Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 927

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 920 Archive 925 Archive 926 Archive 927 Archive 928 Archive 929 Archive 930

Follow-up to moving a page

I made changes, as suggested, and don't understand why the article has been archived.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

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 Nothing has been archived, your draft is now at Draft:Nadine Epstein.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 You created a thread called moving a page at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.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

Unsure about this article

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

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

How do I edit my company's wikipedia page?

Hi there,

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

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

Help Creating a Page for a County Supervisor

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

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

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

making wiki page for artist

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

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

Creating Articles

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

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

Help with inline citations and footnotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uploading files

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

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

Lead section

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

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

Laser speckle

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

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

new to this

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

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

How to continue translation after a few section is tranlated

Hi wise Wikipedians,

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

Thank you for your help.

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

How can I add a table in Wikipedia?

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

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

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


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

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

Example from Big Bus tours:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two accounts

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

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

I created an article in the wrong place

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

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

what are the green plus numbers on your contributions

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

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

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


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

Hi, Mstrojny. I think archive bots intentionally leave welcome message templates unarchived, so that their helpful contents are always available. (We had a template added to a Teahouse post here some weeks ago which stubbornly refused to be archived, and just stayed at the top of the page for ages. I simply edited the page, copied and cut out the text from here, then pasted it into the relevant archive. I think this is the practical way to deal with it (or simply delete it altogether) Unfortunately I'm not sufficiently experienced with archival settings to know if there's actually a setting which ensures that welcome template messages are included in archive actions. I suspect PrimeHunter may be able to shed more light on this, if they're around. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mstrojny: I think it's because there is no standard time stamp in the section so the bot does not know whether it's old enough to allow archiving. It says "15:10, Sunday, January 6, 2019 (UTC)". A time stamp from a signature would have said "15:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)". You can try changing it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes and PrimeHunter: In your opinion, Is it better to keep that post as is or try to archive it? Mstrojny (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes and PrimeHunter: Also, the bot archived my welcome message. There could be some exceptions. Mstrojny (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mstrojny: It's absolutely up to you. Delete it; keep it; archive it. I can't remember what I did with my three sets when I repeatedly tried to work my way through WP:TWA. It really wouldn't matter to anyone if you deleted it. So you choose; it's not a big issue either way, or with the welcome message (that I appear to have sent you!) I doubt you'll need those links again. Other editors delete warning notices they receive - they are allowed to do that. The fact that someone received a particular warning/welcome/automated message is always gong to be there in the edit history of their talk page if someone really wanted to look for it. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I would try to archive The Wikipedia Adventure section but it's up to you, e.g. if you want to use the links later without going to the archive first. Nick Moyes was guessing that it was kept because it was a welcome. I don't think welcome messages are treated differently from other posts. The archived welcome had a standard time stamp from a signature. The Wikipedia Adventure posts the time in another way using {{Currentdate}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

no review needed

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

It is the difference between a draft and a live article. If you want it to be a draft instead, follow the instructions at WP:MOVE, tag the old one for deletion under the cross-namespace redirect rule, and add {{submit}} when you are done. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 18:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@GRALISTAIR: Or I can 'draftify' it for you with one click of a button, so you can carry on working on it until you're happy with it. It's up to you. Let us know. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes - happy to leave it as it is and I will keep improving it and hopefully one or two others will add to it also - thanks

Unprotecting a protected page

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

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. In the desktop version of the site you can click the "View source" tab and then "Submit an edit request". I see you are in the mobile version. It's harder there but you could start by clicking "Desktop" at the bottom of the article, then "View source" and "Submit an edit request". PrimeHunter (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Here's the link Bettiah for interested editors. I found one typo and fixed it, but there are some grammar and punctuation issues that can be improved. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've made edits to a living person and someone (I suspect the person or someone close to him) his username is Resnjari- keeps undoing the changes and listing a lot of unreferenced or simply inaccurate details. Im correcting those with referenced, substantiated facts.

How can I get them to stop or have someone review the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasrussell (talkcontribs) 19:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Start with trying to solve your disagreement by discussing on the talkpage, Talk:John Alite. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The article has HUGE BLP-problems, btw. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you help me with posting photos?


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

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

One photo came from Wikimedia Commons:

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

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

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

Thank you!

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

Hello @Oremandos:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please make sure to read and follow the COI-related advice on your user talkpage. Some promotional parts of your recent edits are not suitable for an encyclopedia, and you should suggest new content or changes on the article talkpage instead. Regarding your original question: you'll find detailed information about verifying a free license via mail at Commons:Commons:OTRS. Such a verification should be sent by the copyright owner (or an authorized representative) and must include a completely free license permission without restrictions. You'll find more details and a link to example emails in the linked page. But please feel free to ask here if you have additional questions (Commons also has a Commons-specific help desk at Commons:Commons:Help desk). Hope this helps. GermanJoe (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Oremandos Commons and Wikipedia are both part of the Wikimedia Foundation family, but they are separate and distinct parts; so, if you upload a file to Commons which is subsequently deleted, you will need to sort things out there. There's quite a lot of similarities in policies and guidelines between the two projects and a number of editors do edit both; however, there's not much that anyone can do here at the Teahouse except point you in the right direction. The files were deleted by a Commons administrator named Jcb; you can ask about the deletions at c:User talk:Jcb is you like. Whether the file is restored ultimately depends upon whether you can establish it meets c:COM:L.
One thing to remember about a work for hire is that there's not always an official/complete copyright transfer agreement. The creator may in some cases retain some control over their work, which means their WP:CONSENT is also going to be needed for the file to be uploaded to Commons. The creator may have told you verbally "Sure, go ahead and use the file on Wikipedia or any other website as you like", but this is not really sufficient for Wikipedia/Commons. First, there's no way to verify a verbal agreement such as this; while you may feel that taking you at your word should be good enough, it's not for Wikipedia/Commons. This doesn't mean nobody believes you; it just means a more rigorous form of verification is required to protect not only the Wikimedia Foundation, but also the rights of the original copyright holder. Another problem is that "Wikipedia only" of "individual specific" types of permission are not sufficient for Wikipedia/Commons. Basically, a person who uploads a file to Commons is agreeing in an advance to allow anyone anywhere in the world to down load the file at anytime for any purpose (including derivative use and commercial use) with only some very minor restrictions, such as requiring attribution, being placed on any subsequent use. Moreover, once a file has been released under such a license, it cannot be cancelled or taken back after the fact. This is another reason why Wikipedia/Commons is so strict when it comes to licensing. It doesn't mean mistakes are never made; it just means that lots of effort is being made to minimize mistakes from happening as much as possible.
Finally, just for reference, when a file is uploaded to Commons under a free license like Creative Commons, there is no transfer of copyright ownership taking place. The original creator of the work still retains copyright ownership over it; they are just agreeing to freely release (via Commons) a particular version of the work to make it easier for others to use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Can someone, please, notify Julian Assange that there are federal elections in Australia in May this year. He should be nominated as an independent candidate in the electorate where he comes from. He will win a seat in the Federal Parliament for sure and certain - and will enjoy parliamentary privilege so he can walk out freely from the self-imposed asylum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC) |}

How can i change my username

Please I want to change my username how can I do that please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebwriter534555 (talkcontribs) 19:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Changing username. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Off-topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Requesting unprotection

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

  • @TheGeneralUser: I suggest asking the admin who most recently added or amended the move protection. If they're inactive you can make a request at WP:RFUP. Neiltonks (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Looking at the protection log, it looks like the first time indefinite move protection was applied was by Nev1 back in 2011, after a short move war between KS700 and AshwiniKalantri (KS700 has been blocked since 2012, and AK hasn't edited since 2011). All protection changes after that have only added semiprotection for short periods. You could ask this at Nev1's talkpage, otherwise the correct place is at WP:RFPP. rchard2scout (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Company jump and HomeAdvisor they took down my name and said they did work for me online to help my business grow

Jim has billed me for a turnout thousand dollars $1,200 I'm having did a thing for me I never signed nothing to join them they statement they have any made a web page for me I don't think they have been haven't heard nothing I haven't seen nothing and HomeAdvisor has billed me thousand dollars for two for me working for my have not ever worked for him never had no jobs, and they billed me for no work at all keep sending me Bill I've been scammed my cards gone through ivory paid for I don't know how many sites on Google I have not even I'm not on him no more and I never got my year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:7F (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like a matter that you should report to your local police, or consumer protection organization. I'm not sure how the volunteers at Wikipedia can help - this page is for questions about how to edit Wikipedia articles. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Writing an article about a subject who has adopted a performance name

Hi, I am currently writing an article about a subject who has adopted a professional/performance name. Up until around 2015/2016, the person used their full legal name (e.g. Alice). Then, around 2017, they started using a radically different performance name (e.g. Barbara). In the article, I mention some events before 2017 (e.g. birth) and some events afterwards. Also, other articles on Wikipedia make reference to both the person's full legal name (Alice) and their stage name (Barbara) depending on if the subject of the article is pre-2017 or post-2017. I was wondering what standards there are for this situation, and if I should change the other articles to comply with the standard (i.e., change Alice to Barbara or vice versa). Thanks! Hickland (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Hickland and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a detailed description of how to handle such situations at MOS:LEGALNAME. If you still have any questions after reading it, please come back again and ask. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Hickland. The birth name or legal name should be mentioned in the first sentence of the article, along with the stage name. Throughout the rest of the article, the stage surname should be used to describe the person, since that is the name associated with their notability. Take a look at John Wayne and Cary Grant for examples. Both are consistently called "Wayne" and "Grant" throughout their biographies. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick replies, Cullen328 and Gronk Oz! I was also wondering about editing other articles. In a 2014 song, the person in question is officially listed in songwriting credits as "Kayla Rae Bonnici" (their legal name), but ever since they adopted a stage name, newly released songs use the person's stage name when listing songwriting credits. Should I update the article about the 2014 song to the person's stage name or should I leave it as is? Hickland (talk) 05:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello again, Hickland. Since the Bonnici name is in the official credits for the song, leave it as it is. Once your draft is accepted into the main space of the encyclopedia, you can create a wikilink using the "piped link" function, so that clicking that link leads to the article titled with the current stage name. See WP:PIPE for details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks for all the help! Hickland (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Referencing text followed by parenthetical statement that also needs referencing?

Hi, I'm a little confused about how to reference text when it's followed by a parenthetical statement that also needs referencing. Could you please advise on which of the following is correct?

Text[ref1] (parenthetical text).[ref2]
Text[ref1] (parenthetical text[ref2]).
Text (parenthetical text[ref2]).[ref1]
Text (parenthetical text).[ref1][ref2]

Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The last one. Less clutter putting them together. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 06:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


Hi, I am a bit confused on the usage of bots on Wikipedia. How to people create and use them? Is it an administrator tool or something? Even after reading the Wikipedia bot policy, I still don't know what kind of editors operate bots and how they create them. Catinthedogs (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Catinthedogs. You do not need to be an administrator to create a bot. You need to have adequate programming skills and enough knowledge of Wikipedia to identify a recurring problem that can be resolved through use of a bot. Your bot needs to be thoroughly tested and approved. Read Help:Creating a bot and Wikipedia:Bots which is a bit broader than the formal policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to How to contribute in a debate?


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

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

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

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

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

Thank you David David notMDfor the clarifications. yes I am the creator of the article. I noticed that it was moved to another section. JoanneNaoum (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


Hi, Today, I left a username change request for me on Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. 2 minutes later, I got a response from Cyberbot I, saying that there were "no problems found". There was no other message there, and I have not been renamed. What does this mean? Catinthedogs (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Catinthedogs That simply means that an automated system has analyzed your username choice and found no issues with it. A human will actually need to rename you. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)