Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 652

Origin of search result text on Wikipedia homepage
I notice that when entering a search string on the homepage, under the WP globe, the system presents choices related to the string although not entirely as I would expect. For example, entering "henry or" produces a list starting with "Henry Oldenburg". Since "r" doesn't match "l" I don't get this. The second entry in the list is "Henry Orenstein" and this makes sense to me.

My real question, though, is this: where does the text that follows the search result come from? Oldenburg is followed by "German theologian" and Orenstein is followed by "American poker player". I have searched the corresponding articles and cannot find these text strings anywhere. Where a picture is shown preceding the search result, it seems to come from the article's Infobox image.

How does this work? Mike Hmn2 (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Hmn2. "Henry Oldenburg" occurs on "henry or" because there is a redirect from Henry Ordenburg to Henry Oldenburg. The search box at https://www.wikipedia.org displays the name of the target instead of the redirect. The description is taken from Wikidata. Click "Wikidata item" under "Tools" in the left pane of Henry Oldenburg (only the desktop version, not mobile) to see . The image is automatically selected by mw:Extension:PageImages. For Wikipedias, only images in the lead section can be selected. It will often but not always be from an infobox. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks PrimeHunter for the rapid reply and the answers to my questions. Just what I needed to find out! Mike Hmn2 (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't have any knowledge of WP's search algorithms, but having written a few myself, I know a thing or two about them generally. One common practice which was taught to me, and which I have used to great effect, is to permit the algorithm to replace characters in short or unrecognized (not generating a strict result nor appearing in a referenced dictionary) words with characters that have similar sounds or are close by on the keyboard. For example, using your search string in the last such algorithm I wrote would actually display results for all of the following:
 * HENRY OT*, HENRY OE*, HENRY OF*, HENRY OL*, and HENRY OW*
 * With the * representing the usual zero-or-more-characters-symbols-or-numbers. It would also return results for a search substituting "HANK" for "HENRY" and capitalization would not matter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * https://www.wikipedia.org prefers exact prefix matches as far as I know, and only displays up to six results. Special:PrefixIndex/Henry Or shows eight articles starting with "henry or", and some redirects indicated by italics. I don't think Henry Oldenburg would have been included in the six selected results at https://www.wikipedia.org without the redirect on Henry Ordenburg. If there are less than six exact matches then other results can be included. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, any decent search will weight exact matches higher. And again; I'm not familiar with WP's algorithms. But I notice that searching for "henry oe" produces (after the exact prefix match) similar results, including "Henry Ossawa Tanner", and "Henry Osborne Havemeyer", so I suspect they still do something similar. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Uploading copyrighted image of artwork for which I have permission, Wikipedia Artist page draft
Dear Wikipedia Teahouse, I am working on an English article of Austrian artist Richard Hirschbaeck (1937-2007). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Richard_Hirschbaeck I am working for the estate and family, and furthermore have permission to upload certain images to Wikipedia. I would like to upload them but the upload function reporting errors. How can I upload them correctly? Thank youIssaDeK (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. I would note that if you are editing at the request of this person's estate or family you may need to review the conflict of interest policy if you haven't already.  If they are paying you to create the page, you will also need to review and comply with the paid editing policy(which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are paid). 331dot (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply. I read both articles, and in regards to the first, there is no conflict of interest. Regarding the second, I have not been given specific instructions to make a Wikipedia page, but is a part of my own initiative within the estate. I would say I fall into the "GLAM" category, specifically the archive and estate. Do I sign the "GLAM" acronym somewhere or is it not necessary? I would identify with this example (the 2nd part, no direct instruction): "For example, if a professor at University X is paid directly by University X to write about that university on Wikipedia, the professor needs to disclose that the contribution is compensated. There is a direct quid pro quo exchange: money for edits. However, if that professor is simply paid a salary for teaching and conducting research, and is only encouraged by their university to contribute generally without more specific instruction, that professor does not need to disclose their affiliation with the university.IssaDeK (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully say that if you are working for this person's estate it is indeed a conflict of interest. This does not mean you are forbidden from editing about it(you are correctly drafting a page instead of directly posting it) but it is important for other editors to be aware of.  Regarding paid editing, if you aren't being specifically paid to edit Wikipedia you technically don't need to comply with WP:PAID but you should still declare your relationship with the estate and/or family on your user page, for full transparency. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi IssaDeK. When you mean by saying you have permission to upload certain items of art is not clear, but you need to understand the lay of the land. At many other types of sites it would be perfectly fine to retain the ownership to copyrighted material and license it for use just at that location: "I have "permission" to use this content here..." That's not the way it works at Wikipedia. To be used here (outside of fair use), non-free copyrighted material has to be released, irrevocably, to the world, either into the public domain or under a suitably-free copyright license that is compatible with the two license borne by most of Wikipedia's content. Such free licenses allow anyone to then take that content and reuse it (even for commercial purposes) and the only obligation under most is to give credit to the authors and disclose the license upon the reuse. It does happen, but many, many people, once they realize this, do not agree to irrevocably release their intellectual property in this way, for very good an understandable reasons. A second issue is that any release has to be done is a reasonably verifiable manner, so that there's evidence the person providing the release actually owns the content and has legal authority to do so (well, because, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog). See Donating copyrighted materials. This would likely mean any upload by you will be deleted, and any knowing release would have to come not second hand but directly from the copyright owner(s). As I indicated, we do allow fair use but it is limited; any item must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria. It can be complicated but here's some rules of thumb tailored toward artwork: If any already free items exist no fair use will be allowed; one item in one article that should be the subject of direct critical commentary in that article; must be of relatively low resolution, upload it locally (to Wikipedia) and not to the Wikimedia Commons (which is only for public domain and suitably free content [on the other hand, if the owner is willing to provide the type of release I spoke of earlier, the Commons is where that material should be uploaded]); a fair use upload must have a filled-out fair use rationale and a copyright license tag placed. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. I am able to attain a permission/confirmation that the image will belong to public domain. In this case, how do I notify Wikipedia about it? I did not see any options in the scope of the upload image option, where the errors were reported. Thanks. Best regards.IssaDeK (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I also might use the non-free content clause for a certain image. I just saw, it is done in the tagging section.IssaDeK (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The owner(s) (heir(s) or maybe the appointed executor of a probate estate/administrator of an intestate estate) would need to provide the release into the public domain, so he/she/they would have to perform the upload at the commons, then provide their permission through the OTRS system. See the Interactive Release Generator. As to fair use, as I indicated, if there are free items of content, no fair use is possible if the image will serve a similar encyclopedic purpose (as such images cannot meet NFCC#1 (no free equivalent) and NFCC#3 (minimal use)&thinsp;). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , you may want to check those NFCC links. Rojomoke (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I recently tried to enter a topic but I cannot figure the references or cite. The information supporting the category is listed in 2 publications and the State of Oregon court records.
What needs to be done differently to make an entry in Wikipedia. The information is confusing at the least and I am a newbee so I am making all of the classic mistakes I imagine.170.104.192.99 (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello IP Editor. I suppose this is in regard to Draft:First transgendered person to hold public office in Oregon. I have removed some invalidly placed ref tags on that draft. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Suppose that in an article you had a statement such as
 * Fred Smith was appointed to the position of Municipal Judge in 2004.
 * How would you support that? well the general form is this:
 * Suppose that this was confirmed by a story in the Anytown Herald newspaper, which is online at http://example.com/anytownheerald/Smith_Appointed-2004-07-12.html One way to format the citation would be:
 * This would display like this:
 * Fred Smith was appointed to the position of Municipal Judge in 2004.
 * This would display like this:
 * Fred Smith was appointed to the position of Municipal Judge in 2004.


 * See Referencing for beginners and Help:Footnotes for more detail. I hope this is helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, and do please understand that other Wikipedia articles are not considered to be reliable sources, and cannot be used as sources here. Official court records are primary sourcces and so should be used only with care, and for limited purposes. Ideal would be independent secondary reliable sources, such as newspaper or magazine stories about the topic. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, IP user. I have my doubts that you have the makings of a successful article here.  Essentially you are writing about an event, and I do not see where you have enough to show that the event is notable per WP:EVENT.  I may be wrong, so I'm going to ping a couple other hosts here, .  It is doubtful, unless there is substantial coverage of her on subjects other than her government position that she would qualify for a bio here either.  Her only political position was an appointed position on an advisory board in a small city. John from Idegon (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, . Let me begin by saying that I am 100% in favor of improving our coverage of notable LGBT topics. However, an appointed small city advisory board job is nowhere near enough to meet our notability guideline for politicians. I did a Google search and found one article about a job discrimination lawsuit against a Jeep dealer. I do not see this coverage as anywhere near enough to establish notability for a Wikipedia article. I could be convinced otherwise if better sources come to light. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * So just to clarify, : Are you saying First transgendered person to hold public office in Oregon is a non notable subject, Rachel VanderThorne is a non notable subject, or both?  IMO, the former is almost definitively non notable;  the latter possibly just WP:TOOSOON. John from Idegon (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Essentially both, . Let us say for the sake of discussion that VanderThorne had received significant and prolonged media coverage for their appointment to and service on this commission, and therefore passed the General notability guideline. That hypothetical media coverage as first transgendered person to hold public office in Oregon would be a factor, but the proper title for a biography would be Rachel VanderThorne, in my opinion. If the coverage was heavy but covered only the appointment, I suppose that Appointment of Rachel VanderThorne might be an alternative. But the required level of coverage does not seem to be there, at least at this time. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Help with English for non-natives
Sorry, I'm hardly a new editor - but this seems as good a place as any to ask.

I recently complained about and reverted some edits, mainly due to an English competence problem.

This was responded to with the following "I had grammar promblms aslo i am girl with autism and I speak my native language but needed learned grammar from my parents so I added information on movies and please forgive me for my mistakes by"

which made me feel a little guilty. I'm far too busy to copy-edit everything from this editor, but I was wondering if there is a standard procedure so that they can submit good content to English Wikipedia and have someone check the English?

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Spacecowboy420! No worries, the Teahouse is open to everyone and even experienced volunteers here sometimes avail ourselves of the advice of our peers. Unfortunately, as far as I am aware there is no structure within Wikipedia that would allow for the user in question to submit content for other users to copy-edit and post, other than the basic facility of article talk pages. If you would tell us the name of the user in question, I could have a look at their recent edits and see if I could get the content added to the articles they tried to edit. Having her post proposed edits to talk pages might work, especially since doing so would hopefully bring other editors in (I doubt I would have time to copy-edit all her submissions myself). — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 17:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If an editor wants to request that someone else improve the grammar of an article, they can put the template on it.  Normally this template is used by another editor whose English is native or proficient and notices that the article is a grammatical mess, but there is no reason why an editor can't put it on their own edits if they know that their English is marginal.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Robert McClenon! I'm just coming back from a long wikibreak and my WP-ese is rusty — I had entirely forgotten about, for example. I'd still like to see some of the edits in question to evaluate whether placing the template (and making the edits) on the articles themselves vs. on the talk pages would be more appropriate for the user in question to do in this case. — GrammarFascist   contribs talk 04:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Article
How to create a article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mujeeb Mughal328 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Mujeeb Mughal328 and welcome to the Teahouse! In order to create your first article, please read Your first article. It contains a great deal of information and explanation on how to create your first article! I hope you create one, and feel free to ask again when in doubt. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Agustin Walfredo Castellanos concern
Hi DocTree and Teahouse team! Thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia. This entry has a typo in the individual's name. He was my beloved pediatrician. I'd like to help correct it. I know how to edit inline material but not page titles. Can you point me in the right direction or make the edit? Cheers!

Dudica1055 (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Walfredo" should be "Wilfredo", right? I've moved the page for you. Maproom (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Maproom! Much obliged! Dudica1055 (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Where is the published reliable source to support the change? The first external link supports the previous spelling, and I can't see any reference to support the change. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Other sources such as https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S7WF-SMNZ-D9?i=31&cc=1932363 support the previous spelling, so I have reverted the change until it is supported by a reliable source. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you David. I have been unable to find a reliable source. If I find one, I will reach out to you or the Teahouse again. Dudica1055 (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Austrian artist page, Richard Hirschbaeck
Dear Teahouse, I put up a page for Austrian artist Richard Hirschbaeck. I am working for the estate of the artist, but I have decided on my own to make a page solely for the dissemination of information and not promotional. The article has been rejected once on grounds of notability and infringement of copyright from the original website, and I made significant reviews in terms of referencing and style (tone) of writing, making it more neutral. I have the permission to use all text and information from the website and omitted excerpts where it looked "copy-pasted" and now stuck more to a strictly fact oriented style. Furthermore, I am close to the subject of the article, but now that the tone has completely changed, I hope that the upper banner would be removed. Please could you have a look at my page and suggest edits in order to make it a good and in the end accepted page. Thank you in advance, regards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Richard_HirschbaeckIssaDeK (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Strange as it may seem, Wikipedia is not for the dissemination of information: it is solely for digesting information which has already been published. --ColinFine (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not seem strange, I do understand how Wikipedia functions. Perhaps dissemination was not the correct term. Access to information on a notable person would be correct in this case.IssaDeK (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Merely disseminating information is promotional at least as Wikipedia defines it; Wikipedia articles must do more, they must indicate with independent reliable sources how the subject meets the relevant notability guidelines, in this case those for biographies. All that said, it does seem like that Richard Hirschbaeck would merit an article from what I see so I think it is possible to get there. I think some more independent sources would help immensely; I see three citations to the website with this person's name which does not establish notability as it is a primary source. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps dissemination was the wrong term. I would just like to make known what is already there. This artist certainly merits an article, with entries in the German National Library as well as his work being present in many renowned Austrian Institutions. I will lessen the references to his personal homepage and strengthen the independent sources.IssaDeK (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you do that, I think the chances of the article being accepted will increase(though I can't guarantee anything). Good luck 331dot (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Citing Alumni Association
Right now I'm working on the List of University of Kentucky alumni and for all these people, their degree from UK is well-documented. However, third-party sources often don't document the exact degree and year; therefore, I've been using the University of Kentucky Alumni Association Hall of Distinguished Alumni as a source. Is that okay, or should I cite another source as well just to verify the Alumni Association's claim that the person did attend UK? Thanks. Amatheur (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Appearing on an alumni association list does not contribute to a person's notability. However, if the person is clearly notable and has a well referenced Wikipedia biography, then it is my opinion that the alumni association website is an adequate source for their year of graduation. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! That answers my question. Amatheur (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

should i link the website name if its not on wikipedia
should i link the website name if its not on wikipedia:example is Police regional office coldillera then i will put link http://www.procor.pnp.gov.ph Rearm21 (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . In an article directly about a subject, it is usually appropriate to link to the official website of that subject, in an infobox (if there is one) or in an "External links" section. It is rarely appropriate in any other case. Please see External links for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Rearm21. You should not. Outside of their use in footnoted references, to link to the online location of a reliable source you are citing to verify material, the only external links that should appear in an article are in a dedicated external links section, which should only contain external links that meet the Wikipedia:external links guideline (and sometimes in an infobox). (However, if a topic that is being naturally mentioned during the course of writing an article is clearly notable, and does not have an existing article, you can link its name using a wikilink (e.g., Name &thinsp;) which will then become a red link to invite future creation.) Meanwhile, I must tell you that the draft article in your sandbox contains inappropriate, blatantly-promotional and non-neutral, evaluative content that would have no place in an encyclopedia article. I also cannot tell from reading it whether he is notable, but I think you need to find and cite (or cite more) published, reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent in nature. That is a point of focus if your goal is to eventually have this become an article in the mainspace. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict trifecta) Hello, Rearm21, and welcome to the Teahouse. Ordinarily only the article about an organization would need to have its website listed under an external link; the person you're writing about is a member of the Philippine National Police, and the article about that organization already links to its website. You could certainly cite facts about your subject, Elmer Mejorada Jamias, from the Cordillera branch website... however, it is essential that your draft establishes the notability of Mr. Jamias, or it cannot become an article on Wikipedia. Establishing notability requires a minimum of two reliable sources, independent of Mr. Jamias, which have written about him in some detail — more than a passing mention. Also note that while facts such as the names of parents, date of birth, and similar details can be sourced to sources connected to Mr. Jamias, any contentious claim, such as his grandfather having died on the Bataan Death March, should be cited from an independent source. Finally, you should read and comply with Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy if you have a personal or business relationship with Mr. Jamias (or are yourself Mr. Jamias). I hope this helps you steer your draft towards acceptance. Feel free to return to the Teahouse with any future questions you may have. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 20:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

User script malfunction
When I come to a talk page all the date links are displayed as Invalid date.Please help out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forceradical (talk • contribs) 11:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Forceradical, and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you having this problem with all talk pages? Can you link to an example page that you are having this problem with? I haven't noticed any talk pages with that sort of error, even yours. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 20:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Why was my user page deleted?
I literally just logged on and an admin deleted my user page. It said that I was using Wikipedia as my own personal website or blog which isn't true. I had two things on my page relating to two different TV shows that I was one of eventually going to add to the actual page once I got it right and I spent a bit of time getting them together and I don't even know why it was deleted? On the Speedy Deletion page it says that I should be able to dispute it but I can't even it's just deleted? Literally I got a speedy deletion tag and 3 hours later it was deleted and I wasn't even able to come online and realize it's deleted until it's GONE? That's not very fair at all and if I truly did something against Wikipedia law y'all could at least tell me so I can fix the issue or save the things I was working on for a few hours? That's just rude. So please help. Thanks. OMGitsGARRET (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , the problem may come from the fact that your userpage is not a place to deposit a work in progress. Your page was deleted under U5, which is misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. Perhaps you had some promotional tone copy there, unsourced? See WP:UP for what is allowed on your userpage.  That being said, possibly the administrator that deleted it (and note that was not a unilateral decision on his or her part...someone else nominated it for deletion) could WP:USERFY it for you.  Just drop a note requesting that on their talk page.  I would not however, complain about it, just ask for it to be userfied.  Wikipedia is a complicated place. Come back here and ask anytime something confuses you.  Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello OMGitsGARRET and welcome to the Teahouse.


 * I'm not an admin, so I can't see what was on the deleted page. Two different editors, one of them an admin, would have had to agree that the page you had up met the criteria for speedy deletion, so it was not a rogue action by a single editor.


 * You may be able to get your page back by asking through the procedures outlined at WP:REFUND.


 * You can develop material in a sandbox or other subpage of your user page, or in Draft: space. In most cases, this material is not subject to speedy deletion unless it is a more serious violation of the rules, like a copyright violation. But your user page itself is not for developing content; it's a place you can leave blank, or put up some information about you (but not promotional, mostly related to your editing activity on Wikipedia). It sounds like you needed to be using a sandbox.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  01:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also contributing to the deletion of your userpage was the fact that this posting here is the first edit you've made outside of that userpage. We allow you to have a userpage, but we also expect that users here are here to improve the encyclopedia, not write their userpage.  You can't break Wikipedia; just go edit something.  We will be glad to help you with how. John from Idegon (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

, The page was a table of characters and voice actors from one or another version of the Scooby-Doo television series, as far as I can tell. It had some formatting problems -- the wiki-links did not go to the proper destinations, for one thing -- but in my view it wasn't even close to being subject to a WP:CSD violation. I have observed that some editors will tag userspace pages for U5 far too freely, and some admins are not nearly critical enough of these tags. had I seen this, i would have declined the speedy deletion request, as I declined others today, and probably moved the page to a user sub-page or sandbox. It was surely not ready to form any part of an article, but it might have been a legitimate start on something to put into an article, and it surely was a legitimate exercise in how to create such a table. I am rather surprised that deleted it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

,, Thank you for the replies. Yes the tables I was making wasn't fully finished, I still had some links to put in that I was going to get to later. But what I don't understand is where can I edit something and leave it to come back another day? Say I'm working on something, like that table for a bit, then have to leave and come back another day to finish it? That's what I was doing by leaving it on my userpage because I didn't think I would hurt anything but then it ended up getting deleted so that's what I don't get. Is that sandbox you were talking about where I can do that? Sorry if I sound silly or have too many questions, thanks though. OMGitsGARRET (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , it's not silly at all. That is why we are here...to answer questions. User:OMGitsGARRET/sandbox, which I will create momentarily, is where you "play around" to figure things out.  If you decide to seriously work on a specific new article, you can do that at Draft:Whatever the name is. You can create a draft by typing "Draft:Whatever the name is" into the search box and clicking on the redlink at the top of the results.  Hope that helps. John from Idegon (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , such a question is absolutely not silly. In an sense, the answer is "nowhere". Anything you post to Wikipedia, even on a sandbox page, can be viewed by anyone at all, and edited by anyone provided it is doen in a way which conforms with our policies. Pages such as a sandbox are more likely to be left alone than most other pages, but that is the most that can be said. Any page may be deleted if it fits one of the Speedy Deletion Criteria. A copyright violation, for example can and will be deleted without warning or delay from any page anywhere on Wikipedia. I have seen sandboxes deleted under the same criterion that your user page was.
 * The criterion under which the page User:OMGitsGARRET was deleted is U5 which permits the deletion of The issue here is whether that page was "closely related to Wikipedia's goals" or not, and that is partly a matter of intention. However, note the " owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages" clause. After you have made a number or productive, good-faith edits, particularly to actual articles, U5 will not be so readily applied to any page in your user space. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 06:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * When creating a user page you see Template:Base userpage editnotice. See e.g. User:Example1. So users do get a warning in advance and a link to Help:Userspace draft. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I will not argues as to whether your userpage, which clearly contained material which, as has been explained above, contained inappropriate content or not. It has been explained to you that material in preparation can be worked on in a sandbox; one has been created for you and I will, after typing this, place your draft in it. Incidentally, it is also true that an editor can create a subpage, which can also be used as a page wherein to work. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

URL
How do I go about shortening and "naming" a URL? Thanks for your help. GrammerCracker96 (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi GrammerCracker96, welcome to the Teahouse. Your question might refer to several unrelated things so I'm not sure what you want. Can you give an example? If you don't want to change the actual url but just want readers to see something other than the url then see Help:Link. If you want external links in Wikipedia to use URL shortening then it's against Manual of Style/Computing. If you want to make nice looking references then see Help:Referencing for beginners. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Ejembi John Onah
How can the article under the above be improved for resubmission after being deleted? Thanks68.175.131.44 (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, user editing from IP address 68.175.131.44, and welcome to the Teahouse. Since the article was deleted, at this time only administrators can view it; however, looking at the deletion log for that page title I see that the article was created, then moved to Draft:Ejembi John Onah, then either it was moved out of draftspace or a new article was started with the same name. I also see from the log that the article was unreferenced. Every Wikipedia article must cite at least two reliable sources which are independent of the subject of the Wikipedia article and which cover the subject at some length, not a mere passing mention. Until you can find such sources, there is little point to continuing to try to create an article about Ejembi John Onah. If you can find such sources, however, Teahouse volunteers will be happy to help you use those sources to craft an acceptable article. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 00:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

goodmorning editors may i ask if how this Robert Barbers has a page
goodmorning editors may i ask if how this Robert Barbers has a page and doesnt really have notable linksRearm21 (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Barbers clearly meets our notability guideline for politicians as a cabinet official in the Philippines, as well as a member of both houses of their national legislature. So, the article should be kept. That being said, the article and its referencing can definitely be improved. Since you are interested in the article, perhaps you can do so. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Russia after 1991.
What happened to Russia after 1991(the USSR ended)?Electro twisted wizard (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Here at the Teahouse, we answer questions about how to edit Wikipedia. I suggest that you read our many articles about Russia, especially History of Russia (1991–present). General questions can be asked at the Reference desk. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

creating a verified page
how do i create a substantial verified page from Africa Chiwubao (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Our standards for articles about African topics are the same as for articles about all topics. Please read Your first article for a good explanation of what is needed. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler
Did Adolf Hitler commit suicide or did he live after world war II?Electro twisted wizard (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ask this type of question at the Reference desk, . The Teahouse is for questions about editing Wikipedia. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

goodafternoon can someone review my draft thank you so much and how to reply to responders
goodafternoon can someone review my draft thank you so much and how to reply to respondersRearm21 (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Rearm21, and welcome back to the Teahouse. Since you want to have a dialogue about your draft article, I am going to review it for you and place my comments on the talk page for your sandbox. Technically you could use the submit button at the top of the page to submit the draft for review right now, but I recommend you not do this as there are multiple serious problems remaining with the draft, any one of which would be enough to prevent the draft being accepted at this time. See you there! — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 05:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Links in Infoboxes?
How do you add links in infoboxes?Miso16 (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! I assume you are referring to The East Light. What kind of links are you planning to add to the infobox? Alex ShihTalk 04:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you mean links to other Wikipedia articles in the parameter values then it's the same code as in the rest of the article. I see you use VisualEditor and then you may not actually write or see the code in the rest of the article but you have to use code in the infobox parameters. See Help:Link. The code  produces Seoul. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Question about translation from another language Wikipedia
I read, speak and understand Spanish at a quite advanced level but nowhere near proficiency. Are non-proficient Wikipedia editors allowed to translate articles from foreign language Wikipedias into English, and if so, how do I get the attention of a proficient speaker to take a look at the article afterward and check for potential errors? CJK09 (talk · contribs) 23:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Only you can determine the difference between "quite advanced level" and "nowhere near proficiency". When I read the first phrase, I was inclined to tell you to go ahead. When I read the second phrase, I had my doubts. So, I encourage you to try but also encourage you to be cautious. Begin by reading Translation. You can find a list of over 300 Wikipedia editors who claim a professional level of Spanish fluency by typing "Category:User es-5" into the search box. Be aware that many of these editors may not be active currently. If you check their contributions, you may well find an active editor willing to assist you. You may also be able to find resources on Spanish Wikipedia. Good luck. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  23:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Start by trying your hand at translating a short article from a topic that you already know about; from that you should get an idea of whether this is something that you can do. I highly suspect it is. Furius (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

sorry but i dont really know how to respond to messages help!
sorry but i dont really know how to respond to messages help!Rearm21 (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Click on "edit source", next to the section's name. Then add a (without the parentheses) below the message's last line  and write your response . You may also wish to add   (where username the user you are replying to), in order to notify them. --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Editing New Article
Is there a bot that can do an auto-edit of my new article? Thanks for your guidance! Hilda in South Florida 02:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilda S Mitrani (talk • contribs)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . We have many active bots. What type of edits do you hope that a bot will make to your draft article, as opposed to you or other human editors? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , I want to improve the article but don't know what bots are available. Is there a list? I know that periodically, I see a bot has hit other pages that I've worked on, and will tweak citations or fix a dead link. (I believe all of the ones here are accurate but since I'm new, just asking in general about bot aides. Hilda in South Florida 13:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

CSD
Hello there everybody, I hope you are doing great! I had a question, is A3 CSD applicable to blank article talk pages as well? Thank you! Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Adityavagarwal and welcome to the Teahouse.


 * The G-series of CSDs applies to any page, including talk pages. The A-series of CSDs applies to article pages themselves. If an article is deleted, its talk page will also be deleted. But it's quite possible for article talk pages to go empty and there is no need to do anything about it.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  09:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! Could you look at this? It was CSDed, but I do not think it should have been done so. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe not; but the creation of a blank talk page is as equally questionable as its deletion. Nthep (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, got the point! It was a new page I reviewed for the first time, so I thought it was better to have a talk page (now that I think about creating the blank talk page for this reason, it does feel really odd). It makes no sense really, to have a blank talk page. Thank you for explaining that, and would keep it in mind. Also, to gain some experience, you said "Maybe, maybe not". Is there any occasion where creating a blank talk page might be required? Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is a valid argument to be made that a talk page should be automatically created for every article at the same time that the article is created, but that is a discussion for elsewhere. Nthep (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ther is an argument that almost every article falls within the purview of one or more wiki projects, and should have the proper project template on its talk page. But I don't see nay case in which an article talk page that exists but has no content is an improvement over one that does not exist. However, once it has been created, there is equally no point in deleting it. It doesn't save server space, indeed it costs a small bit of additional space, as the deletion log entry must then also be stored. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Adityavagarwal, I agree that the CSD should probably have been denied, if going strictly by the rules. I also agree that creating a blank talk page is not a useful action. An article is allowed to have no talk page at all, which is the state that consumes the fewest resources.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  14:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I guess A3 doesn't technically apply to that one. Maybe G1 could be twisted into applying, since it is vacuously true that the page consists entirely of X, for any value of X. Maybe G4 could apply, if any empty page has ever previously been deleted from Wikipedia via a deletion discussion. Maybe G7 could apply, since a blank page is not substantial content, so perhaps one could consider the author of the page to be the person that added the CSD notice to the page. Or maybe G12 could apply – not sure, maybe John Cage would know.


 * Regarding server space; it would also use a log entry in the page history to revert the addition of the CSD template – I'm not sure which log entry takes more space.


 * Would you like me to undelete your page? Κσυπ Cyp  13:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not sure. I was just looking to gain some more experience, by knowing if it had to be deleted (I might encounter such a case, so this discussion was really helpful!) If it benefits, then you could undelete the page, but if it does not, then there is no need to undelete it. As you mentioned, it might take some more server space if you undeleted it, so it might be better if it was left deleted. I think others should advice in this matter. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

2nd Set of Eyes
I've contributed 233 edits over the last 6 years, and of those...55% have been minor edits.

I've never complained against anyone (prior to last week), and have only requested for two of my contributions to be restored. Once for a requested move on the Tulsa race riots...and once for my edit of Cowboys (coinciding with a request for the restoration of my contribution to Stephen F. Austin...which was reverted by the same person). And because I refuted these reversions, and pressed to have them reversed, I've been called names and have had judgment passed upon my intent, my politics, and my psychology. In 6 years...I've only felt compelled to fight for 2 edits –– 2 –– and the fact that my inquiry led to two similar experiences....well, it's given me concern.

Of my 233 edits...editors have only taken drastic exception with 3 of them. And what those 3 edits have in common is that they were edits that included minority experiences/contributions/presence on "white" pages and/or challenged "white cultural" interpretations of people/events. This does not mean I'm accusing anyone on Wiki of racism/discrimination. However, my experience on Wiki does feel like I've come across bias...specifically confirmation bias, attribution bias, self-serving bias and status quo bias.

When the word "bias" comes up, people often shut down and get defensive. The issue, I think, is that most people think "bias" is a bad word. Somehow, they equate "bias" with "racist" or "discriminatory." And that's not necessarily true. Can bias lead to racism/discrimination? Sure. But that's not what bias, on it's own, is. Bias isn't about one's character. It's about psychology. ALL people have it. It's literally a fact of life, i.e. Wiki's definition:


 * ""Bias is the tendency to have an opinion, or view that is often without considering evidence and other information. Biases can be learned implicitly within cultural contexts. People may develop biases toward or against an individual, an ethnic group, a nation, a religion, a social class, a political party, theoretical paradigms and ideologies within academic domains, or a species. Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, or not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is related to prejudice and intuition.""

So, please know that I'm not accusing the Wiki community of anything other than being human. And being human is imperfect. And sometimes our bias can lead up to sidestep an accurate recording of the way the world is/was...for preference of the way we see it. I'm no social justice warrior...and my edits have always been in line with Wiki's stated purpose, particularly the part in the five pillars" where it says: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy." This leads me to why I'm writing this. One of those reverted edits was to the Stephen F. Austin page.  Context here...before I made any edit on the page, there was no mention of slavery, or how huge it was, to Austin.  An editor reverted my edit –– after first reverting a similar edit that I challenged.  While I strongly disagreed with her reasoning for the reversion, I took several days to re-write the edit, and nullify any use of that reasoning going forward.  I then wrote a new edit on a temp page, seeking the editor's approval before'' I added it to the page, after she told me to do a re-write and we'd go from there. However, the edit now adds much more complexity to the scope of the subject –– with it, he'll be a much less sympathetic figure, though the information is accurate. I reached out to the editor days ago, and let her know I was waiting for her approval. And though she's made several edits in that time to other pages, she has not responded to me. While I hope this isn't the case, I feel like I'm being ignored because she does not like the edit.

I would like to add my edit to the page. It's comparable, in size/scope, to another section on the page...and is backed by solid sources. I do fear that if I submit it, without the editor's ok, that she'll revert it again for some other reason. I suppose, I would just like a second set of eyes to look at the temp edit and let me know if there are any noticeable red flags? I would greatly appreciate it.

Here's the current page and here's my Temp page. Thank you. Justbean (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Justbean - I have a few comments for now without reading the history of edits to the page in question. Your post above is long, and some editors will tire of reading it, especially where you say that you are a constructive editor, and we all start off with the assumption that editors are constructive.  In future posts, please make them more concise.  Second, this appears to be a content dispute over an existing article.  There are several procedures for content disputes.  Read the dispute resolution policy.  In particular, you might request either a Third Opinion or moderated dispute resolution.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , thank you very much for your response. I apologize that my post is long, but I can't tell you what this process has been like for me.  How much research, how many hours, and how many "moving target" reasons for why these few edits are "problematic."  I tried to provide context rather than end up with numerous back and forths making the same points.  Again, my apology.  But, it also highlights my confusion/frustration.  Will everything I edit, which includes –– with verifiable accuracy –– the experiences/contributions/presence of minorities on "white" pages be subject to a content dispute?  Again, I've made fewer than a handful of these edits, but every time...they've resulted in "disputes."  It's bizarre.  And it does make me feel like these edits are scrutinized for personal reasons.  Beyond that, I feel like I have nowhere to go if this is, in fact, the case.  When people dismiss you, your sources, and your time when it comes to "certain" subjects...there seems to be an obvious pattern.  And the dispute process is designed for "experienced" editors to actually trump accuracy.   It's designed to maintain one cultural perspective.  Essentially, you're telling me there's nothing I can do about this.  I've reached out for help from so many people/avenues...and have been chastised for doing so.  Very disappointing because my passion, mind and intentions are in the right place.  But, I hear you. And, as disappointing as it's been...I've heard Wiki. Justbean (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Justbean has been more patient with his additions than I would have been.
 * I think you will run into this strong bias any time you edit articles pertaining to the Texas Revolution. The people who care most about those articles are invested in the mythology that the revolution was about Texans fighting for Freedom, (when it was far more about Texans fighting for slavery!) ApLundell (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Articles From Facebook
Hello, can i create a biography of someone with an article from facebook ?Chiwubao (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Chiwubao, and welcome back to the Teahouse!
 * The biography of the person you wish to make should meet the notability criteria. Also, in most cases, citing text from facebook is not reliable (almost certainly not). You could read about WP:Verifiability to see which other source could be reliable (for instance news articles, books, research papers, etc., all only if reliable). I hope this helps. Kindly feel free to ask again when in doubt! Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * While I concur with Adityavagarwal in that Facebook itself is not a reliable source, in some cases you may be able to find RS using it. For instance, if a person had a New York Times article written about them, they may post the link on their Facebook. You could then use the NYT article itself as a source. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, There are cases whree facebook and similar sites can be reliable sources. Specifically the facebook page of the subject of a biography may be reliable for the fact that that person said (wrote) particular things. It cna also be a source for uncontroversial basic facts, such as the year of birth, or the city of residence. This comes under the general category of a self-published source or SPS. However, no SPS contributes to notability at all, nor should it be used to support contentious statements, or extraordinary claims. is absolutely correct that it can be used as a way to find more reliable sources. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for my own research be cited ?
I am an inexperienced editor. I have been undertaking several years of research that has resulted in the gain of significant new factual information about certain properties that are highlighted in Wikipedia. The new information, prepared for my first Wikipedia editing foray, was sourced from historic legal documents, available from both public and private historic archives. Unfortunately I have already been shot down for making minor edits to the wording about one property. Surely this important information should be placed in the public domain, even if the information contradicts the poorly sourced information already provided to Wikipedia on such properties. I suspect some editors likely work for the well known national charitable bodies who manage such properties and and that they are likely protecting the wording. Not sure where to go next on this one. Are you able to advise ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clandon Park Historian (talk • contribs) 03:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . You should be very cautious about citing your own research, and should only cite your research if it has been published in a reliable source with professional editorial control. Unpublished original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, and that is a core content policy. Speculating without evidence that other editors have bad motives or hidden agendas is a poor idea. Please assume good faith about your fellow editors, unless you have solid evidence to the contrary, and you present that evidence convincingly. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I take it that this is about your edits to Clandon Park. You need to understand several things about how Wikipedia works.
 * Article titles do not always follow the legal or official names of things, but rather the common names as used in reliable secondary English-language sources.
 * Deeds are primary sources. They should be used only with care, and only for very plain facts, not for any implications or conclusions. For those we must use secondary sources. And in general secondary sources are given more weight than primary sources when they are in conflict.
 * When an action has been challenged or reverted, and discussion has started on the article talk page, do not reinstate the contentious changes until consensus on the talk page has been achieved. Follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. To do otherwise persistantly can be considered to be Disruptive Editing.
 * If consensus cannot be reached in the talk page, follow the steps at dispute resolution but give talk page debate a good chance to work before giving up on it. Try to be as flexible as possible, and try to see the other editors' points of view. Always try to assume good faith even if you do not agree with other editors. Do not speculate about the motives of other editors.
 * Good luck and happy editing. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

If I redraw and reference a diagram; would that be a plagiarism?
I can't directly photograph/scan/screenshot helpful diagrams from books because that is clear-cut plagiarism as well copyright-violation. But in case of solely information-dependent diagrams (where there is only a very little thing to modify), if I redraw (without or with a very little modification) the diagrams and cite reference; would that be considered as eligible to publish at Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia commons?

Also if the photograph/ scanned page/ screenshot works as a evidence/ support for a statement/ itself an encyclopedic content (as many Wikipedia pages contain photograph of Leonardo Da Vinci's notebook pages or many other similar ancient books); what are the criteria to do that?

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the former would be "clear-cut plagiarism" as long as you cited the source, . You are probably right that it would be a copyright violation, though. I'm not sure what the rules are about redrawing copyright images - others will hopefully be able to advise on that. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , : Such a redrawn image would normally be a derivative work, like a translation, and so would not be acceptable unless the original was PD or under a free license. Now if you take multiple sources and draw something based on info from all of them, that would be an original work. Now if the source diagram is jut a visual representation of facts and there really is no other way to present it, it might come under the Feist rule that says that a collection of facts with no originality in selection or arrangement does not have enough originality to copyright. But a drawing almost always has alternatives, what details to include or leave out, for one thing. Indeed if you find multiple sources, the diagrams will probably be at least subtly different in each. A new one no clsoer to any than they are to each other would be fine. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks,  for reply RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)