Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 938

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 935 Archive 936 Archive 937 Archive 938 Archive 939 Archive 940 Archive 945

What Is name of anolis

Cristatellus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin482 (talkcontribs) 03:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Franklin482. The Teahouse is really place for questions about editing Wikipedia or about Wikipedia's various policies and guideline. If you have a specific question or concern about the Wikipedia articles Anolis or Anolis cristatellus, you might have better luck posting at Talk:Anolis or Talk:Anolis cristatellus instead. If you just have a general question about anolis, try asking at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Worldbruce

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Krutika Samnani. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Krutika Samnani|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


Hey Worldbruce, get it clear I have not received anything to post this article on wikipedia, this was my individual effort for the organisation I work for i.e. Crave Eatables is my employer organisation. As far as disclosure is concerned I have disclosed it already that I am involved with the organisation.Just tell me if I am suppose to disclose anything else.

Hi Krutika Samnani. If you wish to reply to what Worldbruce posted at User talk:Krutika Samnani#Declare any connection, then the best place to do so is in that particular discussion thread. The Teahouse is really for asking general questions about editing, not for responding to posts left by others on your user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


I just learnt that I need to disclose my connection with the organiztion for whom I am editing the draft. Kindly note that I am employee of this organisation i.e Crave Eatables Private Limited, Bhavnagar, Gujarat, India. Kindly guide where else I need to discose this as I respect all the terms of use of Wikipedia and would prefer to remain transparent rather than making things complicated. My previous messages disclosed this too hence making clear my intenetions. I learnt that indirect payment is also considered as my payment; so ofcourse I am paid whereas in my previous message I mentioned that I wasn't paid specifically for writing wikipedia article. But after I learnt its terms of use, I have disclosed everything I found to be disclosed.Kindly revert and tell me what else am I suppose to be disclose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krutika Samnani (talkcontribs) 05:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:DISCLOSECOI for more specific details, but generally you should disclose any COI you might have with respect to a particular Wikipedia article on your user page and on the talk page of the article in question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

How often does "What links here" get refreshed?

I'm fixing up some links and I'm using Special:WhatLinksHere to see which pages are affected. However, because the data that "What links here" uses isn't refreshed in real time, I'm unable to easily verify if I've caught all the links. How often does the data behind "What links here" get refreshed? Is it possible to manually refresh the data for a particular link? I'm guessing "no" to that last question since it would probably have to check the links on every single page which would be too resource intensive to do ad-hoc. Danielklein (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK WhatLinksHere is supposed to be up to date when you use it. Maybe it isn't on Wikia (FANDOM), and anything related to categories can be delayed, but if you have issues with Special:WhatLinksHere try the "normal" Help:Purge tricks. – (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Danielklein: When page A links to B, and you change that link so that A now links to C, and then save the A page, the data of 'What links to B' and 'What links to C' should be updated almost instantly. However, if A includes a navbox template T, and you update the T, then reports for B and C wil (almost) instantly show the difference about links from T, but it may take several hours until they reflect the change in linking from A. If this is your scenario, just wait a few hours before you proceed. Or iterate over all linking pages and WP:PURGE them or make WP:NULLEDIT on each. This will refresh indexes of links. --CiaPan (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@CiaPan: Yes, the edits are in templates. Today, it's gone down from just over 500 links to fix to just under 200 links to fix. So, I guess I'll just have to wait when I edit them again. Can you be any more precise than "a few hours"? Is there a cronjob that runs at a particular frequency? Danielklein (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Danielklein: You're right, there is such automated job. Alas I do know nothing about its configuration. What I wrote about 'several hours' is just a rough estimation from my own experience. Hopefully Help:What links here#Limitations contains details you want, or some pages linked there. --CiaPan (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

My User Page Was Deleted

My user page content was deleted shortly after I created it. I've been correcting articles for a while. Why would someone delete my user page content?

Billcallahan331 (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean this? It sure looks like you blanked your user page yourself. Eman235/talk 06:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Billcallahan331. I cannot find any record of your anyone deleting your user page or anyone other than yourself having even edited it. Perhaps you're referring to User:Billcallahan331/sandbox/Bill Callahan?
There are a couple of things that new editors often misundersand about user pages and you can find out more details in Wikipedia:User pages. User pages typically only end up deleted when they either (1) are a serious violation of some Wikipedia policy or guideline (e.g. contain copyright violations or BLP violations) or (2) they run afoul of WP:UPNOT. A userpage is not the property of the user which means it needs to comply with relevant policies or guidelines. Those user pages which don't may be edited to remove problems or deleted outright if the problems are too great to overcome. Just for reference, one of the most common reasons that a user page does end up deleted is mistaking it for a social media page or a free web host. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Article submitted

I have recently published my first article. When will it become live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emotix (talkcontribs) 05:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess you are talking about this draft? You need to submit it for review; you can do this by pressing the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button on the template I've added.
By the way, from your username, it looks like you have a connection with this company. Please familiarize yourself with the guideline on conflicts of interests. Eman235/talk 07:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

How to Protect page

I recently joined this forum, i want to ask question how to protect an article that is already published by some person over wikipedia? anyone protect any page or what mechanism /process to achieve this target? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AroojSMalik (talkcontribs) 07:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Only administrators can protect pages, and this is only done occasionally, like if there are frequent malicious edits to the article. For more information see the protection policy. Eman235/talk 07:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi AroojSMalik. Please see Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for more specific details, but page protection is really only used in cases of serious disruption and needs to be done by an administrator. One last thing, Wikipedia is not really a forum per se, so you might want to take Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure to learn some more about how Wikipedia works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Title issue

i am going to write an article but at title place i only want "Sadiq Mahmud Khurram" instead of this title "User:AroojSMalik/sandbox/Sadiq Mahmud Khurram". Article is not published yet. guide me that if i publish its title may change as "Sadiq Mahmud Khurram". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AroojSMalik (talkcontribs) 09:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

AroojSMalik, when you're ready to submit it to be published, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft. If it passes the review process, it'll be moved for you by the reviewer. Alpha3031 (tc) 09:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
If accepted, that would create an article Sadiq Mahmud Khurram However, given that the proposed article rests on SMK being appointed a judge in late 2018, it is unlikely that this person will meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. Are the published articles about SMK other than the appointment? David notMD (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Help for DYK

Hi All, as i am new to submit a DYK. This is my first DYK. Please help if i am wrong anywhere. KPTP (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi KPTP welcome to the Teahouse. You're very brave - I remember that following the complex instructions for my first DYK was harder than creating my first article (despite what everyone tells newcomers about that particular challenge!) You might like to try following these instructions that normal human beings can understand when doing a DYK. I don't propose to assess the nomination or the article (or even its notability) at this stage, but will point out a few errors that stand out to me as far as a DYK goes.
Firstly, you haven't actually offered a Did you know...? statement. It should have the subject article wikilinked in bold, with other elements wikilinked, but not in bold. If you only have one hook to offer, don't bother filling in ALT1 or ALT2 - they're only for use if you want to suggest an alternative approach to 'hook' people in with a different approach to your interesting, substantiated fact. You don't need to use a full citation template; just state the passage that supports your hook and include a url to the source. I suggest you follow the layout in the mockup below:
Created/expanded by KPTP (talk). Self-nominated at 12:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC).
I'm sure you appreciate that you must hone up the template and place it on the nomination page within seven days of the article being created, but then you can continue to work on that article for as long as you wish, ensuring that hooks are supported with valid references, and that the article conforms to all our style and formatting requirements. See WP:MOS. You do have one further step to take once you've got this template sorted out, and that's to actually move it over to the relevant part of the nomination page. Again the DYK instructions should be carefully followed, or the friendly version of instructions I've linked to above should assist you with that. Hope this helps a bit, and good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Just a note to add that when you posted here initially, your version looked like this. In future, please do your very best first to sort out your templates, and then ask for help - it saves wasting time on things you clearly are learning know how to fix yourself. But I hope nevertheless that the other suggestions I've made will still assist you. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by M8king (talkcontribs) 13:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@M8king: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place for new users to ask questions about using Wikipedia. Do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Added an already-existing image to an article, a bot removed it, not sure why

Hi there, on the Mockumentary article, I added a picture of the movie poster for "This is Spinal Tap", as an example of a prominent early example of the genre. The same image is featured on the This Is Spinal Tap article (in fact I just copy-pasted the filename from there), so I didn't think it would be a problem. But then a bot removed it. Can anyone explain to me what I did wrong? Thank you. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You need to read the edit summary of the bot's edit, and (if necessary) follow the links which were given. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I did do that. I have to admit, I was very confused by the links that were given, because they all seem to deal with things that go along with the image file - and the image file is already in place, at Wikipedia Commons, and I don't think that's a problem, it's been there a while. I didn't see anything that dealt with putting that same image into an article. That's why I came here. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
No, it is not on Commons. It is not free of copyright (hence not suitable for Commons). It is uploaded locally on enwiki at File:Thisisspinaltapposter.jpg and it has a non-free use rationale specifically for use on the This Is Spinal Tap article. The link in the edit summary "non-free use rationale" is to a page that says "A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the media file is used in an article. The name of the article the media file is used in must be included in the rationale." The link "WP:NFC#Implementation" in the edit summary is to a page which says "It is important to remember that a non-free rationale is needed for each use of the image on Wikipedia. If the image is used in two separate articles, two separate rationales are needed, unique for both articles." --David Biddulph (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you for boiling that down for me. I apologize for my lack of reading comprehension. It was pretty intimidating. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi SteamboatPhilly. To add on to what David Biddulph posted, there are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be met for each use of a non-free file, and providing a non-free use rationale is just one of these criteria. Based on my experience with non-free files, I can't really see a way to justify the non-free use of the Spinal Tap poster in Mockumentary. Non-free movie poster art is really only allowed when it's used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the movie in question; it's really hard to try to justify the non-free use of such files in other ways or in other articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Formatting roman numerals

Hi Teahouse, should I write "Algebra 2" or "Algebra II"? I looked in the Manual of Style for formatting, but couldn't find what I was looking for. I was thinking to use the former option, as it's easier to read. — BladeRikWr 13:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that you use whichever your references use, following the Wikipedia policy WP:Common name. If this is about Suncoast Community High School, then try to find some independent references, not just the school's website. Dbfirs 15:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Why so many moths on Wikipedia?

This was just something I noticed when using the random article function. I've even made a little game out of it. I'll press random until I get a page of a moth species. It seems like 1/100 or so pages are of moths. Is there a reason for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Froguy1126 (talkcontribs) 04:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Because the lepidopterans are staggeringly diverse and constitute roughly 10% of all described species of organism. Your complaint is with evolution rather than with Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 06:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not complaining, I just found it interesting and was wondering if there was a reason for it. Thanks for your input! Froguy1126 (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for your question. I believe that the WikiProject Beetles uses a bot to create articles on beetles. I think the estimate for the number of species of beetles on the planet is 200,000 or more. Other bots are probably doing the same thing. When you find an article during your editing that can be expanded or made longer, feel free to work on that article. I question that 1 percent of articles are about moths. I thought it was television plot summaries. Best Regards, Barbara 22:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. I agree, I doubt it's 1%. I do wonder what percent it is though. Perhaps one day I could write a bot to count up the moth pages and find the actual percent, I think that'd be interesting. Froguy1126 (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Froguy1126: Category:Stub-Class Lepidoptera articles has 100,700 pages. Other article classes only add a few thousand. Lepidoptera includes butterflies and moths. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Can someone help me please? I need an update to my site...

I hope you are well and you can help. I have two very large changes to make to my Wiki site - or to add.

I have been named a 2019 Guggenheim Fellow (Non Fiction) announced today on Page A5 of the New York Times (I can also send the letter that told me I have received one)

and I am currently also a Senior Fellow at Yale University Jackson Institute for Global Affairs

and a 2018 Edward R. Murrow Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations

Please can you add these? My page is locked so I can not do it

Thank you so much Janine di Giovanni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janinedigi (talkcontribs) 17:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Janinedigi: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would note that you do not have a "wiki site"; Wikipedia hosts an article that is about you. That is a very different thing. While your input is welcome as with any other editor, you have no special rights to the article and cannot exclusively control its content.(see WP:OWN) You are welcome to visit the article talk page (Talk:Janine di Giovanni) and make a formal edit request as to any changes you feel are needed. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox overload

Hello Teahouse. How might one go about fixing this infobox mess? Popeye. Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Maineartists. Have you tried discussing your concerns on the article's talk page? You can find some general guidance in MOS:INFOBOX, but infoboxes can be one of those things which quickly can lead to edit warring if you try to be too bold in editing them. After scanning the article talk page (including the archives), it doesn't seem as if it's something which has been discussed before. So, maybe the concerns you raised are shared by others and a consensus will be established to change the infobox accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not so much of a "concern" so much as a confirmation to affirm that the infobox is in serious need of clean-up and that much of the content does not belong and should be integrated into the article (considering categories such as "actors" / "voice actors" are not valid infobox line categories). I suppose the talk page is the place to go and state what should be done with the content / infobox. There's just not a lot of traffic re: consensus / discussion for what I was intending on editing. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A way in itself on how to spot a potential bad editor.

If you, when getting a new message or awaiting a reply somewhere, are worried you'll get a warning or something to stop you from editing non-constructively, does that mean you are a bad editor? (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP I'm not sure whether you're asking are you a "bad editor" or whether someone else is a "bad editor". Generally, a "good editor" is someone who does their best to edit according to Wikipedia:Five pillars and contribute positively to improving Wikipedia, whereas a "bad editor" is somebody who put their own interests ahead of Wikipedia's or otherwise vandalizes, disrupts or generally has a really hard time editing collaboratively with others. Every editor is going to make good-faith mistakes; the good editor will try to learn from their mistakes so as to not repeat them, while the bad editor tends not to listen to what others are saying and keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
So far, you IP account has made only three edits and there are no notifications/warnings posted by others on the IP accounts user talk page; so, there's no reason to believe you're a "bad editor". However, if you've also been editing under a different account (and it appears that you might be just doing that), then check for notifications/warnings on that account's user talk page. If you've been previously blocked for doing something, then it seems wise to not repeat the same behavior even with a different account because you'll only end up blocked once again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a question that lists characteristics any editor theoretically can have, even good editors. Did you figure I use a different IP because of the post to CaradhrasAiguo's talk page? Unfortunately it appears as though I'm a bad editor who does have that feeling at those moments as described at the top of the thread (those feelings at those moments aren't necessarily unfortunate, just, to me, a not so easily reliable way to find a bad editor from a good one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello IP user. I suggest you stop worrying about "bad editors" (whatever they are), and concentrate on making good edits. --ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I have this 'condition', are a bad editor, and think that the former can be 1 way to (not so reliably, though) spot editors of the latter. This question is for my benifit only. No one I know is asking it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

If i make a donation to wikipedia can you get my article published a little faster?

Hi, Just wanted to know if I make a Donation to Wikipedia, then you can publish my article sooner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:101E:1:9299:6425:2AD4:4D44:1897 (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

No. --bonadea contributions talk 18:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Unlikely, as I don't think we take bribes, and the volunteers who do the reviewing would not get any of the donation. In addition, your IP has not made any other edits, so we would not know what article to review faster. Good luck! WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
More than that, the volunteers who do the reviewing have no way of knowing who has donated and who has not. Anyway, what's your hurry? There is no deadline, and we're all here to improve Wikipedia and for no other reason, aren't we? --ColinFine (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Tl;dr: No bribes, period. But you're welcome to donate if you like. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 23:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Inline citations

An article I wrote, Fort Manhassett, has been flagged for lack of inline citations.. what I can’t figure out is that it does (at least I believe) contain nothing but inline citations. Can anyone give me some guidance here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:D184:F500:D85D:E63C:3BC5:AE68 (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Fort Manhassett tagged for not having enough inline citations, meaning that there are hugh sections of text with no citations at all. David notMD (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


Hi greetings, when logging in to huggle which one should be used to login with normal username and password-Bot password or Legacy?--PATH SLOPU 09:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Path slopu, sorry for the late reply. I use legacy when using Huggle. Mstrojny (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mstrojny:Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 03:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Guidance on Tweaks for Submission

Hi there,

Our write-up on Tavi Tequila has been deleted due to G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. I was wondering if your team could be more specific on what the problem was / point out where we need to make our edits for this. Thank you!

Write-up can be found below:

Collapsing a tequila advertisement

Tavi, a premium tequila brand, is noted as one of the purest brands of tequila in the world due to being made by only the best parts of blue agave plants. Tavi Tequila is owned and operated by entrepreneur and tequilero, Tavi Eggertson. Tavi Tequila is distilled in Jalisco, Mexico in the world’s highest elevated tequila distillery. This premium tequila brand produces three unique vintages: Platinum, Reposado and Añejo.[1]


Many tequilas begin with a legend, Tavi Tequila, unlike most brands, was born out of necessity. The founder, Tavi, was diagnosed as allergic to the impure alcohols of the world. He required a pure 100% Blue Weber Agave tequila to continue his exemplary lifestyle. Being a man of action, he spared no means nor ends to exploration in his search for the world’s purest tequila. And when what he found wasn’t good enough, he decided to make something even better. The year was 2008 and after finding a distillery for sale later that year in Jalisco, Mexico, he began his journey in creating a more enjoyable tequila experience. The first bottle of Tavi Tequila was produced in 2009 and made its first export shipment by 2011.

Today, Tavi Tequila is sold around the United States and can be easily identified by its unique bottle design featuring the beautiful Mayahuel with her outstretched arms. Her distinct outstretched arms now symbolize the Tavi Tequila branding.


Beyond his own health reasons, Tavi knew that current tequilas were seen as a negative experience for most drinkers from the strong burnt agave smell to the regretful hangover the next day. Tavi was determined to make a tequila that was an enjoyable experience for its drinkers. His mission was and still is to deliver a superior tequila that was meant to be sipped, savored and enjoyed.


Tequila is made from Blue Webber Agave plants. The leaves are chopped off and the core is cooked and crushed to collect the Blue Agave juice. This juice is then fermented and distilled to make the tequila. It takes 10 blue agave Pinas to make 1 liter of Tavi Tequila.

While some tequilas are made with only 51% blue agave, Tavi is made pure with 100% of the juice from Blue Agave plants. What makes Tavi Tequila unique is it is not made with any added coloring, ethanol or sugar. Only the best parts of the Blue Agave juice is collected to make Tavi Tequila. Leftover juices are then discarded or sold to other distilleries willing to use them.

The distinguishable heavy agave smell that comes from ordinary tequila brands is not found in Tavi Tequila. This is due to each drop being distilled in a facility 7,000 feet above sea level.[2] This high elevation creates a clean air environment that prevents cross-contamination.

The best parts of the agave plants are then roasted slower than industry standards. Once the roasting process is finished, the juices are carefully extracted at maximum quality and flavor.

It is believed at Tavi Tequila that tequila is a living product that is heavily impacted by its environment. During fermentation, classical music such as Mozart and Vivaldi is played to enrich the notes and finish of each batch of Tavi Tequila.

Lastly, each batch is taste tested by Tavi himself for quality before it is bottled, packaged and shipped.[3]


2012- Double Gold Medals at the San Francisco Spirit Awards

2014- Triple Gold Medal winner at the MicroLiquor Spirit Awards for taste

2014- Triple Gold Medal winner at the MicroLiquor Spirit Awards for package design

2016- First bottle of tequila to the top of Mt. Kilimanjaro

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WassIntern (talkcontribs) 00:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse. I read the article, and it seems like an ad for the company. Wikipedia is written in a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), which this article doesn't appear to be. Also, writing an article about a subject that you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) with is also strongly discouraged. Thanks! CalOtter (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, WassIntern. If you are paid in any way to edit on behalf of this tequila brand, then you must comply immediately with the mandatory paid editing disclosure. This is non-negotiable. Why do you refer to "our write-up"? The word "our" implies shared use of your account. Accounts are for one person only, not for groups of people or for companies. Wikipedia does not include "write-ups". It contains neutrally written encyclopedia articles that comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The text you posted is completely and thoroughly promotional and reads like advertising. It will never be accepted on Wikipedia in its current form. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
WassIntern Parts of that were copy pasted from the company website, (which is why it sounded just like an advertising brochure) and that is also never acceptable, as it breaches copyright. See WP:COPYPASTE You must put any writing into your own words. Curdle (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Capitol Records session personnel lists 1950s/60s

To All,

Has anyone run across a reference list on the internet of Capitol Records session personnel lists for record dates in the late 1950s - 1960s? I have found master lists for Peggy Lee, Nat King Cole Capitol sessions and several other artists but I wonder where they are coming from/compiled from.

Thanks Shelyric (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shelyric. It sounds like you might be looking for reliable sources for articles, but not sure. If that's the case, you can try asking for help Talk:Capitol Records or maybe even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Labels. If you've found some sources, but are not sure whether they a considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, try asking at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Finally, if your question has nothing really to do with Wikipedia at all, you might want to try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. The Teahouse is more suited for asking questions about Wikipedia editing, etc., while the Reference Desk more for asking about things in general. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


Where do I get info about often-used templates like infobox and otheruses, or templates to help make buttons, charts and so on? Thanks.Losthornet (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Losthornet. There's some page links at Wikipedia:Templates, but most existing templates also have a documentation page where you can find information specifically related to how a certain template is to be used, etc. Some templates, like MOS:INFOBOX and WP:USERBOX are used so much that they also have their own Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia:WikiProject Template or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) can also be good places to ask things about specific templates. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Losthornet Hi, Here is the list of inboxoes and their associated templates. See Template:Graph:Chart for graph template. There are many "button" templates and here are a few of them 1, 2 and 3. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Will check out the templates there. Losthornet (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Losthornet: To add to the answer by CASSIOPEIA, you may also be interested in a template for fancy representation of key-press combinations and sequences, different from pushbuttons depicting. If so, please see {{Key press}}. Face-smile.svg CiaPan (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

iTunes chart

When adding to a discography section, does iTunes count as a recognised chart? For example, if an album reached no. 670 on iTunes, would this be included? I’m guessing not, but I want to be sure. – DarkGlow (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

DarkGlow, your hunch is correct, iTunes (and other single-vendor charts) do not count. See WP:CHART for more info signed, Rosguill talk 22:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill ^.^b, that was my lucky find for today, thanks. ASSUME:NOTHING is key for everything related to Emma Blackery. – (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Illogical lead sentence of Wikipedia:Reliable sources

The original sentence says about the "views that have appeared in those sources". But in my opinion, they appear in quite another place - in Wikipedia articles. I have no words for this, and feel exhausted. Please, see the article talk and help me. Vikom talk 19:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Vikom: I disagree with your interpretation. The text is "making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered", i.e. the views that appeared in the sources are covered in the Wikipedia article. This makes complete sense to me. --ColinFine (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Vikom, you're approaching the question from opposite ends.
1. Everything in the sources must be in the article note: this is an oversimplification
2. Everything in the article must be in the sources
Both of these things are required by WP policy. You're trying to turn statement of policy intended to communicate point 1 into a statement that communicates point 2.
--valereee (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Hang on, Valereee. It is absolutely not the case that "everything in the sources must be in the article". Not everything in a reliable source is necessarily encyclopaedic. Only your point 2 is policy, and as far as I can see, the sentence expresses that. --00:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
But point 1 contains an important note: "this is an oversimplification" Vikom talk 04:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I focused on "all views", neglecting the key words inside the phrase "all majority and significant minority views". However covering all views seemed so unrealistic, that the only alternative I could find was an "illogical sentence". Now I wonder why none of you gave me a simple example like: "...otherwise we could describe Ronald Reagan only as an actor, neglecting his presidency". If I had known the reason for the rule, I would have easily understood the rule itself. Thank you both very much!
Valereee, your explanation was absolutely crucial. I was stuck, but you have pointed me in the right direction. Thanks :-) Vikom talk 03:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine I think that's your comment above? Yes, that's why I put the small note in -- I probably should have said 'gross oversimplification.' I wanted to reduce the two pieces of policy to their simplest statements so I could show this new user what he was missing. But Vikom it's a very good point CF is making -- we absolutely don't require or even encourage that everything in sources goes into the article. Only things that are noteworthy go into articles, and it's often difficult for editors to agree on how to balance that out. :) --valereee (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion Location

I made an edit on a page and it was reverted (which is fine) and they said the reason was because it was being discussed whether or not to add it and I was confused as to where this was being discussed. If I had known there was a problem with the information being added I would have not added it. Where is this discussion happening? I'm very new to this and I don't want to annoy the more seasoned people on this platform. --RaskBunzzz (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)RaskBunzzz

@RaskBunzzz: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure which article you are referencing, but discussion usually takes place on the article talk page. If you are on a computer, there is a "Talk" tab at the top of every article, this is how you access the talk page. If you tell which article you are referencing I could link to the talk page directly to help you. If the discussion is not there, you should ask the editor that reverted you where the discussion is. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The Orchard (company)

The article for The Orchard (company) has a list of places a subsidiary operates. Is this relevant information, or can it be deleted? Excerpt I'm referencing:

BalconyTV operates from locations in Dublin, Tralee, London, Hamburg, Lisboa, Porto, Tokyo, Budapest, Buenos Aires, LA, Nashville, Auckland, Poznan, New York, Tel Aviv, Kaunas, Brighton, Austin, Toronto, Paris, Prague, Zurich and Delhi, with more locations on the way.

It doesn't feel like relevant or notable information, but I may be mistaken. Thank you.

HarutoTanaka95 (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, HarutoTanaka95: looks like marketing puff to me - like much of the article. I suggest you remove it (with a suitable edit summary) and see if anybody objects. --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, ColinFine: Thank you, I will do that. Thank you. HarutoTanaka95 (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@HarutoTanaka95 and ColinFine: MEH from the IPs in January, but at least not what I suggested on the talk page.Face-tongue.svg84.46.52.219 (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Narrow focus and inaccuracies in General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy

Hi. I'm pretty sad with this article. It lacks background, such as the fact that General Motors's bus division (Yellow Truck and Coach) was a money-losing dud before GM created front company National City Lines and did the huge bus conversion on Manhattan.

In addition, GM was involved in bus conversions in Kentucky, New Jersey, Jamestown and Buffalo NY, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Canada etc.

GM engineer and exec, then consultant Marmion Mills was proud of personally performing 12 bus conversions, so certainly should be mentioned.

Finally, the automaker was involved in litigation with the antitrust division of the Dept. of Justice over its overwhelming monopoly of bus manufacturing for decades.

Overall, it's a pretty spotty article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tramfish (talkcontribs) 12:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The place to discuss potential improvements to the article is Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy, supporting your suggestions with references to published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Help with non reliable sources

help, ive attempted to make an article on the southend local elections. I inputed 3 sources. the first one Is a guide to the 2019 local elections as a whole by the electoral commission which I believe is very reputable as it is a government agency. The second was a Wikipedia article on the 2018 elections which was used to show the results of the 2018 elections However guessing this may be one of the problems I replaced it with a new government resource which I believe is more reputable. the last one may be where the problem comes from which is a southend echo article However it is simply to state fact This means that the Labour party are defending 2 council seats (However the Labour councillor for the Kursaal ward Judith Mchmahon defected to the Conservatives [2] .) Can you please help I believe my sources are quite reputable. especially since he stated all the sources are unacceptable including the government source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatguyinthedeli (talkcontribs) 22:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Fatguyinthedeli: You already avoided one major problem, enwiki or other wikis cannot be used as source, and wikilinks don't help for missing sources. You could add a references section at the bottom, two lines…
== References ==
…followed by an empty line. There's no good place to add your references or your who-ended-up-where info, you could add this at the end of the lede (lead). Example for one of your three sources:
<ref>{{cite web 
 |title=Election Results |year=2018 |work=[[Southend-on-Sea Borough Council]] 
 |accessdate=11 April 2019}}</ref>
All in one long line, split here for readability. Maybe cheat with the title, it could be also "2018 Borough Council Election", found on the source below "Election Results". – (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments in an entry

The entry for Bacchus is littered with Neo-nazi commentary--"Sieg heil Lord Hitler," etc.

Can someone remove them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That vandalism has been reverted. Note that it was on simple:, not here on the English Wikipedia. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello there, yes I just reverted the vandalism there. Articles across Wikipedia and its sister projects get vandalized quite often, and you can actual revert them yourself by navigating to the page history (view history in the sidebar near the top of the page) and undoing the harmful edits. Usually vandalism gets reverted quite quickly but this time it lasted several hours. Thanks for reporting and let me know if you have any questions! Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 My talk page 18:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for helping rid all projects of vandalism, not just Wikipedia. If you like to do this regularly, why not create an account? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 13:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Disputed information in sources

I've hit a wall where there are some sources referring to the same person but have slightly different information. Some of the sources say this person was born in La Grange, Georgia, while others say they were born in Atlanta, Georgia. Some also say they had taught at public schools for 10 years prior to acting while others say they had only taught between 4 to 8 years prior to acting. How would I incorporate this into an article? By the way, all of the sources agree that this person had appeared in the same theatrical plays, radio shows and TV shows; it's just some birth and early life information they disagree on. StaringAtTheStars✉Talk 18:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

StaringAtTheStars, for me, part of it depends on the relative reliability of the sources. If the sources for La Grange and Atlanta are equally reliable, La Grange is not far from Atlanta, so that may not actually be a conflict. A lot of people from a small town will name the larger less-obscure nearby town when asked where they're from. Could 'LaGrange, near Atlanta' work? For the teaching, if those two sources are also equally reliable, can you use 'taught public school prior to acting' or does the exact timing make some other difference in writing the article? --valereee (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Either you omit the information, or you explain that there are different views and cite them. (Or, if you decide that the sources on one side are all less reliable, you omit their story). It is perfectly acceptable for an article to report that sources differ: what you must not do is to try and resolve the discrepancy (though if another independent source had tried to, you could of course report that source). --ColinFine (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
ColinFine's right, 'La Grange or Atlanta' is much better than 'La Grange, near Atlanta' if the sources are equally reliable. --valereee (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you valereee and ColinFine, this is very helpful to know! StaringAtTheStars✉Talk 14:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you make your own wiki page?

Anybody know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karrwilson (talkcontribs) 14:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Karrwilson: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Writing an autobiographical article(not a "wiki page") is highly discouraged, though not forbidden. Please read the guidelines on autobiographies. That would only be relevant if you meet one of the notability criteria for biographies, such as being a notable musician, artist, politician, etc. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should do that on social media. You do have a user page where you can post limited information about yourself within the context of your Wikipedia editing(see WP:USERPAGE for more information about acceptable user page content) but it is not meant to be a social media-type page. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Creating a page on Wikipedia

I beg you, help me. I am a representative of a talented actor, I’ve faced the problem of creating a page on Wikipedia, I tried in vain to figure it out and create pages, but I don’t get it, I find it difficult to figure it out on Wikipedia. I ask you to help me create a page. Earlier, I created the page but very badly. but there were attempts by several people to numerous changes to the page and eventually the page deleted and blocked me. I CONSIDER THAT WE SHOULD HELP TALENTED PEOPLE TO BE IN THE HISTORY OF WIKIPEDIA, THEN IF THERE ARE MORE CONFIRMATION TO THIS. THANK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertbruni (talkcontribs) 15:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

If you are currently blocked, you should not be using sockpuppetry to evade the block. You need to make an unblock request from your previous account. You also need to read about conflict of interest and about paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to "help talented people". You should use social media for that purpose. The actor whom you represent can not have an article here unless he or she is WP:Notable, that is, he or she has been written about in detail in independent WP:Reliable sources. If you can find such sources, then, once your block has expired or you get unblocked, you may request an article at WP:Requested articles, mentioning the sources that you have found. The article should be a summary of the content of the sources. See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers for specific guidelines. Dbfirs 15:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


My name is Bob Hind and I write all the Nostalgia columns for the Portsmouth News. I have come across a photograph circa 1906 showing Fuller's drapers in Portsmouth and a reference to his daughter Rosalind. I checked out in Wikipedia and found much information. Is this copyrighted can you tell me or may I use some of the info in my column?

Thanking you.

Robert W Hind — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first inform you that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, so it would probably be inadvisable to use it in your column. It would be better for you to use the sources used in the relevant Wikipedia articles. However, you may use Wikipedia content with attribution as described at WP:C; please read that carefully. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
If you click on the image the media viewer will appear. There should be a bright blue button in the bottom right that will take you to the page for the image, which should have the copyright info you need. Good luck! WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Is an article Title change required?

I edited the article on Elinor Jackson to correct the birth name to Eleanor Junkin rather than Elinor. I have both original letters from her parents, including some written shortly after her birth, plus documentation from the published Junkin genealogy, the biography of her father and a book on her sister Margaret Junkin Preston. See Talk:Elinor Jackson
Another editor has repeatedly reverted my edit stating that I must get the article title changed first. See the History page. On several occasions I asked that he use the Talk page, but he has not. He has not questioned the accuracy of my edit.
I accept that Stonewall Jackson biographies may commonly use "Elinor" and therefore I do not think it is appropriate to change the article title since her status as a historical figure is due to her marriage to Stonewall Jackson. However, I believe it is appropriate for the article to include the fact that she was named Eleanor and the Junkin family used that name consistently.
The question here is: do Wikipedia customs require the change in article title if her birth name entry is changed to Eleanor?--Tmdnc (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tmdnc: Welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds like you have some fascinating relations and superb historical documents. Unfortunately, everything on Wikipedia has to be based upon reliable published sources, not family archives, no matter how genuine those documents may be. We title articled based up a policy available at WP:COMMONNAME, stating that pages are titled after what commonly used sources refer them as, not by what a birth certificate or other document says. I don't, for example, imagine that 'Stonewall' appears anywhere on the birth certificate of Thomas Jackson. However, if you can arrange to have your documents published by reliable historical journal or magazine, Wikipedia would happily use that secondary sources as evidence of a valid name within the article, but not the primary source itself. This might sound oxymoronic, but Wikipedia needs any user, anywhere in the world, to be able to check and verify factual statements, and papers hidden within family archives simply aren't of use. Unless I have misunderstood you concerns, you simlpy shouldn't change article content on what you, personally, know or can prove, but on what has been reliably published about that person. Yes, this can sometimes perpetuate a long-standing error, but ours is not the place to right great wrongs, rather to reflect what the world at large has said about one notable topic or another. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes: You have focused on my original unpublished correspondence and not on the multiple published sources I have cited on the Talk:Elinor Jackson page. I accept the point about unpublished sources. However, my question remains: what can I say to the editor who believes that I need to get the article titled moved or changed before I can insert the fact that her family spelled her name "Eleanor". I don't question that Jackson biographers have used "Elinor".Tmdnc (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tmdnc: WP:COMMONNAME would apply here. Basically, what name is she most commonly referred to byin the media? Not knowing anything about the subject, I can't say in this case, but say you took a "poll" of 100 published books mentioning her. Which spelling would be more frequent? -A lainsane (Channel 2) 16:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Tmdnc: My apologies for focussing on your mention of family archives. If there is a high quality published source that shows a different spelling of her name, then you should have included them when you repeatedly reinserted your edit in the article's lead. Did I miss something; did you actually include some? Even if you had, placing it in the lead was wrong: it's the kind of thing that required a citation within the infobox, plus a short mention in an 'early life' section. Until you do supply such a published reference, you should not reinsert your edit. That said, you may indeed have a good case for correction. So why not place a proposal of a exact wording change on the talk page and gain consensensus for its addition? If she is widely known by her 'wrong' name, my view would be to retain the article title as it is, but create a WP:REDIRECT to it from the spelling you propose. None if these changes require administrator involvement, as we work by consensus here. You task is to bring others round to you way of thinking, and to make life easy for that to happen, offering a suggested form or words on the talk page is a good way to start. For sources not available online, you could, in your talk page discussion which you've started, include the wording from those sources to help others in their assessment of your arguments for change. Does this help at all? Nick Moyes (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes:Your reply was very helpful. I accept that I should have cited sources in my original edit. After the first reversion, I did provide an explanation with sources in the Talk page, but I was unable to get the other editor to move the dispute to the Talk page. I chose to stop banging my head on a wall ('warring') after his fourth(!!) reversion. I found the WP:COMMONNAME policy and the Teahouse. I will soon place a revised and improved edit on the Talk page, with an explanation of why the article title does NOT need to be moved/changed. Hopefully a discussion can occur there before making edits on the article page itself.Tmdnc (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Tmdnc: That sounds like an eminently sensible approach. Glad to have been of help, and sorry again if I misread your original cry for assistance. I'm going to be out of it for a week or two, but if I get a chance to log on somewhere I'll try and check how things are going and lend my support if I'm able. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes:I have posted my proposal on the Talk:Elinor Jackson page.Tmdnc (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

How can I upload a Google Drive link or Facebook link where public can view it on my profile without being asked to login?

How ❓ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gautam Moitra (talkcontribs) 18:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Gautam Moitra, This desk is for Asking how to use Wikipedia, not using facebook or google drive. However, for google drive you can go to the share menu and click "Get shareable link" then paste the link that you receive. Good luck. WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Meaning of "esp."

I notice "esp." in the current Julian Assange article. I know it means the beginning of the partnership, but I can't figure out what specific word it's an abbreviation for, and I haven't been able to find this word by searching. Can someone please tell me what it is? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy McCoy (talkcontribs) 18:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Roy McCoy: It stands for espoused in the Julian Assange infobox, a clunky way of saying married. Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ so we know who you are. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)