Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 926

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 920 Archive 924 Archive 925 Archive 926 Archive 927 Archive 928 Archive 930

View deleted article

Hello teahouse–

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

The deleted article: List of world stocks of beehives

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

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

Spring Hill, TN TN Children’s Home Memorial

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

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


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

Hi Thebekahbird. The first row of a cell must have a rowspan with the total number of rows the cell covers. It's text-align:center. Fixed in [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments on an article.


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

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

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

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

Need advises or suggestions on the AFC got denied recently

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

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

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

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

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



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

Adding picture/media

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

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

I'm struggling making a page for a charity ogranisation

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding blocked users

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

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

Remaining newby problems of a not-so-new-editor

Dear teahouse host

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Article Promotion

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

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

Contents Template

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

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

Spell Checker

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

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

Warning Templates

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

upload a photo

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

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

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

New article- Romanian singer

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

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

Soundwalk Collective

Dear Teahouse,

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

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

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

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

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

Why did my fan-made movie draft got deleted?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Adding image and video on my page

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

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

References and Significant Coverage

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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