Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 650

Archive 645

←

Archive 648

Archive 649

Archive 650

Archive 651

Archive 652

→

Archive 655

Photo copyright

We (US publishers of John Grisham's books) have acquired promotional use rights to a new photo of Grisham which I have uploaded to Grisham's Wikipedia page. I don't know which rights tag to use or how to add it. Thanks, John Pitts Johnpitts57 (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Johnpitts57. Unfortunately, limited usage rights, like you seem to have acquired, are not consistent with the requirement of Wikipedia. If they would like to license it in a way that it would be free to use for anyone for any purpose, they may do so by following the instructions at WP:CONSENT. If not, then the photo will need to be removed and deleted. There... is a long complicated explanation for why this is the case, but that's the short and sweet of it. TimothyJosephWood 21:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the image from the article. Per above, unless this image is released into the public domain, or under a suitably-free copyright license, which seems unlikely here, it cannot be used in the article and must be deleted. We do not allow apparent copyright violations to remain live. This image cannot be used under a claim of fair use under Wikipedia's non-free content policy. First, non-free images of living persons in general cannot be used at all (as they are considered "replaceable" and thus fail WP:NFCC#1), and for the same reason, no image of any stripe can ever be used under a claim of fair use if there is a suitable free image that serves a similar encyclopedic use (even if the free image is not as good) and a free image exists and was already in use in the article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks Fuhghettaboutit. I see they added it to the article, not just "uploaded" it. TimothyJosephWood 22:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Making an Article

I have been looking everywhere for information about a book series called Floors. All I have found are half baked summaries on the book and even the author Patrick Carman doesn't have a good full website. I looked everywhere. I wondering if I could write an article about the series. Have a summary of the premise of the whole series, a premise of the three books, a summary in depth of the books, a section about each of the characters, and a part about all the floors of the Whippet Hotel with a description.

Also how do I know this sends? How will you contact me? Your way to editing is really complicated. I have read about 12 articles on how to create an article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilda Florence (talk • contribs) 21:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Nilda Florence, it can be very complicated writing an article on Wikipedia. I understand what you are going through. As for the series, as long as you have a few good, substantial reliable sources, that'll be a good start. Looking through Newspaper subscriptions and databases, I can see a lot of reviews that you may not have access to. If you start the article and need more sources, feel free to contact me. If you post on my talk page, I will see it. Otherwise, you can ping an editor by using this template:{{u|EDITOR'sNAMEhere}} and replace the Editor's Name Here with the handle of the editor you want to ping. I hope this helps! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Nilda Florence and welcome to the Teahouse. Your message did send, which you can see by looking at the Teahouse page after you saved it.

The most important requirement about creating an article is that the topic must be Notable. Wikipedia uses this term in a rather specialized way. To Wikipedia, a topic is notable if several Independent published Relible sources have written about it in some detail. Unless this has happened, any article would be deleted fairly quickly.

Secondly, did you write those summaries, or are they from the author or the publisehr. Wikipedia cannot accept text (or images) from elsewhere unless they have been released under a free license, see the section above this one.

Making an artilce from an empty start is a hard task here, and I do not advise new editors to start that way, but rather by editing several existing articles first, to get a sense of how things work around here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Commas

Clarification: when dealing with words in quotation marks, why do Wikipedia editors place the comma after the mark? They do it in this manner:

It's called a "babish baby", didn't you know?

. . .with the comma on the outside of the quoted phrase. As far as I understand, from school and such, the comma must be put on the inside of the marks, in this manner:

It's called a "babish baby," didn't you know?

The question I have is whether this is a stylistic guideline strictly to Wikipedia, or a device used in other styles (say, AP, for example).

Nito² ~

01:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. the relevant section of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style is at MOS:LQ. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

There may be regional variations in what is taught in school, so please read the link above before changing any style to what you were taught, and please retain Wikipedia's style. Dbfirs 12:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I was accustomed to placing commas inside closing quotation marks (and had taught that style to my journalism students for 17 years) because it's the journalistic way to punctuate. I gradually adjusted, however, although I have to remind myself from time to time. I also taught my students that a writer has to adjust to the style guidelines of each publication. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

can i copy the whole paragraph on news article but i will put reference

can i copy the whole paragraph on news article but i will put referenceRearm21 (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rearm21. When you write for Wikipedia, you must write primarily in your own words, accurately summarizing the references you provide. You can use brief quotations but these quotations must be clearly indicated by use of quotation marks or block quote formatting, and properly referenced. Quoted material should be a small percentage of the content you write. It would be very rare that you should quote a whole paragraph from a news story. I recommend that you summarize instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

How to make reference

How do I make a proper reference for an Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukasounds (talk • contribs) 10:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find advice at Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comedy:

The Teahouse has a link to 'Articles to Improve' and 'Suggestions'. So I joined {{WikiProject Comedy}}, in which one of the ways to participate is to place a project banner on the talk pages of all articles within the scope of the project. I wanted to get involved in this project, and added my name to the participants' list. I've updated over 50 pages so far.

I seem to be quite confused. Apparently, I am under the impression that the very first item on the task list here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comedy#Things_you_can_do implies that every talk page in Wikipedia that has anything to do with the topic of "comedy" are to be tagged. This is obviously wrong. I was told that I need to be more careful. I need to be careful not to edit "too many pages."

How do we tell which talk pages may be tagged, and which to avoid?? Here is the first task: Place the {{WikiProject Comedy}} project banner on the talk pages of all articles within the scope of the project. What are the limitations of the "scope of the project?" I didn't know I was tagging too many articles! Sorry! B'H.
MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@2422889236x: Sorry, I wasn't clear previously. You are not doing anything wrong. I was merely saying be careful of tagging indiscriminately. It's better to choose a narrow topic first, and work your way down based on my experience with WikiProjects. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 15:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Clarify. Is the tag appropriate for anything to do with comedy, any article having an aspect of comedy? Specifically, I'm inclined to tag any article about a comedian; any person known publically for their humor; a humorous theater production; a humorous televised production; a humorous motion picture production; a humorous article in a magazine or newspaper or website; a humorous book; terms that relate to comedy or humor; concepts having to do with humor, comedy, laughter; research on comedy, laughter, humor; and the like. I am not clear on what you are specifying is "indiscriminately." Where are the boundaries of discrimination, in your perspective? B'H.
MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Notable television transmission

Are television coverage i.e. Shows, programs and plays notable enough to have articles in encyclopedia? Sinner (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Many television programs have Wikipedia articles (NBC Nightly News, The Big Bang Theory) 331dot (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

What about cartoon programs? Are they notable to have articles in encyclopedia? Sinner (talk) 11:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you read WP:Notability (media)? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

David Biddulph, it is really helping. Sinner (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

How do I make this gallery work horizontally?

What I'm referencing is: this section of the article. I'm trying to add these five photos of high schools and make them into one horizontal row. Is there any way to have all five pictures in a row without having any huge awkward space underneath the pictures? MrWooHoo (T • C) 14:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Taking out the {{div col}} templates would do it, I think. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That did it! Thanks a ton. MrWooHoo (T • C) 14:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I have a question as to whether I am allowed to create a certain page.

I noticed that the Gamergate controversy article features almost no information about the GamerGate movement's goals, ideology, and history from reputable, uninvolved sources. However, addition of such information, reading the talk page, does not appear to be a goal. Is it allowable for me to create GamerGate (Socio-political movement) as a storage space for such information, until such a time when it can be merged with the main article? Thanks!

Edit: Oh wow, I had no idea that this topic was so controversial. Yeah, I'm definetely not experienced enough to tackle this.--Rainythunderstorm (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Rainythunderstorm (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rainythunderstorm. That is a mire into which I would not advise a relatively new editor to jump. You should have a good read of the Gamergate Arbitration case and the sanctions imposed there before even thinking about setting forth on such a project. Give that the parent article is also under 30/500 protection, I would recommend at least waiting until you have the 30 days tenure and 500 minimum edit count that you would need to even edit that article before starting a spinoff. On the whole, I would say it's a very bad idea. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Rainythunderstorm. I will give you my personal opinion as a highly active editor here for eight years. My opinion is that trying to create such an article is a bad idea. In general, we should only have one article on a given topic unless that article grows so large that offshoots are justified. Please read Wikipedia:Content forking for the guideline. If reliable, independent sources discuss Gamergate's "goals, ideology, and history", then I recommend that you bring those sources to the article's talk page, along with proposed language summarizing those reliable sources. Please be aware that this topic has been highly controversial for several years, and that any proposed edits will be subjected to a high level of scrutiny and must obtain consensus in order to be added to the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Rainythunderstorm and welcome to the Teahouse.

This is a sufficiently hypothetical question that I don't think we can give you a definitive answer. In general, you can start a sandbox or other userspace page without much interference from other editors, assuming you follow the rules for userspace content (for instance, no copyright violations). Once you have something you think is worth proposing for addition to the encyclopedia as either a standalone article or as an adddition to an existing article, you can ask for a review, either through the articles for creation process or on the talk page of the article you wish to augment.

That being said, you obviously already recognize that this topic is considered extremely contentious, so you're going to have to walk a very fine line to create material that will be generally accepted. Finding suitable "uninvolved" sources would be a pretty difficult task. Doing this as a new editor seems like it would be a near-impossible project. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think the main reason we don't have such information, Rainythunderstorm, is that the Gamergate "movment" is no such thing, it is a loose collection of individuals who object to certain things, but not all for the same reasons, and they set of things that is objected to varies from person to person, albeit with significnt overlap. There is no public leader who can spak on behalf of the "movement", and there have been no meetings where the movement members have agreed on any goals or ideology. Indeed they don't seem to agree on who is or is not a "member". Thus independent, reliable sources are very few and far between. Add to that the tendency of sources to become passionately involved with one side or another of this issue, and writing such an article (or article section) to Wikipedia standards would be a daunting task indeed. I wouldn't care to try it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I request expert advice on Disambiguation and Redirects. I took on as a mission of mercy fixing a page from ten years ago. The title of the page is First Alert. You know ...the somke detectors. There is another company First Alert Professional Security Systems which I simply want to redirect to Honeywell. Now my question: where would I give the user a choice to choose betwixt the two? I have one para about First Alert Professional Security Systems. Rhadow (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rhadow. Some pages/sections to read that will inform this post: Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and especially its subsections at WP:PTOPIC and WP:TWODABS; Wikipedia:Article titles, and especially its subsections at WP:NATURALDIS; Wikipedia:Hatnote and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages.

First, the article on First Alert should be on one subject alone, and unless the subjects are actually related, all mention of the security service that was added on April 15, 2017 should be removed from the body of the article. I think the context of your question already indicates you understand this well (that that problem in the current article partially motivates your question). I'm just trying to be complete.

The issue this raises though is that there is no separate article on the security service and we generally only disambiguate against existing articles. If the security service content piggy-backed into the smoke detector company article was proper content—a well sourced write-up that could stand on its own—I would say go ahead and split the content that was recently added to a new page, and then engage in a disambiguation scheme for that now existing article. But this content is not worth that treatment. Only if you are willing and motivated to create at least a decent stub with some sources should a new page be created. Another possibility would be to add some content about the security company to the article on Honeywell, and then all disambiguation can be targeted to the section of that article containing it.

Another issue is that, while the security company's name may often be shortened to just "First Alert", it already has a different, full name, that provides natural disambiguation, i.e., "First Alert Professional Security Systems", so there does not seem to be a need to engage in full disambiguation even if both articles were to exist; all that would be needed is a hatnote, placed at the top of the First Alert article, e.g., {{for|the security services company|First Alert Professional Security Systems}}. In sum, unless a separate article is created, or the Honeywell article specifically treats this topic, remove the misplaced content and just redirect (and in that event, a suitable red link for the security company can be placed in strategic places to invite creation, but only if it appears notable enough to warrant an article); if a separate page is created, or the Honeywell article treats this topic, place the hatnote and redirect. (In either case, I suggest leaving a detailed edit summary.)

Under the premise that a disambiguation scheme is warranted (which, per above, I'm rather dubious about) there are two essential paths.

1) Assuming there are only two topics involved, it depends on if one of them is the primary topic—that is, if one of the topics is significantly more likely than the other to be what people looking for when searching for the title "First Alert". This is checked by looking at the preponderance of each topic's mention, by the title at issue, in reliable, English language sources (e.g. run a Google Books search like this and look at the results, possibly adding other exclusions from the search to winnow false-positives). If there is a primary topic, say the smoke alarm company, then that stays at the base name, "First Alert", and the other article would be at the naturally disambiguated full name or, possibly, if almost always called "First Alert", given a parenthetical disambiguator, like First Alert (security company) and a hatnote added to the First Alert article in a form, for example, like:

{{this|the manufacturer of smoke alarms and other safety devices|the security company|First Alert (security company)}}

which would format as:

This article is about the manufacturer of smoke alarms and other safety devices. For the security company, see First Alert (security company).

2) However, if there is no primary topic, then the base page "First Alert" should be turned into a disambiguation page that lists both titles, after moving First Alert to say, First Alert (safety device company). Since this post is already gigantic, I'll just add one more possibility.

3) If the security device company was the primary topic, but there were multiple other existing articles for a DAB page to list and provide navigation to, then the smoke alarm company would still be at the base name but a disambiguation page would be created at the title First Alert (disambiguation), and the hatnote added to it would then be instead {{Other uses}}.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Fuhghettaboutit -- Your explanation was super. Just what the doctor called for. I did it. It works. Many thanks. Rhadow (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

How do I make a new page?

How do I make a new page on Wikipedia? I recently noticed that some famous persons do not have profiles on Wikipedia. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmsonata3013 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mmsonata3013. You can get started by reading Your first article, paying close attention to the sections on notability, reliable sources, and writing about yourself or anyone you know personally. If someone is truly famous, they probably already have an article here — don't forget to check that you're spelling the person's name correctly. Finally, if you find you have any more questions, please feel free to come back here to the Teahouse for help! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 20:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Should I edit?

Re: the Wikipedia page on George A. Schastey, cabinet maker, 1839-1894. He is said to have designed a home for William Graham in Reno. This can't be correct. William Graham was born about 1889 so I can't see him commissioning a house at the age of five. Also, the William Graham house was built in 1928 in a style of that era. I did find other George A. Schasteys, one of whom was an architect, but as he was born around 1896 I don't see how he could have been the elder Schastey's son, but perhaps a relative. As the homes of "the big four" were much earlier, who knows, this Schastey might have designed them but definitely not the Graham house in Reno.204.115.218.136 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello (talk) -- Sure, you should edit if you have a source. Otherwise tag it with citation needed or verficationfailed if an existing reference does not support the assertion. Rhadow (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

IP editor and Rhadow, there were two George A. Schasteys, father and son. The son was born in 1869, not 1896, and lived until 1933. The son designed the house in Reno, and UC Berkeley holds some of his archives. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello all -- The question was "Should I edit?" The answer is yes. As to architecture and history ... you are talking to the wrong person. Cheers. Rhadow (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

How can I delete my account?

I want delete my account please guide me because I no longer use wikipedia further! Alireza Badali 19:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alireza Badali (talk • contribs)

Hi Alireza Badali, sorry to see you leave, see WP:Courtesy vanishing for guidance on how to "inactivate" your account. For legal copyright reasons it cannot be deleted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Alireza Badali! As it says on the Username policy page:

It is not possible to delete user accounts, as all contributions must be assigned to some identifier; either a username or an IP address. Editors seeking privacy per WP:Courtesy vanishing / right to vanish can usually have their accounts renamed and their user pages (and in exceptional cases user talk pages) deleted.

I understand your frustration at discovering that the draft you have been working on cannot become a Wikipedia article (though concepts in it might be able to be written about here after the subject is published and written about elsewhere). I hope that you will choose to stay and contribute to Wikipedia in other ways, though; your expertise in mathematics would be very helpful in maintaining articles we already have, and possibly in writing new articles about mathematics subjects that have already been written about in reliable sources but not yet here. Either way, the Teahouse is here for you if you have any further questions. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 20:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Articles for deletion

The instructions at articles for deletion state that discussions should remain open for a minimum of 7 days. There is provision for a 'snowball close' where a debate is overwhelmingly heading in a direction. But in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanson's Local Buses (2nd nomination) there were only 5 votes, 3 to redirect, 2 to delete, so not overwelming.

The editor who closed after only 3 days was also the nominating editor, does this constitute a conflict of interest? I would have thought it best to allow the process to run its natural course, rather than have someone come along later and declare the result null and void because procedure was not followed correctly? Finchfrog (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Finchfrog have you discussed the matter with the editor who did the close? That is the first step to resolving the problem. If you have discussed it but failed to reach agreement then you can take it up with Deletion review for wider discussion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Reopened and relisted. –Davey2010^Talk 20:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Removing notability template message

Hello! I've been working on improving an article, Illyria. Before I starting making improvements, the article had a message at the top that stated it needs additional citations for verification. Since then, I've added 9 references and I think I've really helped the article - I'm working on getting a picture added as well so it will look even better (I sent in a request here a few days ago)! However, I was wondering when it would be okay to remove the template. I only became a Wikipedia user a few days ago, so I didn't want to just remove it on my own if I'm not supposed to or if the article isn't ready. Thanks so much! Paracosms^talk 21:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

done. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much, @Ariconte! Just so I know for the future, about many references should be added before that can be removed? Paracosms^talk 21:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Paracosms, At least two refs are generally required to prove notability, but the more the better if they are good quality. See Wikipedia:References. It really depends to some extent on the subject of the article and the nature of the reference (like how long it is). If some uninvolved party writes an entire book on a topic, that would count strongly toward notability and likely be a great source as well. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense! Thanks! Paracosms^talk 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Making another page

How do you male another page on your project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmirA12. (talk • contribs) 18:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AmirA12.. Begin by reading Your first article, and feel free to ask a more specific question at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi AmirA12.. You can delete the material on your user page now that it is incorporated into the article. Your main user page is not really the place to develop a new article, but you may use a subpage such as user:AmirA12./new article, or use draft space (Draft:new article) so that you (and others if you wish) can work on the new material without risk of it being deleted (though abandoned projects and copyright infringements can still be deleted, even in draft or user space). Dbfirs 22:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Moving a page

Hello again!

I've searched for information, however, I couldn't find much info on the topic.

As a new page reviewer I often find new and old articles, that are in the mainspace. Many of those article contain no references at all and many other are outsourced and contain 2-3 phrase article; article being referenced only by primary sources and social media sources. After applying the appropriate fix tags these articles remain in the Pending for Review space. And can stay there for years (any unreviewed article, older than 90 days, automatically gets the noindex,nofollow tag removed so it will appear in search engine results.). Today I was tempted to move a page which looked more like a draft, checked and the subject had plenty of coverage. How to proceed in these cases? May I move such pages in the draft space for incubation? Or that is something that only movers can do? Thanks. Robert G. (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Robertgombos and welcome again to the Teahouse.

As a new page reviewer, you should be thoroughly familiar with the procedures outlined at New Page Patrol. But to answer your specific question, one option for unsuitable pages that you find is to move them to Draft: space, particularly if they are new pages. You do not need to have page mover privilege to do this (autoconfirmed user should be enough), unless there is already a draft page by that name. For older pages, depending on just how bad they are, you may want to CSD, PROD, or AfD them, when you don't wish to try to improve the page yourself. Much of the time, however, applying maint tags may be all you want to do. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I tried to make donations but failed

Why one earth is it now so difficult to make donations? Do i have to make a trip to the bank to do so? is disapoInting to fail making donations here even by e walleting.! please fix this or give feedback on my talk page. (41.138.78.50 (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC))

Hello anonymous and welcome to the Teahouse.

You probably need to be more specific about what you were trying to do and how it failed for us to be of any assistance. For most people, going to the "Donate to Wikipedia" link near the top of the left-hand sidebar takes you to a page with a number of donation options. It has always worked when I've donated. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

HOF

How can you add the "| HOF = #" section for the new Pro football hall of fame. such as Warner, Jones, Davis, etc. it seems that the number links are completely random. Can you help?Vinnylospo (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Vinnylospo and welcome to the Teahouse.

At first, I had no idea what you were talking about and left your question for others to answer. Later, I took some time to look into it and have a suggestion.

It looks like the NFL Hall of Fame may have changed the way its website prefers to access HOFers: it now prefers to link to them by name, as in http://www.profootballhof.com/players/kurt-warner/. What this means for Wikipedia is that the template {{Infobox NFL biography}} needs to be updated to allow this style of reference. I suggest that you ask your question at Template talk:Infobox NFL biography. It could be that I'm just ill-informed and that the old method still works, you just need to know some magic to extract the PlayerID number so that the current template works as-is. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

someone burgled on to my account

<--some one claiming to be finnish from finland continues to block my edits citing nonsense/gibberish destroying every other effort we can make to be part of this foudation is deminished/perished;-->(41.138.78.18 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC))

Could you give an example of the problem? There are no recent edits from the above IP address except for the above. No-one can block edits from a registered account without good reason which they will have told you about. Dbfirs 08:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dbfirs and 41.138.78.18: "Continuing" and "destroying" strongly suggest that the user is talking about their edits being deleted, not blocked. --Thnidu (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that the edits had probably been reverted, but the OP used the word "block". If they don't tell us what edits they are upset about, then there is nothing we can do to advise. Dbfirs 11:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Help me look into my Draft

Hi everyone ... some weeks back I created a page for a new cryptocurrency coin but it was flagged as an editor that thinks it sounded promotional, I've since then created a draft and have done extensive editing and removal of content that may seem to sound promotional from the original content, I think it is all fixed now and good to go live now but I will appreciate if I get people to look into it and tell me what else you all think should be done to make it better.

• Here is the draft link Draft:BitConnect Coin, Check the Page History to see the several edits I've made to the draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midlandcraft (talk • contribs) 23:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Midlandcraft. Your draft is nowhere near ready for acceptance into the encyclopedia. A Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable, independent sources say about the topic. I looked at your first seven sources, and found blogs, press releases and promotional posts to various open platforms by people who cannot write coherent English prose. None of those references is acceptable. Unless you can provide much better sources, this topic simply isn't notable and simply does not belong in this encyclopedia. Read and study Your first article and follow its recommendations. Your references are also poorly formatted as bare URLs but that is a minor problem compared to the fundamentally poor quality of the seven sources I read. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:BitConnect Coin seems to be about the same subject as BitConnect, but much worse written. If it is in fact about a different cryptocurrency, it will need to explain the difference. Maproom (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328, Thank you very much for your commemnt, I've been through your talkpage and I must say I'm impressed. Now that you've pointed out that some of the links are not fit as sources to the page, which I will try my best to remove those I think isn't fit enough but I will also appreciate it if you can, with your massive experience on this platform remove sources that you think does not fit in. I'm quite sure it's not all the sources that are bad some are from highly reputed websites but I believe you are in a better shoe to make the judgement of which source is right or wrong... Apart from the sources, I hope the tone of the content complies with wikipedia rule of article creation, I'm a Computer Science student and not too good literary though I've worked extensively on the content to make it sound as neutral as possible and even had it proofread by my roommate, an English Language student here on campus, but if you think otherwise please let me know how I can improve and make it better. Hope to hear from you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midlandcraft (talk • contribs) 16:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Midlandcraft. Since you posted the same reply at User talk:Cullen328 and I noticed it there first, I responded at length there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Shahid Shamshad "rashshan Miyan" advocate

<Apparent article draft content, already contained at User:Ashamshad123/sandbox removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashamshad123 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ashamshad123. Do you have a question about the content in your sandbox? My best guess if that your posting of it here indicates you might be asking, in an indirect way, how this might become a part of the encyclopedia. However, the content of articles or proposed articles does not belong on this page, and it would really help if you asked a direct question. I have deleted your userpage and user talk page, where this content did not belong, but have left your sandbox intact, which I have linked above. Can you please follow-up with a question?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Leader_title5/leader_name5 error

Hello, I was trying to edit a page named Kerala, but then I saw some content in the Infobox template and the error was unknown parameters named leader_title5 and leader_name5. Can anyone help me to solve this error. Thanks - Smokin'Bears (talk • contribs) 06:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Smokin' Bears and welcome to the Teahouse.

There is a comment in the infobox coding for that article that hides these unsupported parameters. Perhaps you did something to unhide them? As the leadin to the comment states, only members 1-4 of this parameter sequence are supported by the current version of the template. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: No i did nothing to unhide them. But I am curious about one thing that if there is content for page that need to add in leader_title/name, than how to add it? And one more thing that there is problem with my signature, when sign article it does not show talk and contribs, I have to add them separately. Thanks - Smokin'Bears 12:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC) (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure why you were seeing those errors then. Is it still happening? What can you say about how you are editing (browser, platform, mobile, visual)?

As for your signature, I'm also at a loss. We can't see what's in your preferences and the signature looks fairly normal by the time you finish saving your comments. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Asbox Questions

I'm creating some new stub categories using the {{Asbox}} template - can anyone explain to me how the tempsort variable works? Furicorn (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Furicorn and welcome to the Teahouse.

It looks like your question has us stumped. I certainly can't figure out from just the documention what the tempsort parameter does. You may need to seek help elsewhere. I think Template talk:Asbox might be a good starting place. Because this template appears to interact with the categorization system, I don't think I can suggest that you simply try playing around with different values for the tempsort parameter in a sandbox to see what happens.

The template examples all use "*" as the value for the parameter. It could well be that the default behavior is all you ever wanted in the first place. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Seriously needs reviewing

How do I request that someone, or several people at high levels at Wikipedia review an article as a whole and all of it's ridiculous edits back and forth? Something is seriously wrong here and I can't go through and fix each and every thing, especially as I have not edited articles in years, other than onceHadenough3 (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, for starters, mentioning the article instead of speaking about it hypothetically would help. Also, the article's talk page would be a good place to raise specific and detailed improvements and reasons for them. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of a formal complaint. I don't believe the issues I see will even be addressed by the people who are warring over this page. i.e. they are the problemHadenough3 (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, what page are you referring to? Without being able to look at the edits there is nothing we can do or say other than what Ian.thomson had said. Meters (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, besides communicating your concerns on the article's talkpage the templates at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace might also be of use. Meters (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe this is in regard to Amber Heard. At least Hadenough3 commented rather passionately on Talk:Amber Heard. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hadenough3. You seem to be convinced that Amber Heard is a terrible person and that Johnny Depp is her victim. You are entitled to your opinion, and for all I know, you are right. I do not know about that. What I do know is that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and we do not take sides in such disputes. Instead, we neutrally and dispassionately summarize what the full range of high quality reliable sources say about the topic. We do not use gossip sites or sensationalistic tabloid style newspaper stories as sources. Material based on such sources should be removed. Please be aware that we have a very strict policy on biographies of living people which you should read and study carefully. There are plenty of websites where people either vilify or glorify either Heard or Depp. Wikipedia is not among those websites and that will not change. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox maps

I'm wondering what the consensus is regarding adding push-pin maps into articles about geographical features. I know it's possible, the pushpin map parameters are in the {{Infobox body of water}} for example and there are other ways to insert maps. I wanted to stick one in the "Lake Cachuma" infobox but i'm not even seeing it on pages like "Salton Sea" or "Lake Tahoe" so i'm wondering if they have been left out on purpose? I've thought about asking at WP:Lakes but it's seems pretty quiet there. I suppose i'm also after an answer in general about when a push-pin map is warranted for an article. Thanks Cesdeva (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Cesdeva and welcome to the Teahouse.

I didn't want to let your question go too long without a response, but I don't have an authoritative answer for you. Probably the best course for you to pursue is add the push-pin parameters to the article you were thinking about and see what happens. I suspect it may often be left undone because it is extra work, not because it is frowned upon. But if there are objections, someone will revert your edit and you can then discuss with them what the consensus is. Nobody is going to kick you for trying. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I considered being bold but thought i'd enquire here on the off-chance somebody was active in that area. Editors have gone to the length of acquiring coordinates for these articles but not utilised them in maps which seemed odd. Cesdeva (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Operation Identification dates back to 1963 and is a broad subject

I invented a startup at MyPropertyIDRegistry.com. It is based on Operation Identification which dates back to 1963. I was shocked that there was no entry for the topic on Wikipedia, so I took a stab at it and fell on my face. Operation Identification is a real thing that has been widely used by law enforcement agencies the world overs and has been endorse by the FBI and the USDoj. PhD dissertations have been written on the topic.

This is the rejected page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Operation_Identification?lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_profile_view_base_recent_activity_details_shares%3B8MVIZe9lSOCSk2O9mDY0mg%3D%3D

I was under the impression Wikipedia was a friendly collaborative. Could someone help? Thank you.Jonshelness (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jonshelness. Your draft has not been "rejected". Instead, it has been declined at this time, and you have been invited to improve it and resubmit it when you have brought it into compliance with our policies and guidelines. Here at the Teahouse, we will give you as much friendly advice as you need to bring your draft article into compliance, but you need to do the hard work. It is not easy to write an acceptable article, but we have millions of them. Your article is unreferenced though it has some links scattered through it, and that is the first thing you should improve. Read Referencing for beginners and provide proper footnotes for the sources of your article. Also read and study Your first article and follow its recommendations. Take a look at a few Good articles to see how a decent encyclopedia article should look. And return here to the Teahouse at any time to ask more specific questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Shortcut WP:NEGATIVESPIN to section of WP:ATTACK showing up as redlinked even though it works

I boldly created a shortcut WP:NEGATIVESPIN to the section "Negative spinout articles" within WP:ATTACK, intending to use this section within an AfD to which it is relevant. (I checked that that shortcut did not previously exist.) The shortcut redirect page now definitely exists, and appears to work (in that clicking on it gets to the appropriate section), but it still shows up as redlinked within the section's shortcut box in WP:ATTACK. How can I fix this?

I had initially forgotten to add {{R from shortcut}} when creating the redirect page, and had to go back to add it later by editing the redirect page. Could this be the source of the problem with apparent redlinking?

Syrenka V (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Syrenka V and welcome to the Teahouse.

Since it looks like it is working now, I can only guess that there is a delay between creating a redirect and when the link colorizer figures out whether the redirect exists. If it still doesn't look right for you, you may need to purge the page or otherwise clear your cache so that the browser can work with the latest state of affairs. The name of your redirect strikes me as misinterpretable, but the only way I can see to avoid that is to make it too long. There's a potential conflation of spin from spinout with Spin (propaganda). Let's see what others think. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! It might indeed be a cache issue. For some reason it's only the link in the shortcut box in WP:ATTACK itself that's remaining red; the links on this Teahouse page and on the AfD look normal. And all of them work, even the one that still shows as redlinked. Maybe it's because I clicked the link within WP:ATTACK before the others that look normal. Does the WP:NEGATIVESPIN link in the shortcut box in WP:ATTACK look normal to you?

I thought of the conflation problem too, but I also came to the conclusion that it couldn't be fixed without making the link too long. I think it's basically a harmless and amusing pun that will not lead to any real confusion. The linked section WP:NEGATIVESPIN is so short it can be read almost at a glance, and explains clearly what the issue really is.

—Syrenka V (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it looks okay. There's also something called transclusion delay that could have temporarily affected how things looked for you. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse invite

I wonder if a Teahouse host could drop a friendly Teahouse invitation on to this editors talk page. Regards CV9933 (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CV9933.

Already done by Theroadislong. You could have done it yourself, too. If you look at Theroadislong's edit, you can see how to do it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I know how to template a talk page, but considering that particular type of newbie faux pas, I just felt it was more appropriate for an experienced Teahouse host to do the invite and any necessary follow up. Regards CV9933 (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

location of references

Is it better to upload reference documents or external link them to featured contentEarlMcAlpine (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, EarlMcAlpine. It is almost never appropriate to upload reference documents. All references must be to reliable published sources (which do not need to be online). If the documents have been reliably published, then give information that will allow a reader to locate them (eg via a major library) - if they are available online, then a URL may be provided as a convenience, but the URL is not the reference. A URL to an site which does not have a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking is uselss). If they have not been published, they may not be used as references anyway. --ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Correcting Page Title for a Wikipedia Page

This is done using the move function. It is only available to confirmed editors. and editor is automatically confirmed after at least 10 edits and at least 4 days. Or one may ask at Requested moves. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

How to write from a neutral point of view?

My submissions are always getting rejected on the ground that my article is not written from a neutral point of view. But I am not getting what is "neutral point of view". I read the wikipedia article on the subject. But still it is not clear to me. How can I get my article accepted? Photographer Sunil K. Dutt (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

In Draft:Sunil K. Dutt, you have written "One of his many notable works...". If you can't see for yourself that that wording is not neutral, you probably ought to stop trying to write about yourself. Maproom (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Photographer Sunil K. Dutt - Assuming the article you are referring to is Draft:Sunil K. Dutt the main problem appears to be that you are trying to write an autobiography. Although we do not totally ban autobiographies, as stated in WP:AUTOBIO, they are "strongly discouraged". As that guidance states; "Writing autobiographies is discouraged because it is difficult to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography" - which is exactly the problem you are facing.
As Wikipedia is not a place for promotion, I suggest you wait until someone totally independent of you decides that you are worthy of an article - Arjayay (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)\

Photographer Sunil K. Dutt, A phrase such as His photographs depict that humanity's 'dark, mysterious, humourous, and magical moments' have produced some of the finest art and literature of his time. is both non-neutral and includes an unsourced quotation. Frequently, he bunked his school and went to the outskirts of the city and stayed there for the rest of the day, exploring the world around him. is non-neutral and unsourced, and appears to depend on your personal knowledge. Dutt is known for his distinct vision of multifaceted Kolkata which he captured through the lens. is also non-neutral unless it can be sourced to a named person as a quote, and supported by a source citation]. There are several other similar examples in this short draft. A Wikipedia article must be strictly factual, and based largely on independent published reliable sources. This draft is not so based at this time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Question about edit counts

I recently did a count of my edits by going to "Edit Count" at the bottom of the screen and got that I had made no edits. This is inaccurate, as I have gone to Edit Counts in the past and got informed that I had made over 400 edits. Does anybody know what is going on here? Is there something wrong with our edit counter at the moment? Thank you in advance if you could offer any words of help here, Vorbee (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It looks OK now. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Hi Vorbee - that tool regularly fails to report properly - especially at very busy times - and having got a nul or partial result it takes some time to clear and re-run, even if you clear your cache.
I have just run it, and you had 429 live edits, 9 deleted edits, and a total of 438 edits. - Arjayay (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Want to know which pages to visit to discuss videogame standardization

Hello,

I'm new and currently focused on updating the page: List of graphic adventure games. I don't have much time for producing individual articles at this time, but I would like to use whatever opportunities I have to update for that specific page. That said, I have some questions about how to make it better, although I would prefer to address them to a group focused on the subject. They pertain to whether the following suggestions are appropriate:

1. Change all occurrences of "Microsoft Windows" to "Windows", to avoid redundancy. 2. Change all occurrences of "MacOS" to "OS X", or vice versa. 3. For games released episodically, just note the release of the first episode, then add, in the comments, how many episodes were made and when the last one was released. 4. Remove survival horror games, such as Amnesia and The Void, because they seem discordant with the more conventional puzzle experiences that the other games feature. 5. To include Warcraft Adventures on the date that it was leaked, rather than the date that this canceled product was intended for release.

Michaeluj (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Michaeluj. I suggest you discuss this at WT:WikiProject Video games. --ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Michaeluj, you probably want to read the existing guideline, and suggest changes to it, if applicable: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Fairfield Transportation Center

Can anyone with access to lexus nexus find sources for Fairfield Transportation Center for me?Busguy9 (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)