Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 922

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 915 Archive 920 Archive 921 Archive 922 Archive 923 Archive 924 Archive 925

Submitting a page for review and publication


I submitted a page for review in late January and I wanted to ask if there's anything else I need to do in order for the page to be published and searchable via Google, etc.

If a link to the page is needed:

Please let me know what I need to do in order to contribute and finalize the page for publication.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenTonKodiak (talkcontribs) 17:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You didn't submit it for review. There's no point in submitting it until you have references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. Advice is available at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


Why has vandalism been so high for the past few months. I'm pretty new here so I am wondering if this is normal. Doublethink1954 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doublethink1954: Are you talking about a certain page? If the vandalism is coming from one user, warn them and report to WP:AIAV when needed. If it is coming from multiple users, you can request that the page be protected here. Does this answer your question? Mstrojny (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Not really I meant that the vandal EnterpriseyBot has been reporting high vandalism for a while. Doublethink1954 (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Doublethink1954: The user you mentioned is a bot. You may want to contact the operator Enterprisey to express your concerns about the editing of this bot. Mstrojny (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Doublethink1954:, are you talking about {{Vandalism information}}? You can see a history of vandalism levels here. I checked real quick, and for the last 500 updates, this is the data: 3 times at level 5, 114 times at level 4, 204 times at level 3, 136 times at level 2, and 42 times at level 1. This doesn't take into account how long it's been at that level; it looks like the bot checks every hour but only updates when the level has changed.
The level is based on how many reverts per minute there have been on average over the last hour. If you're interested, the code for the bot is available here. rchard2scout (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rchard2scout: Hello, thank you for clearing that up, it was very informative. Doublethink1954 (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

N-word pass

Why is there not an article for the n-word pass. The least we could do is mention it. It is the most culturally significant thing to date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NinetyNinja34 (talkcontribs)

@NinetyNinja34: See User:Ian.thomson/Howto for dead simple instructions on how to make articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I insert a table of contents into my article


I am looking to insert a table of contents into a article I am creating, as the article has around 6 or 7 seperate headings. Is there a specific piece of code required to write this, or does Wikipedia do this automatically.

Thank you for your help,

(Greentree21 (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC))

Dear @Greentree21: Wikipedia should do it automatically for all articles with three or more separate headings. Please reply if you have any further questions! Zingarese talk · contribs 18:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Four or more, according to WP:TOC. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, four or more! My mistake Zingarese talk · contribs 19:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Article has such table now. David notMD (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
There didn't seem to be any relevant page written by the OP at the time of the original question, but Draft:The Constantine Plan has been produced subsequently. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Approved via AfC as article Constantine Plan. Not bad (very good!) as a student assignment. Congratulations. David notMD (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Weapon infobox troubles

Creating an article for The T34 Tank but certain lines on the infobox will not display/update such as Main Gun, Armor, and Engine. Ive had this problem before and cannot solve it can i please get some help???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaunWhick01 (talkcontribs) 19:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear @JaunWhick01: According to Template:Infobox weapon, those parameters only display if the parameter is_vehicle is set to yes. Place |is vehicle=yes into the infobox and let me know if that works. Zingarese talk · contribs 19:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Zingarese: Setting it to that showed engine but not armor or main gun. Am I also missing more? Are there essential parameter i need to set for it to work properly?
@JaunWhick01: Try also adding |is_missle=yes Zingarese talk · contribs 19:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@JaunWhick01: Is this the same problem you were having above at #Infobox not displaying correct information? Did you see the reply I gave there? If this is the same problem or similar problem, then you can respond there and there's no need to start a new thread each time. You might also want to try asking for help at WT:MILHIST since tank articles fall under the scope of WP:MILHIST and you likely going to find editors there who are quite familiar with how this particular infobox template works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Page flagged for speedy deletion

My page Wikipedia:Outreach_Dashboard/University_of_Derby/5PU506_Content_Development_(January_2019) has been flagged for speedy deletion, under criteria G8 - and I'm not sure why, or what I've done wrong here, or how to fix it. Can anyone help?


Cbderbylib (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Cbderbylib, it looks like maybe it was created in the wrong space. I have never seen this before so don't know how to help, but no worries, even if it does get deleted, it's easily restored by an admin. valereee (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
There are other similar course pages that have also been flagged for deletion, those have the note that the subpage Wikipedia:Outreach_Dashboard doesn't exist - so I get why criteria G8 has been used - I'm just not sure where I should move a course page like this to. And if it gets deleted and restored, it might just get flagged again? Cbderbylib (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Cbderbylib, someone will be along, either here or on the talk page of the article, to make sure things get fixed correctly. If it gets deleted and restored, the person doing the restoring will no doubt know how to restore correctly. valereee (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done Page now moved to be a subpage at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed. Not perfect - as you get a 'Do Not Edit This Page' notice which you should completely ignore for now. I'll raise the matter of the other deleted Educational Outreach pages at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Not pinging the OP as I've responded directly on the project talk page. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Matthew HK and Raiffeisen ZentralBank and Raiffeisen International

Dear Tea house,

I feel we have a biased wikipedia editor in the house and I really need your help to curtail his actions. There is an apparent lack of neutrality and destructive actions on his part. His name is Matthew hk (talk)

History: 1) I first bumped into Matthew HK when I added Raiffeisen news related to the Holocaust and Mafia to this page The same news was already on (the parent company of Raiffeisen Bank Intl). I determined that the content should be on both pages since they are IN FACT the same company / owner. I pointed out that many companies in Germany who had Holocaust news e,g, Bayer, Hoechst, BASF and other subsidiaries of IG Farben followed the same treatment. Matthew HK deleted my edits and brought this issue to the dispute board and User:Robert_McClenon presided. Matthew HK never responded to my point about IG Farben and now I cannot find the original dispute on the board. It seems to have disappeared mysteriously.

2) Now Matthew HK is trying to change the name of Raiffeiisen Zentralbank to disassociate itself from Raiffeisen Bank International. Please see He is trying to use 2 sources do do this never mind there are thousands of tier one sources and wikipedia article sources that refer to Raiffeisen Zentralbank as the parent company of Raiffeisen Bank International. We have to question Matthew HK independence on this Raiffeisen issue.

3) To further censure my work Matthew HK is now trying to bring Sock Puppetry violations against me. I have had the same IP and same account, nothing has changed. If he can prove that I used another account while I was using my current Josephintechnicolor account I would like to see the proof. [[Sockpuppet_investigations/Mohamed_Ouda ]]

4) A smaller issue came up when I created the RZB Securities LLC page which was a subsidiary of Raiffeisen Group of Companies (Raiffeisen Zentral Bank and Raiffeisen Bank International) and Matthew HK placed a deletion tag on the page. I accepted his deletion and offered a solution to add RZB Securities to the Raiffeisen Bank International page, this has not been done yet.

Conclusion: Matthew hk does not seem like an independent person on the topic of Raiffeisen wikipedia articles and he needs to declare himself as such. He is trying to change the Raiffeisen name and corporate structure with 2 ambiguous sources where there are thousands that say the opposite. He is not following normal wikipedia protocol with regards to the parent companies / subsidiaries and their shared news. He has aggressively been harassing my attempts to put properly sourced news on Raiffeisen's wikipedia articles. Matthew HK does not follow up on statements I made to defend my actions on the dispute board when it was HE Himself who made the disputed page on Raiffeisen in the first place. Matthew HK is overtly defending and removing Raiffeisen wikipedia pages of content/news sources. My news sources represent millions of people and many reporters who have been affected by Raiffeisen past actions and the truth should be upheld as it is for IG Farben and many others like them. I feel matthew HK is disruptive to wikipedia and should be banned.

All of these entities are related and their news is related. Matthew HK has a HIDDEN agenda to clean up Raiffeisen's past.

02:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk)

Hello @Josephintechnicolor:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please use talkpage discussion or one of the venues listed in WP:Dispute resolution to resolve such disputes. The Teahouse is not one of these venues and is primarily aimed at help with editing-related questions and general advice for new editors. Thank you for your understanding. GermanJoe (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

OK Noted. Thank you. I will move the discussion to the talk page & dispute resolution. GermanJoe (talk11:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk)
@GermanJoe:. Despite SPI CU check was declined. The case was seriously fishy that the controversy section was added by a SPA (which know the wiki code very well) in 2012 (Wevans104 (talk · contribs)) to the bank Raiffeisen_Zentralbank and no one ever edited it since except some ip ( (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs)) and then Josephintechnicolor, which content forked to Raiffeisen_Bank_International. On top of that, Kelly Hyman which was deleted also in Kelly Hyman (lawyer) and Kelly Hyman (attorney), was recreated by Josephintechnicolor in Draft:Kelly Hyman. It do look different when checking wiki echo when comparing Kelly Hyman (attorney) and Draft:Kelly Hyman. However, it still looks like a meat sock or paid editor for hike to promote some subject or posting UNDUE controversy . Which also make me to recall the memory of Communion and Liberation, that the problematic user, end up blocked as sock , but before that stuck in an endless loop in Talk:Communion and Liberation that the user did not get to the point. Josephintechnicolor refused to response to UNDUE , and then gaming the system. Matthew hk (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Some self-correction, it seem the section was introduced single handed by Gazpr (talk · contribs) and not much changed , some ip even removed it ( (talk · contribs)). Matthew hk (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Teahouse, please help me write a properly page as I am a very new and not experienced on this. I am trying to create a page but I do not know how to do it.

Please help!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loc - Xinchao (talkcontribs) 13:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Loc - Xinchao: Hi, I suppose the WP:YFA page could give you some useful hints. --CiaPan (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Loc - Xinchao:,You can also refer to Wp:ACR, but I believe the best is to get the help of a friend who is also a wikipedia user. Alex-h (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Loc - Xinchao: Specifically, you can check the Article Wizard as it will give you a step-by-step guide if you are ready to create a page. Good luck. Darwin Naz (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this a suspicious situation

If you look at the revision history of Enclosure, you will see edits by 3 users since 11 March. These edits take the article in a direction that I regard as off-subject (yes, I might be wrong!!). The 3 users have not edited any other articles. Does this look suspicious? If so, is there any recommended course of action? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: Welcome to Wikipedia. It is best to Assume Good Faith that the editors are not conspiring together. Start a discussion on the article's talk page to get consensus on what changes should go into the article. If you can't get consensus, then move on to other steps at dispute resolution. RudolfRed (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Looks to me like one user making a substantial addition to the article and a couple of others (perhaps associated with the major contributor, but hey, friends or classmates can have a simultaneous interest in a topic) making very minor tweaks which do not amount to manipulation.
The substantial addition, which has an international theme, does seem to flow tangentially to the previous focus of the article, which was primarily about the historical process in England, but the article's title is perhaps over-broad and arguably the new material does legitimately fit under it.
My suggestion would be to either:
(a) Move the new material into the existing subsection of 6.2 (See also: Other countries), or
(b) Create (or find) a new (or existing) article on the general topic with an international scope and integrate the recent contribution to that, and also move the existing article to a more specific title such as 'Land Enclosure in England'.
Either way (or other ways), the contributor(s) should be engaged on the Talk page to discuss the way forward as RudolfRed suggests. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I boldly deleted all content not relevant to land enclosure in England, suggesting instead the creation of other article(s). And started a discussion at Talk. Plausibly, descriptions of exclusion of farmers and nomads from traditional land use could be in a section on other countries, but all the stuff about digital commons, etc, not here. David notMD (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Getting an article approved

Hello, I am Veronicah

I am really looking for the day I will get an article accepted and approved by Wikipedia. I have submitted several and every time I get a decline message. So disapointing. but I am so much into this and I need to get the skills to get an article approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkangethe (talkcontribs) 01:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, @Vkangethe:
I have written a set of detailed but simple instructions that cover everything you need to do to write a successful article, which you can see by clicking this link. In short, all you really need to do is cite and summarize at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about the subject but not dependent upon nor affiliated with nor connected to the subject.
Addressing some specific issues with the Gill draft, Gill's own profile on a site is not independent, while this article only mentions him in passing but really is not about him. This source is closer to what you need but it would be better if it was not an interview and it'd also be great if you had sources about other things he has done.
As for your other draft, there's really only two sources with one repeated. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Vkangethe:, aside from the previous suggestions given by the other editors, I would also advise you to take a look at other Wikipedia articles and note how they are presented and structured. For instance, I have read your drafts and they begin with Brief introduction section. The lead of an article does not have a heading. Please also note text formatting for the heading. With regards to the Sohinder Gill draft, it currently reads like an advertisement. For more insights, you could take a look at Kumar Mangalam Birla's page. Darwin Naz (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Youtube videos can be cited as source?

This video shows an inside look of the production of the film Despicable Me 2, and I was asking if it can be used as a source to the corresponding article -Gouleg (TalkContribs) 23:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Whether or nor a YouTube video can be so cited depends on the video. Videos that are copyright violations absolutely cannot, nor should those that merely express the personal opinions of an individual, or the original research of someone with no editorial oversight.
However, this video is on the official YouTube channel of Illumination, the studio that made the film it discusses, so can likely be regarded as a reliable source at least for what the Studio wishes to say, so it is likely usable for facts (such as who worked on the film, what techniques were used, etc.) but not for subjective judgements about aspects of the film.
There is more guidance about linking to YouTube at Wikipedia:YouTube, and I suspect somewhere there is discussion of citing material on it, but I can't find it at the moment. Anyone? {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
thank you for your reply. Saw another user cite this same video (but uploaded by Universal UK) and it got removed; while i assume it was because of original research based upon the video, i was unsure if it also was because the source was a youtube video -Gouleg (TalkContribs) 03:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I request a neutral editor to review several completed articles and how can their neutrality be ensured?

I had been compensated to write several Wikipedia articles by a particular client without knowing that I had to disclose this fact on Wikipedia. Two editors recently pointed this out to me and I now have inserted the Connected Contributor tag on the appropriate Talk pages. However, in this case, the problem is not about adding new edits to these articles, since I have finished my work on them. Rather, the question is what will happen to these articles and all the edits that have already been made to them?

One of the editors who had questioned me in the first place about the paid edits suggested on the articles' Talk pages that a neutral editor volunteer to review these articles I had worked on... and actually, I agree with that.

So I have two questions: a) what is the procedure for having a neutral editor review these articles?; and b) since the first editor's comments on the articles' Talk pages were so sneeringly (and in my view totally unfairly) insulting about the articles in question, how can I prevent the reviewing editor from being biased by those comments?

Thank you for your feedback. Dylanexpert (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Refs 5 and 9 are dead. Refs 2, 7 and 8 written by QuisLex staff. The content may be true, but you will need to find independent sources to cite, or else delete the content. In general, descriptions of details on how a company has gotten bigger over time do not make it notable. And do not put the list of awards back in. David notMD (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The very first thing to do, Dylanexpert, is to declare all of the articles that you have been paid to edit. This is mandatory per WP: PAID. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
David notMD: Thank you for your comments. But as far as I know, none of the content on the current QuisLex page is mine, since all my edits were erased. Everything that's there came from previous editors. I will try to find independent sources, then make suggestions on my Talk Page.
Thank you Cullen328, but I already know that. I have already put the notifications on the individual article Talk pages and will also put the notifications on my own User page. I don't need to know the first step, but the second, third and fourth steps, namely, how to get editors to do the difficult work of fixing the articles, which I'm not allowed to do myself, and to make sure they're really neutral.
Dylanexpert (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
At Talk for the article, Voceditenore reported trying to find quality references to add to the article and did not find any: "It doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH with its current references, and I haven't been able to find anything significantly better to replace them, apart from this book which lists them (with 2 sentences) as one of the 6 main competitors of Cobra Legal Solutions."" Perhaps Dylanexpert can do better, but this looks to me like an article that never had valid resourcing. David notMD (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Dylanexpert, to the best of my knowledge, we have no formal mechanism for a paid editor to request reviews of existing articles written by that paid editor. The normal editing process which takes place across the entire encyclopedia encourages uninvolved editors to improve all articles as time goes by. Before accusing other editors of a sneeringly insulting attitude, begin by assuming good faith of volunteer editors, unless you have convincing evidence to the contrary. The working presumption among many highly experienced volunteer editors is that your judgment may be clouded by your paycheck. It is up to you to prove them wrong by your own indisputably productive behavior. If you think that changes should be made on a specific article, please see Template:Request edit for a method to request a change. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Collapsing only part of a table?

Is there a way to collapse only a portion of a table? We are trying to make a box in a table that could then be expanded to show more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkyo (talkcontribs) 13:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Walkyo.Welcome! I don't think I've ever tried this particular issue, but you'll probably find the section on innercollapse and outercollapse most relevant to your needs. See Help:Collapsing for details. Word to the wise: Test a copy in your sandbox before editing a pre-existing article. Been there, done that, messed it up big-time. Thank heavens for 'revert'. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
This is usually not allowed in articles, MOS:DONTHIDE – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Reading the exceptions, I think this falls under the exceptions. For more detail, we are trying to show a timeline of the most subscribed youtubers, but with this period of back and forth between PewDiePie and T-Series, it's hard to do. I suggested putting a box that said "Contested", which you could expand in order to show the detailed back and forth between PewDiePie and T-Series. If it is not allowed, it will start open with the option to be collapsed if it is not needed. Walkyo (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Walkyo: Hi, I'm really concerned with you using a plural pronoun “we”. Are you more than one individual? If so, please split your activity into separate accounts – a shared use of a Wikipedia account by multiple people is explicitly forbidden and usually results in blocking such account from editing. Please see the relevant policy at Wikipedia:Username policy, esp. the section WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. Also Wikipedia:Sock puppetry with its part WP:ROLE for a specific case. --CiaPan (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding, I'm just referring to the group of people that came up with the idea. All of us on seperate accounts, we just came up with a solution together. Walkyo (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Walkyo! That's OK for me. I did not assume 'you' are collective, just considered it as a possibility. Actually, I'm personally not much concerned about a shared use in general, as long as it is done in good faith. However Wikipedia community is, because of the licensing rules, implying a legal requirement of unambiguous attribution of any contribution to its author – so I was concerned about possible negative results of such use for you. As a result I've put my comment above 'just in case', as an advice rather than a warning, for you to keep yourself on a safe side before any admin may take some actions. :) Best regards, and happy editing! --CiaPan (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Help editing a list

I am really dumb when it comes to editing a Wicki page and would appreciate it if someone could make an edit for me. The page listing the oldest Americans is incorrect, my mother turned 111 January 28 and I would like to see her listed. Her name is Doris Jablonsky Sperber. She was born in NYC on 1/28/1908 and now lives in San Francisco. I have any number of references, including an article that ran in the San Francisco Chronicle on 1.22.2018 ( The page that needs editing is

Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooklyn39 (talkcontribs) 06:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Brooklyn39. Welcome to the Teahouse. May I suggest you repeat this post over at the relevant talk page? Just go to Talk:List of American supercentenarians and click the tab marked "Add Topic". Having the url to a reliable newspaper or other available evidence is essential, so I'm glad you provided that. I suspect another editor at that page would be very happy to add in the details for you. Best wishes to you - and to her! Nick Moyes (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources for an Article

In between 2011 and 2015, American pornstar Riley Reid published posts on twitter and her personal website detailing her self-described raping of her highschool boyfriend. As she is a pornstar and was relatively new at the time, no major news outlet reported this, as far as I can tell. Nevertheless, there exist images of her now-deleted tweets. For your reference, she said the following things in her tweets and on her website:

  • "I raped a kid in a movie theatre cause I wanted to fuck and he kept sayin no."
  • "He on the other hand didn't want to lse his virginity in the movies and said no that we should wait."
  • "Well I guess in my book, n means yes because his boner didn't turn me down! I placed myself in cowgirl on his lap and slide his cock right inside me."

I beleive a section in Riley Reid's page should mention this, and I edited the page to include a paraphrased version of what she said in her own tweets, as well as including direct quotes. I also included as sources: 1) images of the self-published writings; and 2) a website called naughtynews which I can't link in this question because it keeps getting flagged by Wikipedia's algorithm. The entire section was eventually deleted by another user, who stated that the website is not reliable and the self-published sources are not sufficient.

My questions are: 1) Are the self-publiushed sources allowed?; 2) Are the self-published sources sufficient as the sole sources?; 3) Is the website allowed to be an additional source (if not, why)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynwniloc (talkcontribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cynwniloc. In the case of serious allegations: 1) No, 2) No, 3) Reliable, high-quality, investigative websites such as mainstream newspapers might be used to cover stories of serious criminal allegations, but not salacious tittle-tattle website aimed at prurient readers like "The Naughty News". So, again, No. You should not have included external links to sources within the text you add, instead cite them as proper references. But never, ever use stuff on user-generated sites such as Reddit.
Wikipedia is only interested in collating what independent, RELIABLE, sources say about a subject, and not what they say about themselves. Wait until a so-called 'controversy' has been competently investigated and reported upon by proper news outlets, or criminal charges have been brought and made public. Well done for self-reverting your addition. All controversies, especially those relating to living people, must remain off the page of Wikipedia until covered by proper sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

can't read media description page

My father, 92 years old this month, is writing a memoir in which he wants to use an image where we can't read the media description page; it’s in Russian (Махлуп,_Фриц#/media/File:Махлуп,_Фриц.jpg). Must we find someone who can read it, or is there an easier way to find out what’s needed in order to use this image in my father's book? --KWW52 (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, KWW52. Welcome. Yes there is an easier way. Either visit the website in Google Chrome (which offers you a a "translate this page" icon on the far left of the url bar, or copy the relevant text and paste into Google translate.
I used the former method, and it's clear there are image-use restrictions. Translated, it says "This file is non-free (does not meet the definition of a free work of culture ). In accordance with the decision of the Wikimedia Foundation, it can be used in Russian Wikipedia articles only if the criteria for fair use are met . Any other use (both in Russian and outside Wikipedia) can be a violation of copyright."
Lower down there is a link to where the image was sourced from, which you can find at this location. With a bit more detective work you may well e able to trace the original author and maybe find contact details to approach them directly for permission to re-use an image. We can't give copyright advice here I'm afraid. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Nick Moyes! I never thought you could give copyright advice here. Your answer gives us a way forward. Hooray!

Rejected article help please

Hello Tea house, Greetings Kindly requesting help editing a previously rejected article/page. I am new here and have no idea how to go about writing an article that will be approved by Wikipedia. Thanks and looking forward to any kind of assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athienorachel2 (talkcontribs) 09:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Athienorachel2: See WP:YFA. Mstrojny (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Not approving Company Wikipedia

Hi, I am digital marketer. I write content and market them on digital platform for various client. But, wikipedia doesnt allow me to publish the content for my clients business. I although its genuine content and client want it to publish on their behalf.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aduber Digital (talkcontribs) 11:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia records information about independently notable companies and persons. It is not a platform for self-promotion or advertising. There are strict condition of use: WP:COI and WP:PAID which you would need to read, understand and apply before attempting to edit. If there is a page about your client, once you have satisfied the policies with appropriate declarations, you may request a change on the relevant talk page. In passing, if English is not your first language then doing things this way may actually produce a better page for your client. Finally, please ensure you sign all posts to talk pages by adding four "~" symbols at the end of your text. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox not displaying correct information

Im finishing up an article but the main info box will not show Armament and Armor data underneath even after removing and re adding. And yes I added the information to it twice but it refuses to show any new data.JaunWhick01 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)JaunWhick01

Hi JaunWhick01. Assuming you're talking about User:JaunWhick01/sandbox, then try looking at Template:Infobox weapon. Often problems with infobox templates are the result of someone trying to use an non-existent parameter or a typo in the paramter syntax. Templates will only work properly when you format them properly; so even a simple thing as forgetting to add an underscore or capitalizing a letter which shouldn't be captialized can cause a problem. Another thing that sometimes works is to look at how the same infobox template is being formatted in existing articles. Since you're writing about a tank, then articles like M1 Abrams, M4 Sherman or Panzer IV might provide a clue as to what the problem is. Certain template parameters might have been been deprecated or changed at some point, so trying to use them no longer works. For example, none of the three articles I've referenced above seem to use |primary_weapon= in the infobox, but use |primary_armament= instead. One mistaken parameter can sometimes cause others to not work properly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The docs do include, under "Vehicle/missile specification parameters (most only available if is_vehicle is set to "yes"; some are also activated if is_missile is set to "yes")" — "primary_weapon – optional – the primary armament mounted on the vehicle, if any". Adding |is_vehicle=yes got the armor to show up, but still not the weapon. Thanks for fixing it Marchjuly! I do wonder if that's a bug in the template, though. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹|✝️|John 15:12|☮️|🍂|T/C 11:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

why am i not visible to the general public.

Hello, i created an account with Wikipedia and i even confirm my email,i also have edited some contributions about myself but when some my boss and some acquaintance search for my name on Wikipedia they couldn't find me(am i not visible to the public) what am to do because i want to be visible to the general public, i will be glad to get a reply soon, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foretv (talkcontribs) 08:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Foretv. For the time being, your user account can be seen at User:Foretv (i.e. at We do not allow user accounts to be indexed by Google in the same way that articles are indexed- you are simply not a notabe person, so why would we? Unfortunately you have chosen to use a promotional username, and as such, it breaches our username policy, so will be deleted very shortly. (See WP:USERNAME for what is and isn't allowed.) Please tell your boss that Wikipedia is not here to help you or them promote your company. You say you have already made other edits here, yet your account does not show this. We do not allow one person to operate two or more accunts here, and any evidence of that happening will result in all accounts being permanently blocked for WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. Sorry this isn't what you or your boss want to hear. Please try The Wikipedia Adventure for a simple interactive tour on the basics of editing Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
To resume being an editor: 1) Follow the instructions on your Talk page about appealing the block by creating a new User name; 2) Do not try to create an article about yourself, as a) you are not 'Notable' by Wikipedia, and B) Wikipedia frowns on autobiography (see WP:Autobiography); 3) Use only one account. Editing while signed in and while not signed in counts as multiple accounts. David notMD (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Something weird is happening when I write

Suddenly everything changes size and color. I must have done something, but I can't figure out what. I need help; its really annoying. Creuzbourg (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Creuzbourg, welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds like you activated syntax highlighting. There are several such features. The easiest to activate by accident is a highlighter marker button Codemirror-icon.png to the left of "Advanced" in some toolbars. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Problem solved! I really appreciate your help. Creuzbourg (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Update account email

Hi there,

Could you point me to where I can update my email to the account pls? Thank you! --Redzebras (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Redzebras, and welcome to the Teahouse! To update your email, go to the preferences section and scroll down to "Email options". In the future, you can go to this page by clicking on the "Preferences" link at the top-right of each Wikipedia page. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 08:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!Redzebras (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

References for Traka page


I am preparing a final version to re-submit a page for Traka, which was previously removed. There are a couple of points that I can't find a reference online other than a press release, which I know isn't accepted. Should i leave the reference off?

Currently, I have in place: 4. ASSA ABLOY acquires Traka Plc in the United Kingdom

11. Justin Sasse appointed as Managing Director for Traka

Please let me know and any advice welcome.

Thanks LydiaLydiaFionaLewis (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, LydiaFionaLewis welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid your question is somewhat moot, and that you will be wasting your organisations's time and money - and our volunteer resources - if you do try to recreate the Traka article. Following a formal discussion process, it was deleted in January on the grounds of not meeting our notability guidelines for companies (WP:NCORP}. So, unless you have new sources showing that Traka has very recently been the subject of detailed and in-depth reporting by a number of non-insider news media, books or so forth, your task will be futile. Your parent company, Assa Abloy already has an article, and I see there is already a brief mention of the Traka takeover. Please be advised that we require all users who have a Conflict of Interest to declare their connection if they do choose to write about their employer, friends' business and so forth. You would also be obligated to then declare that you are remunerated in so doing, under our WP:PAID policy. Both links explain how you should, if appropriate, declare that company connection. I'm sorry I can't be more positive, but this encyclopaedia is not here to help non-notable companies promote themselves. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)  
Oh, and last month you asked at the AfD discussion what does 'pre-PAIDCOI version' refers to. A weird term, I agree, but they were talking about was giving time for the deletion discussion contributors to look at versions of the article prior to a load of paid-edits being added to it by one or more users with a suggested WP:COI and WP:PAID link to the Traka company. Sometimes, seeing all those obvious PR phrases and promo-links tends to make Wikipedians immediately assume that the company isn't notable, and is just pushing itself forward. So, it was to give more time for a fairer assessment of notability to be made. That happened - and it failed. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bull Theatre, Barnet

The listing for The Bull diverts to the Susi Earnshaw Theatre School. Whilst both businesses are based in the same building they are in fact separate businesses. Is it possible to have these split out on Wikipedia please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clpcreativemanagement (talkcontribs) 13:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Clpcreativemanagement: This question/request is best asked at the talk page of the relevant article, giving links to demonstrate any point you wish to have changed. From the photo on that page, they do look extraordinarily closely connected, so a separate page might not be necessary. I fact, there is no actual redirect page, just Wikipedia's search results offering the Theatre School when "The Bull Theatre" is entered. This seems like a case of a non-involved editor simply improving the existing article itself.
May I just politely point out that your username breaches our username guidelines as it suggests a promotional use of an account, operated by more than one person. My advice is to simply abandon that account completely, never use it ever again, and create a new one like 'JoeatCLP' and ensure you don't edit articles yourself without first declaring any Conflict of Interest you might have with the subject. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Help requested

How do I ask for the opinion of people related to an article and whether it meets basic WP:GNG without WP:CANVASSING? (This is in related to an actual article I am currently working on) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi DiplomatTesterMan, you're welcome to do so here. Asking notability questions neutrally at a noticeboard meant to help users out would rarely be considered canvassing.--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 14:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
You can, for example, post a neutral message like "Looking for more input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratik Sinha" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
SkyGazer 512, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thanks for the reply. I had written this teahouse message before the the article was nominated for deletion. The message arose since a page I had created, Pratik Sinha had been blanked without any discussion whatsoever and I reverted it and requested the user to seek consensus before making such an action. Since it has been nominated for deletion now, that is ok and normal Wikipedia procedure will apply now in related to AFDs, no problem now.
But my question was also general also since in the past I have had doubts where more opinions would have been good but haven't asked them since I don't want it to be labelled as WP:CANVASSING or wasting editorial resources. So thank you for replying and I know now that teahouse is a good place to start these kind of discussions. Thanks DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I customize my talk page username?

I see all these people with customized talk page tags. How do I change it from just the standard "Walkyo"? Walkyo (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Walkyo, I'm going to assume you mean your signature. Go to your Special:Preferences and go to the User profile section. Scroll down and you will find the "Signature" section. You can edit that to change your sig. Check the "Treat as wiki markup" box to be able to use some of the fancy formatting you see on others. WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Adding to that, if you check "treat as wiki markup", remember that the signature code then needs to include the code for a link to your user page (|[[User:Walkyo|<link text>]]) and/or user talk page (|[[User talk:Walkyo|<link text>]]). Also, see Wikipedia:Signatures for what is and isn't allowed. Regards SoWhy 16:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article Capitalization

Why do we make Certain Wikipedia Article Names have the first word have capitalization and the other word not capitalized, It Doesn't Make any sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwc435 (talkcontribs) 16:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mwc435, welcome to the Teahouse. Would you care to supply some examples so that we can better understand your concerns? This shortcut: WP:TITLEFORMAT gives guidance on how titles should be formatted, as well as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) which states in bold on its first line: Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name. If you have found examples that contravene this style guideline, do let us know. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Laura Crafton Gilpin - accidental deletion?

Dear Everyone, I have been looking for an entry on the poet and healthcare worker, Laura Crafton Gilpin. A dead link exists for her at [[1]] (she won the award in 1976). There also appears to be an original entry at I would happy to re-create the article, but the presence of entry in suggests an accidental deletion.

I would be grateful for any advice about what I should do.

Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingOfCabbage (talkcontribs) 15:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

KingOfCabbage, According to the redlink page, It was AFDed and there was no objection. I would bring it up with the person who AFDed it if you want it to be recreated. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, this did not go via AfD; it was prodded and subsequently deleted. So I can restore this, but the lack of reliable sources makes the creation of an article problematic. Lectonar (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, KingOfCabbage. To translate what WelpThatWorked into less jargony language: the article Laura Crafton Gilpin was deleted in 2015 using the Proposed deletion mechanism, which is where the proposer expects the deletion to be uncontroversial. Anybody may challenge the proposal within a week, but since nobody did, it was deleted. The comment with the proposal was: "2015-01-12T10:33:05 Shirt58 (talk | contribs) deleted page Laura Crafton Gilpin (WP:PROD: Nominated for seven days with no objection: This is not Laura Gilpin. If I could rescue this page, I would do my best to do so. But no books, no media coverage, nothing that would suggest passing WP:GNG or other criteria.) (thank)".
  • @Lectonar, KingOfCabbage, and ColinFine: Hi all. Thanks for letting me know about this. I have checked my browser history to look for context, but it doesn't go back that far. Please let me know if I can be any further help about this. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
If you think that Gilpin meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (which is what Shirt58 was talking about), then you could contact Shirt58 and ask them to restore the article to a draft that you can work on. But do check that first, because if Gilpin does not meet Wikipedia's critiria for notability, then no amount of work on the draft will make it into an acceptable article, and you will be wasting your and others' time. --ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
It's now at Draft:Laura Crafton Gilpin. Lectonar (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Fine with me about the undelete and move to draftspace. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Might it be a good idea to add a hatnote to Laura Gilpin with a redirect to Laura Crafton Gilpin (and vice-versa) if/when the latter becomes an article? Or would the approver do that as a matter of course? {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou everyone! - your advice is much appreciated, and thank you Lectonar for resurrecting the entry - Now it is in draft, is it just a matter of waiting for approval? - sorry for my ignorance... Re. The original deletion, the reason seems to be that the entry in the list of Walt Whitman prize winners was for “Laura Gilpin” and not “Laura Crafton Gilpin” - Laura Gilpin being the photographer - the hatnote for each person seems a must. Please could you also advise - there is a (paid for) obituary in the NY Times for her, and an award in her name, given by the organisation she worked for - would these be valid references or just external links?

I welcome your advice... Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingOfCabbage (talkcontribs) 20:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, KingOfCabbage. No, it is not just a matter of waiting for approval. The draft won't be formally reviewed until you (or somebody) submit it for review, by pasting {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top.
However, it is not ready for that, because it doesn't cite any sources. The obituary will probably be a good source, unless it is very short (it doesn't matter that it is behind a paywall), but you really need at least one other place where somebody unconnected with Gilpin has chosen to write about her at some length, and been published in a reliable place such as a major newspaper, or a book from a reputable publisher: see WP:REFB and WP:IRS. Basically almost nothing in the article should come from her or from people or organisations associated with her - only uncontroversial factual data like places and dates. Everything else should come from independent sources. Note that Shirt56 looked for such sources in 2015, and didn't find enough; and that Theroadislong has added a comment to the draft that implies that they have looked yesterday and didn't find any. But it is possible you can find some others. Have a look at your first article as well. --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You guys are persistent

No reason to continue this - the subject of the discussion (if Damien Linson was able to be added to Plymouth, North Carolina#Notable people) was resolved (he never played in an NFL game, so he doesn't have the WP:NGRIDIRON requirement, and there's no evidence to suggest his career in college football or GFL is notable). As the editor in question was framing Mr. Linson as a Baltimore Ravens player that actually participated, a level 4 warning for deliberate misinformation will be issued to Whitecityplymouth. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 21:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are you guys looking at what is actually being published or NO. Damien Linson was a member or the Baltimore Ravens(NFL) and 2010 (GFL Champions) Kiel Baltic Hurricanes. Select a search engine and do your research, facts are facts. However to consistently delete facts when there are notable people who have done less, seems a little off. To the editors its 2019, based off of the criteria it should actually be a few more names on the list. As long as you guys delete, the information will be resubmitted because they are facts. National Football League and German Football League are both professional leagues. Editors please put your personal issues aside, just do your research and thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitecityplymouth (talkcontribs) 18:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Whitecityplymouth: For interested editors, this is with regards to the editor trying to add Damien Linson to Plymouth, North Carolina#Notable people. Numerous editors have responded that site convention is to not include people on these lists unless they have their own article. If you think you have enough sourcing, you can create an article, even a stub, and from WP:GRIDIRON, if Mr. Linson appeared on one game, you should be OK. Please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~ so we know who you are. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that's a misunderstanding of convention, Timtempleton. WP:CSC states that red links in lists are acceptable. However, references are still needed to demonstrate notability. Whitecityplymouth, I suggest you have a read of WP:BURDEN, which explains that the burden is on you to provide sources if you want to add something to an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: It appears that you are correct - comment stricken. I had my notable people lists mixed up with DAB page lists. A better solution would be to add the person as a red-link, but with a single source demonstrating notability. Proof of an NFL game appearance would certainly suffice, and the red link might encourage the article creation. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Whitecityplymouth, According to the NFL page on him, he is a College football player, so I doubt he would be able to be on either of those teams. Have a good one! WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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

"Using author link" examples

The documentation in Template:Cite web#Using author-link has six example citations. Only the first one uses the author-link parameter. I don't feel competent to edit this, but somebody should. --Thnidu (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Good spot, Thnidu! Best thing to do is leave this feedback at the Talk page of the Template itself. It might not get picked up immediately, but that's probably the most sensible place to comment. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Thnidu, thanks for spotting it! I took a deep dive into the archives, and found that this mistake has been there since a cleanup in 2012! The problem was that some headings were lost: there's only one example for author-link, the other examples are for multiple authors, no author, and no author and no publisher. I've fixed the mistake.rchard2scout (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, Nick Moyes. I was going to put it on the talk page, but there's a banner there warning that the page is rarely visited and that it would be better to go to a help page.
And thanks for fixing the section, Rchard2scout. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been sharp enough / familiar enough with these templates to do it myself. --Thnidu (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)