article: I hope you will accept that our standard of acceptance is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and devote your talents to such subjects. —teb728 t c 09:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I want to write an updated English version of a Swedish article

There is an article in the sv.wikipedia (Swedish, right?) I would like to update and add to the English wikipedia. The Swedish version is at About a month ago I searched for Slator Lake and was taken to the Swedish page. That search now fails.

Anyway, can I just start an English article with the same name as a Swedish article, or do I need permission?

Thanks brian.slator Brian.slator (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Brian.slator. No, you don't need permission; but if you create the article by translating the Swedish, then you must credit if (see Translation. I suggest treating it as a new article in English, even if you do translate it, because the article in the Swedish Wikipedia may not be appropriate as it stands: different Wikipedias sometimes have different rules, and in any case, the existence of an article in a Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean that it is a satisfactory article (we have many substandard ones on enwiki, unfortunately). I suggest reding your first article as well, and creating a draft with the WP:AFC process. --ColinFine (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@Brian.slator: You may wonder why the Swedish Wikipedia but not the English has an article about a small Canadian lake. Millions of Swedish articles were created by Lsjbot, an automated Wikipedia article-creating program by a Swedish editor. The article has never been edited by a human. The English Wikipedia has different policies and far less bot creations. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Https and Http

Hello. I have been seeing a lot of online references that use insecure http. So I was wondering if it's okay to edit the links from http to https. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi SharabSalam. https is preferred per Help:Link#http: and https:. Check that it works before changing. Some sites only allow http. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you!--SharabSalam (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


let me know exact perpose of this page..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umeshkumar9540 (talkcontribs) 09:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Umeshkumar9540: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This page is for new users to ask questions about editing or using Wikipedia. If you ever have a question about using Wikipedia, please ask it just as you asked this question. You may be interested in using the new user tutorial(click those words to get there) to help you learn about Wikipedia. Again, welcome. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, you put "Aaradhya Enterprises, karad. FMCG Distributor firm in karad city." on your User page. The purpose of a User page is to explain a bit about yourself and your intentions as a Wikipedia editor. It is not a social media page for you or your business. See WP:User pages. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Where should i upload my images to?

(R38R32R10MTAOTT (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC))

Please see this help guide for more information. I will also post some info on your talk page. Can you provide us with more context? RhinosF1 (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Upload Wizard may be what you're after. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

How to measure notability?

Hi, I came across certain people that are famous in Sri Lanka. But there is no wikipedia page for them. How do I measure their notability? and why is notability not measured at all for certain people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luewia (talkcontribs) 15:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Luewia, and welcome to the Teahouse. Notability (as Wikipedia uses the word) is fairly well defined (though applying the definition isn't always clear-cut). Please see Notability. In most cases it depends on whether several people, unconnected with the subject, have chosen to write at some length about the subject and been published in reliable places (places which have a reputation for editorial control and fact checking). The sources do not have to be in English, or online, though it is easier for editors to check them if they are. Neither fame, popularity, importance, or influence, necessarily makes a subject notable in Wikipedia terms, though of course there is some correlation. --ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about tables


I was wondering when creating a table on a page, how to center align the content. Also, how do you add coloring to the boxes and their text as well?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackhawks1998 (talkcontribs) 16:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

How to remove a photo

I tried to add a photo to a page, however, instead it was created as a solo link. I cannot find an undo, remove, delete button.. Help please — Preceding unsigned comment added by REA79 (talkcontribs) 01:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

REA79, I added the image for you WelpThatWorked (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi REA79. I'm not clear on what you are seeking. Can you please advise whether you are okay with the deletion of this image file? If so, I will delete it under CSD G7. If not, and what you were seeking was help with adding it to Michael Andrew Arntfield as WelpThatWorked did, please note that I have removed it from there, and marked it for deletion (see the message at your talk page). As I stated in my edit summary accompanying tagging it for deletion under CSD F11: "The mere fact fact it is a "publicity photo" does not imply it is in the public domain, and you have not provided the actual source you got this from, so no way to check whether the source actually provides a release into the public domain or licenses it as such (a TinEye search was not frutiful)". It may be that it is, in fact, in the public domain, but the information you provided at the image page was insufficent to check and implied a possible misunderstanding of what makes something public domain. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I want to add the photo to the wiki profile. Instead, I somehow loaded it as an individual photo not on his page. I have no idea how to delete the photo and add it to his wiki profile.. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by REA79 (talkcontribs) 17:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

How do I know if my sources are sufficient?

Dear all,

I created an article about an Austrian physician ( When I submitted the draft for review it was declined with the note: "I'm inclined to think notable but sourcing needs to be improved vastly."

Since all statements are referenced by at least one source, and in my opinion all sources are reliable according to the wiki guidelines my question would be: Do I need to add more sources, or are the included sources questionable?

Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yet another IT guy (talkcontribs) 14:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

In general, it's better to take up such a question with the editor who declined the draft, Yet another IT guy, but looking at Draft:Harald Stossier, I can see that, while the sources are probably reliable, not a single one of them is independent of Stossier. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article says about themselves, or what their employer, organisation, or associates say about them: an article should be almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have written about them. --ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Yet another IT guy. I agree with ColinFine's assessment of the shortcomings of the current sources. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Reference Formatting

Hello, I have a question that I've been wanting to ask for a while regarding citations:
Is it required to have the access date if it is the same as the date the article was published?
Syntaxlord (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Wise to do so, as that confirms which date the ref has been confirmed as supporting the text. The access date gives a good guide as to where to look for an archive version if necessary. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, Syntaxlord, "The date the article was published" is not very meaningful. A Wikipedia article is never finished: there's nothing special about the date when it was first created, and in any case, a particular reference might have been added much later. --ColinFine (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
ColinFine, I believe that Syntaxlord was referring to the date that the article used as a reliable source was first published, not the date the Wikipedia article was first published. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Cullen328, Yes, I was referring to that. I'm sorry that my wording was confusing. Syntaxlord (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Got it. Sorry for my misunderstanding. --ColinFine (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Mario Fever theme in Puyo Puyo Tetris

According to ShiroBrawl, the fever theme was also used on Puyopuyo Tetris, even though Sega owns Nintendo's intellectual properties/licensed rights. I DON'T KNOW WHY IF SEGA DID ON PURPOSE? ACQ322Acuity (answer me) 01:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Apollo C. Quiboloy fans. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? That is the only kind of question appropriate here. It's possible you might get somebody interested enough to answer you if you post your question at Reference desk/Entertainment. --ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Question relating to Tom Kenny (Actor)

Hi I've just been reading up on Tom Kenny (voice of Spongebob Squarepants) and noticed his Biography does not mention his recent work as the voice of Police Chief Randall Crawford in the first series of 2018 Netflix series Paradise PD.

As Tom is a well known artist I didn't want to risk my novice editing skills on his page.

I would be grateful if you can ask one of your experienced editors to include this at some point.

Many thanks

Mark Stevens England, UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you don't feel comfortable making such an edit yourself, you should post on the article talk page(Talk:Tom Kenny) so that editors that follow that article see it and may be able to help you. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Is referencing a governmental website a case of bad self-published referencing?

As an example, is it a case of self-published reference to use census data from the website of the Ministry of Municipal affairs, Regions and Land Management of Québec to reference the number of inhabitants of the towns of Rimouski, Matane and Rivière-du-Loup in the article Bas-Saint-Laurent? The guideline on this is confusing for me. Sadenar40000 (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sadenar40000: It depends on the nature of the source and what you're using it for. I'm not aware of any controversies in Quebecois census surveys today, so in the example you specified it seems fine. If you were instead relying on census reports issued by say, Myanmar, Syria, or another country actively in the midst of a crisis in which the government is complicit, or if there's another credible reason to cast doubt on the government's reliability (e.g. the Egyptian government's published estimates of the sizes of various religious minorities in the country vary greatly from both the estimates released by the communities themselves and from independent sources), I would proceed with caution. Whether or not the source contributes to notability is a separate concern, but for inhabited places like the ones in your example, that's not an issue per WP:NPLACE. signed, Rosguill talk 20:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

How to change back edit in non programming mode

Hey all,

I was able to edit without coding, but now it says "Edit Source" and requires real coding. How do I go back?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guestofaguest (talkcontribs) 22:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Guestofaguest, click the pencil symbol in the editor and it should come up with a menu letting you switch to visual editing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Guestofaguest. Adding to what Emir of Wikipedia has helpfully stated, if you go to your Preference settings, and then the 'Editing' Tab, you can change how the two different editing tools are offered to you. Personally, I think it's far better to always be offered both editor tabs, but you can choose whether it remembers (and offers you) your last-used editor. I hope you find this helpful. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Title of article - Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

I've been doing edits for a few months and have a question about an article that always bothers me.

Without getting too far into it, the wiki title of the article that follows is incorrect !

Catherine Middleton/Kate Middleton/Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge,_Duchess_of_Cambridge

The format of her title as "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" is the one that would be used if she was the divorced former wife of a Duke. (see Sarah, Duchess of York below). This rule is explained in section 3.3 of the wiki article "British Princess" . She is properly titled Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of Cambridge (having a The in one's name is very important in british royalty !) therefore the article should be titled "The Duchess of Cambridge". It would not matter so much if the style chosen for the title were not one that specifically suggests the woman is divorced.

For instance, the wiki article on the divorced wife of Prince Andrew of York is correctly titled "Sarah, Duchess of York",_Duchess_of_York

Best source possible: the official website of the Royal Family have titled their page about her "The Duchess of Cambridge" [1]

I do see that there has been a good deal of discussion of this on the Talk page, but I'm unclear how to bring the topic back up on the Talk page, and on who has the power to unlock the article title. So - how do I make this change happen, or at least re-open the discussion? Who do I have to communicate with ? The page is semi-protected. LigaGila (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LigaGila. Wikipedia already has an article Duchess of Cambridge which discusses the title and the three women known that way. Therefore, her first name is added to the biography of the current duchess, to disambiguate the person from the title. This was a very controversial article naming decision at the time of the marriage, and you really ought to read the entire lengthy discussion before trying to reopen the matter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen328 I did read the whole discussion there, but it just peters out with no clear decision, or even a clue as to who can make the decision (ie has access to editing the title field). Can you tell me who is the "owner" of the page (please excuse as I suspect that isn't the correct term to use)

LigaGila (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You are correct that there is no "owner" and we have no such concept on Wikipedia. The article is semi-protected, which means it can only be edited by accounts over four days old and with over 20 edits. You have 19 edits so you are very close. The article is also move protected which means only an administrator can change the title. No sane adminstrator would change the title except to implement a clearcut consensus on the article talk page. You are welcome to start a new discussion on the talk page, but I have a very strong hunch that there will not be an agreement to change the article title. It was discussed extensively by many people in the talk page archives. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Cullen328: When did the autoconfirmed criterion change from 10 to 20? Would you be able to change WP:AUTOCONFIRM with an appropriate reference? --David Biddulph (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
David Biddulph, I will blame my upcoming 67th birthday for my memory lapse. You are correct. The standard is four days and ten edits. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, LigaGila. Nobody is the "owner" of any page in Wikipedia. Almost any editor can change the title of an article by moving the article (but in the light of what Cullen says, nobody should move that one without achieving consensus on the move). --ColinFine (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC) --ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand now that consensus must be achieved, so I'll do some further research to make a convincing argument for such. Thanks for the advice Cullen328 and ColinFine! -- LigaGila (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


No picture for famous person yet

What can I do if nobody is going to add a pic for G. T. Bynum? Nobody has responded to that IP’s request and there is no pic for a famous mayor. Can you find one please? I don’t want to do copyright. Thanks! 2600:387:1:809:0:0:0:A3 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

A photo is nice to have but not at all necessary. If you feel it is important, you could ask his office to provide a photo as described at WP:COPYREQ, or you could go to Tulsa and take photo yourself. —teb728 t c 03:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Pebbles (band)

Anyone up for doing an entry about this great garage band?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambapaannex (talkcontribs) 20:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sambapaannex: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The fact that you use the term "garage band" strongly suggests that the band does not meet the notability criteria for bands written at WP:BAND. There has to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources, sources not associated with the band at all, for a band to merit an article. YouTube videos, which anyone can post, don't count. It doesn't matter if this band's videos have 10,000 views or 10 million views, if no independent sources write about them, they do not merit an article. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sambapaannex: There is actually an entire (humourous) essay on this topic - Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sambapaannex. I replaced the YouTube links you added with a link to the band's Facebook page. People often upload videos to YouTube that they don't hold the copyright on and such links are not supposed to be added to Wikipedia pages per WP:COPYLINK, WP:YOUTUBE and WP:ELNEVER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

/* History */ removal of outdated table

Hi I have twice removed an outdated table from the Perth College page (, however, my amendment has been overridden by someone else. Perth College do not wish to highlight ATAR results in this way and hence we have not updated the table for the past couple of years. As a result, it is now very much out of date. Can you advise what our options are. Many thanks. Ctrlaltk (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ctrlaltk and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you disclosed your WP:Conflict of interest here, and your WP:Paid status? You need to be aware that the article belongs to Wikipedia, not to the College. Wikipedia would welcome an updated table, but it is other Wikipedia editors not involved with the College who will decide what content is appropriate for the article. It would be best if you express your concerns on the talk page of the article where you can discuss the changes with other editors. Dbfirs 08:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

How to remove pages or challenge pages that do not show any citations or references

I see a whole list of wikipedia pages in Sri Lanka that have no citations or references at all, and no one seems to have challenged. I could point them out to you if it is out of my lead but would be great if I could know how it is done? Let me list bellow some pages that have zero references

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Luewia (talkcontribs) 09:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why you say "no one seems to have challenged". Each of them is tagged, as far as i can see. THere is advice at WP:Notability (high schools). --David Biddulph (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

How to change (or request a change to) a large amount of links?

Hi, I've been working on the Unisound and Unisound Studios pages and currently, albums produced by Unisound Studios link to the Unisound page incorrectly.

Based on Special:WhatLinksHere every page except the following should change from Unisound --> Unisound Studios.

The ones that link correctly are:

As there are over 50 album pages, what would be the best course of action to update (or request an update) to these links?

Thanks :)

Redwards21 (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Post the job on WP:AWB/Tasks - X201 (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Have posted there, thanks @X201. Redwards21 (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

How do you get a Page heading changed if it is inaccurate

Hi I've just seen that this page: refers to "Wormsley Park" but this should in fact be just "Wormsley" - how do you go about changing this? Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormsley1086 (talkcontribs) 13:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It is shown as Wormsley Park on the Ordnance Survey maps. If you think that is wrong I suggest you start a discussion on the article take page, backed up with a reliable source.--Shantavira|feed me 15:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


Hi I'm new to Wikipedia, can anyone please give me any ideas how to contribute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thabiso Mabaso (talkcontribs) 10:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, Thabiso Mabaso! You might want to start with The Wikipedia Adventure, which walks you through different editing tasks to familiarize you with editing on Wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Freelancer Website

Hello Guys,

I understand that this is not a free web hosting service but is there any reasons that I am not supposed to have a page on wikipedia. I have seen tons of companies having own pages/articles here.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspneter (talkcontribs) 13:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The companies which are allowed to have a Wikipedia article are those which meet the criteria at WP:Notability (organizations and companies). Wikipedia pages are not for promotion. I notice also that the page which was deleted as promotional was your user page User:Aspneter, so you should read the purpose of a user page at WP:user pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I see, OK the rules are there for a reason I believe. Thank you for clarifying — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspneter (talkcontribs) 13:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

... and just to clarify ... no company "has" a page here in the sense that they in any way own or control the page, but if the company is notable then there might be an article about them, preferably written by someone unconnected with the company and based on what other unconnected WP:Reliable sources have written. Dbfirs 17:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


I edited a page on Jan. 11 and its not updated. Any ideas on why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C8:200:C3B:94EA:6E20:5394:6658 (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

What page? David notMD (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, IP user. We can't give you any definite answer without knowing what page, as David notMD says. But I can suggest some possible reasons. One is that you might not have saved your edit: many users have been confused that the button that used to be called "save" is now called "publish". Another is that your edit may have gone in, but been reverted by a bot or another editor, because it didn't appear constructive (a very common case is when people add information without citing a source). If you look at the History of the article, you should see whether anybody reverted your edit, and they should have left a summary explaining why.
If your edit did get reverted, and you still want to apply it, you should open a discussion about it on the article's Talk page before you try and edit again. --ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't find a reliable source

I am creating my first page but I cannot find a good third party source for an indie album. I can only find it on sales sites like "spotify". Any suggestions would be welcome. Is there an "Allmusic" type site for Indie music? Wanderingfreeman (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wanderingfreeman. Before looking for that source, have you considered whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines? I'm concerned that the sources you've cited in Draft:Ramon Rivas Musical Artist Audio Engineer might not yet establish that Rivas has been the subject of significant coverage in independent sources, which is the standard that needs to be met for an article to be published without risk of subsequent deletion. Are there any other newspaper or magazine profiles of him? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Fredrikson Stallard

Hey I’ve written a post titled ‘Fredrikson stallard’ but it has neither been verified or reviewed - could someone please help? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradise lost 90 (talkcontribs) 18:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Paradise lost 90: You asked this a couple of days ago and received a response here, which still applies. (I don't see how that draft could realistically be accepted, I'm afraid - it is almost entirely promotional, and a lot of the information is unsourced. Some of the text that has a reference isn't actually supported by the source either, which is also problematic. But it will be up to the reviewing editor.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I have declined the draft again as it still reads like an advert, it is stuffed full of marketing trumpery….“pushed the boundaries of art and design”, “famous 'Momentum' collection”, “famous London gallerist being pivotal to their meteoric rise”, “exhibit inside the grand reception at The Mandarin Oriental Hyde Park”, “packaged in a weighty rock glass with a luxurious patinated brass”’ “driving a program of creative collaborations”, “often collaborate with leading commercial brands”, “most tangible expression of contemporary design”, “filled with the apparatus of a cutting-edge studio”, “starting a conversation between their work and the observer”, “industrially crafted and yet emotionally engaging” etc etc. none of which is the neutral tone which we expect to see in an encyclopedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Making your own article.

Can someone please tell me how to start? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B023:3231:F45A:F9CE:D0D9:4A74 (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Your first article. Choose a topic that's WP:NOTABLE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


Hi, my recent article submission for Mark Zunino was rejected due to a lack of reliable resources, specifically secondary sources. The rejection also stated that IMDB is not a credible resource for Mark's designs in films and TV shows. What would constitute as a reliable source and what is meant by a secondary source?

My article submission can be found here

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakkarysmith (talkcontribs) 22:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Zakkarysmith: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please click on and read WP:RS for information on what reliable sources are, but in short, reliable sources have a reputation for editorial control and fact checking. Those are usually media outlets like newspapers, but can be other forms of sources. IMDB is not a reliable source as it is user-editable. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Name change

Hello. How do I change the name of the wiki article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Author Kharisma (talkcontribs) 23:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Author Kharisma. You get somebody who is WP:AUTOCONFIRMED to WP:MOVE it for you. BTW, if you are thinking of moving your draft to article space, it is not ready for that yet. —teb728 t c 23:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

MLK day

Someone please change the info on the MLK Day page, its extremely inappropriate!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C52:7A00:1902:9122:13C2:76B7:6E81 (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP and welcome to the Teahouse. The image has been removed, and the user blocked. You can report vandalism quickly here: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I got a message someone is talking about edits I may have made on the Admin notice board?

I don't know where to read about it. I just received a message but I don't understand how read it. It says: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. How do I view this? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:E006:34:1124:5606:3E04:189A (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The Administrator's noticeboard is here but Moxy removed the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


I am creating an article about a celebrity in Africa. How can I improve the article and to make it appear on google. Vasiliades

Welcome to the Teahouse Vasiliades, your article was speedily deleted because it did not indicate why he is important enough to have an article in an encyclopedia. —teb728 t c 01:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Articalthat I have Created

Can someone help me with this Articalthat I have Created I dont understand whats wrong with it thanks God Bless--Amanda.useta (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Amanda.useta, your draft was rejected because it did not demonstrate the notability of the school with reference significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Worse yet it said hardly anything about the school. —teb728 t c 01:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

i want to see my wikipidea in anothers mobile but im not able see can you can any suggestions

after 1 or 2 edit it is not accepting another edit in any case of urgent how can we edit our wiki and how can we upload a picture of the particular Im not sure about WIKI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamakura raju (talkcontribs) 06:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm concerned about whether you're involved with the subject which would mean you need to read the WP:COI and WP:PAID policies. Your account can not be used by multiple people and your Username seems promotional. Please address the issues above before continuing to edit then read the getting started guide. RhinosF1 (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Chamakura raju I'm sorry to say that you don't seem able to communicate well in English. Are you aware that there is a Telugu Wikipedia (and several other Indic Wikipedias). You might be more comfortable writing there. —teb728 t c 07:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with teb728's comment. People who want to write in the English language Wikipedia are expected to be competent, but not sent away. In this instance looks like the draft is at User:Chamakura raju/sandbox and may be autobiographical and is clearly not ready to be proposed for review. David notMD (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi David notMD, I didn't tell the OP they were unwelcome here: I just suggested another outlet they might not have been aware of. I checked their global contribuions, and they were only on en-wiki. Did you think they were competent in English? Their sandbox was not just unready for review: to me it was only about half-comprehensible. —teb728 t c 02:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

How to determine what became of a submission


I'm new to Wikipedia writing and am trying to understand what became of an article I submitted on 16 December 2018. Initially, there was a question raised about a photo that I included then the photo was reinstated after I sent additional information. However, I am wondering if I did something else incorrectly as I have not seen any followup. It may just be due to the huge backlog of submissions awaiting volunteer editors but if it is an issue relating to how the article was written or submitted I would like to fix it ASAP. The article concerns a gentleman who is now 95 and we were hoping to be able to post the information while he was still alive and could answer questions if needed.

Thanks so much for any advice that can be offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shosh2 (talkcontribs) 02:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Shosh2, welcome to the Teahouse. Nothing has become of your article - it is still in your sandbox, exactly where you created it/pasted it in. In other words, you haven't yet submitted it for review at Articles for Creation. If you wish to do that, simply add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article and save your changes by clicking the big blue 'Publish changes' button. Unfortunately, this name tends to confuse new editors who sometimes think it means a page is put forward for inclusion in the main part of Wikipedia. (We are unable to do anything about this recent global name-change, sorry). There is a long backlog of articles awaiting review, so this can take some time. You are well-advised to remove anything from the article which cannot be verified from published sources. The "Early life" section, for example, is completely unreferenced, and this isn't OK. Maybe Mr Rosenblum can point you towards sources that talk about his early life. What we don't accept is Mr Rosenblum's own words about himself. Everything here has to be provable from sources that someone in a library or on the other side of the world can check out for themselves. "If in doubt, leave it out". You might also wish to reinsert the previously deleted image you referred to. Hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Wait time before making major edits

Hi! I made a couple of suggestions for edits to pages that I figured should be discussed first. What is a reasonable amount of time to wait before I change the article? No one has responded to my comments, although it has only been 5 days. Thanks! CLPond (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)CLPond

Hi CLPond. There's really no "set time" so to speak, so if you feel the edits should be made you can do so. It might be a good idea to add a link to the talk page discussion as part of your edit summary just so others can better understand why you made the edit. Editors can be WP:BOLD or WP:CAUTIOUS when editing. If you do the former and nobody reverts your changes, then perhaps you can assume WP:SILENCE. If you do the latter but nobody comments in response, you can also assume SILENCE and make the edit. In either case, you should consider the change to be OK until somebody undoes it or asks for clarification, but once that happens you should try to follow WP:BRD and engage in discussion, unless the revert is completely contrary to relevant policies and guidelines.
Usually, when you make a change to an article with lots of page watchers, you find out fairly quickly (sometimes within a few minutes) as to whether anyone disagrees with the change. Some articles, however, might not have lots of page watchers, which means that comments posted on their talk pages might go unnoticed or unresponded to for quite a long period of time. If you really want input from others, you can try asking a relevant noticeboard or on a WikiProject talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Praticing Artist of 11 Years Page

Hi there,

I noticed you rejected the page I was placing together without subsequent reason. Lists of works have been including externally. I was in the middle of editing. I would appreciate a revise so I can continue to build.

Kind regards,

Mennie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drycontext (talkcontribs) 23:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Drycontext. I am actually unfamiliar with the rejection you received (though I took an almost year's long break recently). I've never before seen an AfC decline template that did not have a button allowing the draftee to resubmit for review. In any event, there's nothing stopping you from continuting to edit Draft:Rue (Artist)—hopefully citing in a transparent manner to reliable, secondary and independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail (not just mere mentions) to verify the information content and demonstrate the notability of the subject, without copying the words used—and when you are finished, adding {{subst:submit}} to the draft to resubmit it for review. Be aware that the standards I referred to, citing sources and the like, are what's needed to write and article that will "stick". If the types of sources I mentioned don't exist, then no proper article will be possible. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Drycontext, I took a look at the versions of your draft, and you did something in this edit that changed your article from "draft" to "submitted for review". So, a reviewer looked at it and declined it. You have to be very careful not to move or change anything in that template until you're ready to submit your article for review. You can check Preview to make sure the templated review message continues to show as "draft". Schazjmd (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: The AfC rejection template is a new feature, different from a decline, that is meant to discourage resubmissions. CoolSkittle (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

new info

hi. can i start a page on a music artist with new info updates? ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP If an article about the artist already exists, then you might be able to add this new information to that article yourself per Wikipedia:Bold as long as you do so per Wikipedia:Five pillars, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living people if the artist is still living. If you're not sure how to add the information youself or whether it's OK to do so, you can always start a discussion about it on the relevant article's talk page and ask others for help or feedback. One thing to try and remember is that articles are not really intended to include every piece of true information about their subjects, even if the information can be properly verified.
If, on the other hand, you'd like to create a new article about an artist, then you should probably take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (music) first in order to assess whether the artist would be considered Wikipedia notable enough to support a stand-alone article. If you then feel they are, then you might want to look at Wikipedia:Your first article for some general advice on how to write articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Style Question on "Signing" Posts in the "Talk" Section

[This Section] shows what I'm talking about. As I learn to use/edit Wikipedia, certain details become more important to me, and in this case it's about how to structure the text I've written so that it's beginning and end are clearly delineated.

I've learned to use the full colons to indent the beginning of the text to show that it's in response to the one immediately "out dented" above it, and so now the ending of the text I've posted is an issue. I don't like to "sign" (with the 4 tildes) at the very end of a line of text; particularly if that causes the signature to get hung at the right side of the page. So what I've learned to do is use two carriage returns and enough colons to throw the signature part one line below the text I've posted, and indented to the same "level" as what I've posted. I like this because it clearly shows the end of my text, which then implies that anything after that, is the beginning of someone else's, which I think is a good thing since sometimes people just throw their text in any old way and sometimes it's hard to see where one person's texts ends, and another person's begins.

I'm posting this here to make certain that this isn't going to be a problem. There's an extra line between the text and the signature, and it's blank. Maybe someone will have a problem with that, and then I'll hear all about it. Better to get ahead of this potential problem and ask the question. Also, in a more general sense are there any policies or conventions that regulate the syntax of posts/text in the "Discussions" that I (or anyone else) should know about?

Tym Whittier (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Tym Whittier. Welcome to the Teahouse. Having skimmed (skum?) through Wikipedia:Signatures, I didn't find anything there which says you must not separate your signature from the end of your post, but I do think it's a really bad idea, and not something I like to see at all. By convention, we all place our signatures immediately after the last paragraph we've posted. It strongly associates our name with our comments. By doing your own thing and by adding an extra line makes me think someone else has just posted their signature, and that the posting itself is unsigned. I find it confusing. If we all did it, that would be fine, but we don't. It also spaces out the discussion more than is needed. Maybe others can find a policy which says you "must" do it that way. WP:SIGAPP states not to add an extra line by means of the break command ( <br />). I would simply urge you to follow the convention that virtually all editors follow, irrespective of whether you like it. You have, yourself, also been prone to missing out the indent when you sign in that way, as you can see on this discussion on your own Talk Page, and that is always going to cause confusion, especially in complex discussions.
I also note that in our "Missing Manual" we have this very clear advice: "Don't start a new line or paragraph when you sign your comments. At the end of the body of your comment, just add a space or two, or a dash or two, or both, for separation, and then add the four tildes. (Extra lines for your signature just take up space on a page, and adding them is the mark of an inexperienced user.)"
Regarding syntax and guidelines, I'd suggest you browse through: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Help:Talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page layout. Does this give you the answer you sought? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
That's good advice, and the fact that I've messed up the formatting on some of the things I've posted is a primary reason why I'm paying attention to it now; trying to refine "the Method" I'm going to use.Tym Whittier (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to create an article

Hello moderator and Wikipedia community,

I have used Wikipedia for most of my adult life. It is a wonderful resource and I love that it is a not-for-profit organization (and I have personally contributed many times over the years to keep it that way).

I am writing to ask about the appropriateness of building an article for myself. In addition to my day job as a banker for government and not-for-profit organizations, I am an independent author. I published my first book in 2017 - a sci-fi novel: Leadership, Heaven and Hell; and a Cybersentient Hero. Then, this past August, I decided to publish my memoir: The Inexplicable Survival of a Happily Fallible Child. (I had actually written the memoir before the sci-fi novel but published it after.)

The memoir has been picked up by a couple of major retailers: Barnes and Noble and

I am happy these retailers found my book and are offering it for sale, but I'm unsure how they found it. (To my best knowledge, at this point, no retailer carries my sci-fi novel.)

I share this information because I believe it may be a contributing factor to my dilemma. I have been told by friends and family that they've found incorrect information on the internet about me and/or my book. For instance, if you search my book name under Google, you'll find on the right side of the page that one of my brothers and one of my sisters are listed as the author. If you click on the link, another sister is listed as a co-author. (I love all my siblings dearly and I couldn't have written the book without their input, but I am the one who wrote the book.) There are other, frankly, wacky, articles about my book out on the internet with all sorts of incorrect information.

A friend suggested I create my own Wikipedia page because that is where much of the information gathered within the internet is pulled from. I am asking if that would be appropriate.

For reference, if you search my author profile. It is accurate about my books and who I am.

I attempted to include links for Barnes and Noble,, Google search and but I received error messages that one or more are listed on Wikipedia's blacklist, so I removed them all. I apologize.

I very much appreciate your time and look forward to hearing back from you.


Gary C. Mele, Jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycmelejr (talkcontribs) 15:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I would advise against it, you can request articles at WP:RA. If you want to be involved also read WP:COI. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
You will find advice against, at WP:autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Garycmelejr. Just a tip about that Google information panel: there's a "Feedback" link beneath it that you can use to request corrections. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Review of my Draft

hey everybody, I working now for more than a week on my first article to be published. Unfortunately it always gets rejected as it sounds apparently like an advertisement. Of course, I do not want it to sound like it. So I edited several times and orientated it to other similar articles. But it still hasn't been accepted yet. Therefore it would be great, if someone could have a look at it and give me some advises on how to improve the article. I have already looked at all the standardized wikipedia help sites and tried to implement their advises. The link is: Thanks in advance ChristinFrohne (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello ChristinFrohne. "the Theia project counts RedHat, IBM, Google and ARM as contributing companies". Wikipedia is not interested in what the project counts. If this is a demonstrable fact, state it as a fact. "Theia has a flexible layout" - this is not a neutral description, but an evaluation. See PEACOCK. "Based on a growing ecosystem of over 60 available language servers, delivering intelligent editing support for all major programming languages" is again not neutral. "Furthermore" is editorializing. What you should be aiming for is wording that both its supporters and its detractors would find accurate: neutral statements of documented facts about the software, not evaluative words and slanted claims. (I am not disputing the claims, just saying that they are inappropriate in an Encyclopaedia). --ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine thank you very much for your feedback. Now I know how to edit the article. ChristinFrohne (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine I have made some changes to the article. Could you have another look at it? Thanks in advance ChristinFrohne (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, ChristinFrohne, I think the tone is much improved. Be aware that I haven't done a formal review (I am not a regular reviewer for AFC), but I think it is worth your resubmitting it. --ColinFine (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Creation of a new page - rejection

Hi - I am trying to create my first Wikipedia entry for my department at The University of Sheffield - I'm aware of academic boostering and am trying to create an objective, informative page about our esteemed department and building as part of the wider university page. I have other information to add, including links to other Wikipedia entries relating to some of our previous academics. Before I went too far I thought I would start basic and see whether I could get it accepted before expanding too quickly. I got the message below and don't know how to act upon it - apologies for not understanding, I'm keen to learn and do this properly. Any advice would be greatly appreciated - thanks, Andy

Welcome to the Articles for creation help desk! If the white boxes below are empty, please complete the following, otherwise skip to 2. below: First, copy and paste the following code in the header bar: 17:23:56, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Scharrlib Then, copy and paste this code in the big input box below that:

Below that, explain why you are requesting assistance, take as many lines as you need and make sure to remember to sign your post with Scharrlib (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Give it up. Wikipedia is no place to advertise. I've took a look at your draft. Furthermore, please review WP:COI and WP:PAID. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Scharrlib. I'm sorry that you haven't received more useful advice. The main issue with your draft, Draft:School of Health and Related Research, is its lack of citations to reliable sources. I'm not quite sure why Whispering declined the draft as being "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia", but I would note that articles on individual university departments are quite often deleted or merged into articles about their parent institutions. The exception would probably be if your department was independently notable, through having been written about extensively in independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

How long will it take to Publish or include my first Draft page in Wikipedia?

Hello Team Teahouse,

I have recently created a Draft page for a person and the draft seems good with all the links and all. I wanted to ask usually how long does it take to get draft page approved to become a Main page on Wikipedia.

Also Creating a new page is also covered in Editing to become Autoconfirmed User?

Here is my page's link: — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReelingMedia (talkcontribs) 10:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi ReelingMedia.
In regards to how long it takes for a Draft Page to become approved, that depends on how many articles are waiting the queue. To start the process, place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article.
As for creating a new page, yes, that will count towards the edit count needed to become auto-confirmed.
However, I would like to ask a few questions about the article. First, it has a section at the top dating from 2010 asking for additional citations. Why did you include that? Second, I am not sure that Ajeet Kumar is sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia at the present time. While the article has a decent collection of sources, none of them include more than a passing reference to the subject, which is not sufficient for proving notability. Do you have additional sources that focus on the individual specifically?
Finally, I note that your name, ReelingMedia, has a tenuous link with the individual in question. If I am barking up the wrong tree, then I apologize, but you may wish to read this on detailing with any potential conflict of interest.
Before I go, I would just like to add - Welcome to Wikipedia!
-- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)