Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 925

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 920 Archive 923 Archive 924 Archive 925 Archive 926 Archive 927 Archive 930

Creating a Wikipedia page for a BBC children's wellbeing brand


I signed up as I thought it would be useful to create a Wikipedia entry for BBC Own It is a UK website and brand that my team run, offering internet safety and wellbeing advice to children in the UK. Our target audience is 8-12 year olds who need support to be healthy and happy in all that they do online. We sit within a network of partner charities and organisations, including the UK Safer Internet Centre, Internet Matters, and the Duke of Cambridge's CyberBullying Taskforce. We are a sister brand to and

However, I note in the Wikipedia 'welcome' information that it is broadly frowned upon to create Wiki pages about your own site or projects you're involved in.

Therefore, please could someone advise whether - on the face of it - this brand and our work would be considered to merit a Wiki entry. I would be perfectly happy for someone else to create this page - and to provide any info required, if this was felt to be the most proper way to move forward.

Here is some background info:

About the website: About the (forthcoming) Own It app:

Hope that's all ok.

All best wishes,

Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davhow (talkcontribs) 16:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Davhow. The first thing that you must do is to comply with our mandatory paid contributor disclosure. Whether or not BBC Own It is notable as Wikipedia defines that term depends on the amount of significant coverage that the website has received from reliable sources independent of the BBC. Please read Your first article and Articles for Creation. Wikipedia:Notability (web) is also relevant. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
By the way, I wanted to take a look at the website to evaluate it but it seems I cannot visit the website because I am in the United States. That seems strange. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that also - interesting. Maybe because it's targeting to young kids, they want to limit the problems they might have complying with other countries' laws relating to selling to and collecting data from minors. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Event listings as Reliable Sources???

I've been studying a lot of artists and photographers' articles on WP to learn the best approach before I embark on attempting to create some - In noticing the edit history of some of the articles, I've noticed some editors (interestingly enough, usually the same few) seem to delete citations and references that are published in newspapers listing an artist exhibition.

My questions thus:

1. Does every single exhibition for an artist of photographer require a citation in order to document each single exhibition properly? This is nearly impossible for pre-Internet exhibitions and those in the 90s.

2. In many cases I am discovering that often the only only online reference to an art show is a "listing" of the exhibition in a newspaper or art magazine - are these references acceptable?

Again: The reason that I am asking is that, for example: an editor recently removed several exhibition citations from a Chicago photographer's WP article with the explanation that "event listings are not RS" - for the record, these exhibitions were listed in the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune. I guess that I'm confused why an art show listing in a major newspaper is not a reliable source, as it documents the show and often other online references from the early days of the Internet are hard to find. Thank you in advance, -- (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@ I'd have to see the exact edit to get the full context, but there's a difference between an article about an exhibit in a notable publication and a listing of upcoming exhibits which is usually there because a publicist sent it in. It makes sense if you think about it - the latter is unverified - anyone can say any exhibit is coming up, but only after the fact using the resultant media coverage can we say it actually happened. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. My own view is that every statement indicating an exhibition has taken place should be supported by a reference. (I don't mind if a few citations are missed off, but I expect at least every other one to be supported with evidence) Far too many artist-related articles try to show how 'notable' an artist is, simply by listing exhibitions of their work. To me, if an editor fails to support such a statement with a citation, then the whole entry is dubious. We do not require citations to link to online evidence. A citation to a printed exhibition catalogue is quite acceptable. But be aware that a commercial gallery (as opposed to a public museum or art gallery) producing a catalogue of an exhibition is rather akin to Walmart/Sainsbury's/Asda producing a flyer for what's in stock on their shelves this week. Hardly evidence of notability.
Yes, if you want to provide supporting evidence of an exhibition, then a newspaper/art magazine is perfectly acceptable. But bear in mind that simply having an exhibition in a commercial gallery doesn't contribute towards meeting our notability criteria for artists. (See WP:NARTIST).Nick Moyes (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
If you think about it, the only information which a listing could possibly support was that the event was scheduled to take place: not even always that it did take place. I guess that for an exhibition which continued over a period, a repeated listing would be a prima facie source for the fact that the exhibition did take place. But if that is the only source for an exhibition, I'm not convinced that the exhibition should appear in an article: generally an article should list only the major works (or exhibitions, productions etc) not everything the subject has done.
Note that sources do not have to be online: the important part of a citation is the information which would let a reader find the source, eg in a library. For most citations, a URL is an optional extra provided as a convenience. See WP:REFB. --ColinFine (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Cannot Publish My Page

Hi, I have a problem publishing a page I just tried to create. I spent hours, adding all the references, but when I try to click on Publish Page, I see "Unknown Error, HTTP status O". I cannot even save that page as a draft. I am very very worried. Could anyone please help? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twickenham Prep School (talkcontribs) 13:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Twickenham Prep School welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid there are no other edits visible from your account (see Special:Contributions/Twickenham_Prep_School), so anything that you drafted without successfully saving it appears to have been completely lost. (Just occasionally, pressing your browser's back button will restore a copy of what's saved in your computer's cache). For future reference, you really are best off preparing work in your sandbox, or as a 'draft' article via the Articles for Creation process. That way you have plenty of time to prepare it before submitting for review.
I should also advise you that you have, unfortunately, chosen an unacceptable username which breaches our guidelines for two reasons. A) it is somewhat promotional, and b) it suggests that more than one person/staff member has access to this account. Neither are permitted (see this for further details.) So, your best course of action is simply to abandon this account, never ever use it again, but create a completely new single user account name. (SueatTPS would, for example, be quite OK). Of course, were you to be trying to write about the Twickenham Preparatory School, you would need to declare your Conflict of Interest, and especially so if you are a staff member receiving any sort of salary as an employee (See this policy requirement). Sorry I can't be the bearer of better news for you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)  

Question about infobox-holiday, which lists beginning with 2018 observation date

Hi Teahouse team,

My question is about the dates/formatting of the "Infobox holiday". This is used on the Wear it Purple Day page. It notes the "2018 date", but because we are in 2019, is it meant to tick over automatically to the current calendar year? I read the Infobox holiday template page, and this event, is definitely complex as the date can vary. Is that why this is happening? My apologies for the strange question. Thank you for your time! With tea wishes, SunnyBoi (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi SunnyBoi. Good question. If you look at the source code for the infobox, and also the documentation for that infobox template, you'll see that the template automatically adds last year's 'holiday', this year's holiday, and the next two years' as well. I can't help thinking someone has used the wrong type of infobox for this non-holiday. There's no guarantee that the event will be held in future years, unlike for true holidays such as Christmas, Bank Holidays, Saint's Days etc etc.  You might like to raise this on the article's talk page so that it can be fixed. At a quick guess, I'd have thought that Template:Infobox recurring event would be more appropriate. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I add an article on a CEO of a company who is also an activist?

I created my first article yesterday on Joe Hollendoner, the CEO of San Francisco AIDS Foundation, who is also an LGBT activist. I used Lorri Jean's article as a subject to learn from. Lorri Jean is the CEO of the Los Angeles LGBT center, who is also an LGBT activist. I used an article about Mr. Hollendoner and his experience from an online article and referenced that material. I spent a lot of time on it, so I am frustrated that it was taken down. He should be on Wikipedia, as his predecessor has an article as well.

Can you tell me what I did wrong? What can I do to improve it and get it published again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otismorganrn (talkcontribs) 15:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Otismorganrn, The delete reason was a Copyright violation, in addition to being overly promotional. Rewrite it. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Otismorganrn: Also as I noted on your talk page, you cited a press release, which is almost never acceptable. Press releases are authored by someone with a vested interest in the subject being discussed, so it cannot be trusted to be objective. Articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources that are written independent of the topic being discussed.
Wikipedia articles are about notable topics - those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. There are specific guidelines for people, and in particular biographies of living persons. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia page for Films


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

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

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

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


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

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

Does RS conflict with NPOV

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

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

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

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

Leaving page

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

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

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

Publishing an article

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

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

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

Error generated by Template:Designation within the Cemetery infobox?

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

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


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

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

Why a ban on NoDerivs?

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

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

how do i

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

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

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

Submitting article for review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First time publishing an article.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking for template to invite an editor into a discussion

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

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

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

uploading a photo to a website

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

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

Feedback - Tissue Engineering of Heart Valves

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

Here is my sandbox link:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

New question

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

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

theatrical animated features

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

and many more see

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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