Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wikipedia help desk
  • This page is only for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. For other types of questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
  • We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.

  • New users: While this is a good place to ask questions, new users may prefer to ask for help at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with editing, article creation and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.
Are you in the right place?

Contents


July 19[edit]

Change of tense in sentence[edit]

I changed the following sentence from:

"Among the papers of Leonardo da Vinci dating to the late 15th century is the design for a steam-powered cannon called the Architonnerre which works by the sudden influx of hot water into a sealed red hot cannon."

to:

"Among the papers of Leonardo da Vinci dating to the late 15th century is the design for a steam-powered cannon called the Architonnerre, which worked by the sudden influx of hot water into a sealed red hot cannon."

Could anyone please tell me if the change of tense from "works" to "worked" was appropriate? (I also added a comma, which I don't think was controversial, but please let me know if you differ.)--Thylacine24 (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

"Works" is correct, as the thing was never built. The comma is fine. Also, the proper place to ask questions like this is the language reference desk. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, and thanks. (Edit: Sorry that I didn't specify the article at first, which is "History of the steam engine".)--Thylacine24 (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this OR?[edit]

I couldn't think of a better place for this - it's too vague for a noticeboard. Something I have come across multiple times is a pattern of statements and citations kinda like this (simplified):

X is true. [1] This is supported by Y. [2] This is also supported by Z and A. [3][4]

Refs 2-4 only talk about Y, Z, and A and don't mention idea X. Ref 1, within itself, cites refs 2-4. Without ref 1, this would obviously be OR, but does adding a ref for the central idea fix it?

In other words, an article will make a verifiable statement, then proceed to argue in favor of that statement in the same manner as its supporting reference. Is this original research/synthesis? I had been concluding that it was. Crossroads1 (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there any chance that you might point us to an example?--Quisqualis (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
One seems to be here. [1] The 'central source' appears to be Thornhill and Palmer 2001, but it cites other sources in support of T & P 2001's idea, some of which sources are ones that T & P use. Note too that it also cites other sources that came later in support which seem to be more clear cut examples of OR. I have come across other examples of this type however; they are somewhere in my watchlist but I am unsure where at the moment. Anyway it seems like an easy trap for an inexperienced editor to fall into (they kind of think they are writing a paper and have to support the idea they are writing about). Crossroads1 (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds like synthesis. – Anne drew 14:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Elon Musk / Errol Musk (father)[edit]

I have been asked by friends to read your article on Elon Musk.

There are some substantial errors in this article.

Extended discussion which belongs at the talk page

The article seems to suggest that Elon 'swam' from South Africa to North America when he was 17 (a few days before his 18th birthday). Without listing the errors, which you can read, Elon spent his entire youth with me, not "mostly". His mother was entirely absent.

Elon's ability to program came from me acceding to his pleas and buying him in 1982 the first IBM XTA personal computer in South Africa. The computer cost as much as a Mercedes motor car. I did this willingly and because I saw his aptitude for computing. I hold both FOTRAN and COBOL diplomas.

He was never "bullied" at school. Had this occurred I would have seen to it immediately. The fact is, he called one of his classmates, a smaller boy, a "monkey" and followed that up by calling the boy's mother (a single parent) a "monkey". Blacks and colored people are very sensitive on such an issue. When this boy saw his chance he pushed Elon down a long flight of concrete stairs. At the bottom, Elon being severely stunned, the boy proceeded to pommel Elon's face. On learning the facts I could take no action against the boy that pushed Elon. When Elon recovered I removed him from that school and enrolled him in a better school in another city, Pretoria. This required that I buy a house in Pretoria, in the best suburb, which I did. When he matriculated I offered Elon any university in South Africa. He chose Pretoria University, my alma mater. It is a good university and a leader in many fields, particularly tropical diseases and veterinary science.

When I saw he was very unhappy there, I was the one who suggested he go to North America, and the only one capable of doing this for him. Elon, and his brother and sister, had been to virtually all the countries in the world with me by that time, and several times to the USA and Canada. I was confident that he had learned enough from me, so I sent him to the US Consulate to get information on universities in the USA from my friend the US Ambassador. He left South Africa ten days later on a flexible return ticket and with sufficient funds from me for several months.

Elon subsequently enrolled at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, on a government loan. In the meantime I sent him and his brother and sister, who had also moved to Canada, all the funds I would have used to send them to university in South Africa.

Elon applied to the Canadian Government for me to immigrate to Canada, using his own funds, which still brings me to tears. I received permission as a Landed Immigrant, sponsored by E. R Musk (son). The Landed Immigrant document is available for perusal, signed by Elon. I did not go there as I found Canada to be a somewhat dull place compared to Africa, much to Elon's disappointment, and I am sorry for this.

I don't mind being called "a terrible person". It better than fake accolades from one's children. My task as a father was not to be a 'pal', but a father. I feel I succeeded at that.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.77.201.82 (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The place to discuss the article on Elon Musk is on the article's talk page: Talk:Elon Musk. Suggested changes need to be supported by references to published independent reliable sources. David Biddulph (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I have copied the above post to the talk page in case anyone there sees anything actionable in it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Tense of dead person's action[edit]

In the article "Panchaia", the following sentence occurs (footnote removed):

"The island is also mentioned by Lygdamus (Tib. 3.2.23), one of the Tibullan elegists, as a rich place from which he will hope for gifts to his grave."

Could anyone please tell me if "will" should be "would"? (Edit: Added quotation marks to article name "Panchaia". Further edit: Piped link to go to article in question.)--Thylacine24 (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

No, because (i) when he was doing the hoping, it was for an event in the future, so 'would' would suggest either an anachronistic past or a conditional which does/did not appear in the contextual text (as translated – I cannot speak to the original Greek), and (ii) because 'would' would set up a conflict with "is . . . mentioned."
That at least is my pragmatic analysis based on past experience as a professional editor: bona fide grammarians might have different views. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230} 90.211.129.83 (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. So, to be absolutely clear, could you please tell me if I should leave the tense unedited?--Thylacine24 (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I would leave it if it were me, but if you don't agree with my reasoning you're free to change it and then wait to see if anyone else disagrees and changes it back, after which the two of you (and others) can discuss the matter on the article's Talk page. This is called Bold, Revert, Discuss and is standard procedure here. The point to remember is that we're (nearly) all just trying to improve the Encyclopaedia, so your being reverted on a change is not a signal of you having done something wrong, and nobody should get annoyed by any part of the procedure. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.129.83 (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd say "he hoped". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:40, July 20, 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Dead people should do things in the past tense. "He hoped for gifts to his grave" or "he expressed hope for gifts to his grave". —BarrelProof (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I think this a legitimate use of the historical present as Tib. 3.2.23 refers to a passage in a book of poems (by Tibullus and possibly Lygdamus), so I would leave it. The section of the Historical present article on describing fiction says "Summaries of the narratives (plots) of works of fiction are conventionally presented using the present tense rather than the past tense." TSventon (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Notable person or Autobiography[edit]

I am a newly Trademarked model, musician, and radio personality. Should I submit a notable article for fans to search my Biography? Or autobiography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tia Tropicana (talkcontribs) 19:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Neither. If (in Wikipedia's terms) you become notable, then someone else may write a article about you. Autobiographies are strongly discouraged and usually will be deleted for falling foul of one of the following policies: WP:COI, WP:Paid, WP:NOTABLE, WP:POV. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Comment: Asked and answered at the teahouse. @Tia Tropicana: Please do not post in multiple locations: (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tia Tropicana: You might also want to look at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. -Arch dude (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Help updates to our school page keep being deleted[edit]

We have attempted on several occasions to update the page regarding our school to correct factual areas and include history and current information. It seems that a user "John from Idegon" is the source of our updates being deleted.

This is very frustrating and of course not helping the reliability of the information on your site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcobbases (talkcontribs) 22:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mcobbases: Your edits were deleted as they were not encyclopedic, being promotional in the opinion of other editors. I note that you attempted to start a discussion at John from Idegon's talk page but your post was deleted, partly because it was not signed. A discussion would normally be the way forward here. Please clarify what you mean by 'we'; an account cannot be used by more than one person or by an organisation. (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID the necessary disclosures must be made where applicable. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey! Who are "we"—is this account used by multiple users? If so, please note that you are not allowed to share accounts with multiple users. The reason your contributions are reverted is that they are promotional. Please stop using your account for the purpose of promoting the school. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mcobbases: Please stop personal attack, as you did in the summary of THIS edit. Please also sign your comments at Talk pages by adding the magic four tildes ~~~~ at the end. --CiaPan (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this is about All Saints Episcopal School (Tyler, Texas). It would have been helpful if someone mentioned that. As far as I can tell, no one has proposed deleting the article. WP:Notability (high schools) indicates that this would be unlikely if it happens. Puffery should certainly be removed, and the actions by John from Idegon and Cullen328 seem fully justified. —BarrelProof (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

July 20[edit]

Defunct links for defunct websites[edit]

Hi.

Over the years I've repeatedly come across articles for dead websites or magazines or similar which still link to the old URL. I am not sure how to handle this, and cannot find a relevant policy or essay on this.

The most recently example is Seed (magazine). This article has an infobox which links to the former website, but that website is now a GoDaddy placeholder. I do not think we should be linking to these sites, per WP:ELNO, but this was the correct website in the past. It is still useful information, even if it's not a useful hyperlink. Is there some template I can use which displays the URL and also explains that it's no longer working?

To put this another way, the address for a dead website might still be important, and is useful for archiving purposes, but should not necessarily be linked directly. I am hoping to indicate this in the article, and I know I cannot be the first person to have this issue. Is there some standard way to handle this? Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The easiest thing is to tag them with {{dl}}. Don't do that if they've been archived though. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

how to upload pictures and informatiom[edit]

how can i upload picture,video and music on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taofeek gbadamosi (talkcontribs) 01:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

You can make requests here: WP:FFU- FlightTime (open channel) 01:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Renamed section[edit]

In the article "Hine-nui-te-pō" (edit: added second quotation mark) (separate edit: just decapitalized the first "edit" written here), I changed the name of the section "Hine-nui-te-pō Background" to simply "Background". Could anyone please tell me if this was right? Sorry if this seems trifling, but as I've said here before, I feel guilty if I don't ask about edits that aren't related to grammar, spelling, and punctuation (though I sometimes ask about those here as well, as my last edit here related to that).--Thylacine24 (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Thylacine24: You don't need to "clear" your edits here, if something is wrong with an edit someone will contact you. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Could you please tell me if you're referring to my editing notes here, or the article I just edited? Either way, it's largely because I have OCD (edit: mostly in the latter case).--Thylacine24 (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Thylacine24: I was refering to when you make an edit to an article, you don't need to come to this page and ask if the edit is OK. Other editors will be watching the pages you edit and if you make a mistake they will fix it or contact you about it or both. Hope this answers you question. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 02:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I often feel guilty removing or changing words from the work of others in Wikipedia pages, and like to make absolutely sure that I'm not unintentionally vandalizing an article.--Thylacine24 (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Assume that WP:BRD will work as intended. It doesn't always, but reasonably often. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but it's hard to do so with OCD.--Thylacine24 (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
...I can't think of a helpful reply to that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks anyway.--Thylacine24 (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

References[edit]

even though I put references on my wiki page it says that I have no references and it will get deleted in 7 days. What can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCabe1215 (talkcontribs) 01:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@McCabe1215: The "7 days" thing is a "proposed deletion" (WP:PROD) which we call a "prod". "prod" is a fairly informal process that you can simply reverse by curing the problem and removing the tag. The text of the prod box tells you that you may remove the tag yourself as soon as you have added at least one reliable source. It looked to be like your usatoday source meets the criterion, so I removed the prod tag for you. The article is still fairly minimal, so please keep improving it if you can. Please try hard to find at least one additional reliable source (WP:RS). Otherwise, some other editor may choose to nominate it for deletion via the more lengthy WP:AFD process. -Arch dude (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Although the page has a reliable ref., it could still be deleted as he has not yet made an appearance, per WP:NGRIDIRON. I have tagged it for the notability issue at this juncture, in the hope that he does appear shortly. ACL is often a lon-term and career-threatening injury though. Eagleash (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Unit formatting and relation to sentence structure[edit]

In this sentence from the article "Semaphore telegraph", the "convert" template results in the awkward and (I think) incorrect phrasing of using a plural noun as an adjective:

"A 104-kilometre (65 mi) line connecting Martha's Vineyard with Boston, its purpose was to transmit news about shipping."

Could anyone please tell me how to fix this?--Thylacine24 (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

On a good day, WP is far from perfect, phrase-wise. However, you may save the phrasing in this instance by not using the template, and replacing it with what it outputs, edited accordingly.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The template has a parameter (adj=on) just for this. I made the change in Semaphore telegraph. MB 04:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.--Thylacine24 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Article title is incorrect but can't Move it[edit]

The article Penn's Creek massacre should not have an apostrophe in the word 'Penns'. I tried to move the article to re-title it without the punctuation error but it gives me the message: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid." How can I fix this? Lilipo25 (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I see. This seems like an error - the name of both the creek and the massacre is just "Penns Creek". There's never been an apostrophe (historically, the creek was once called "John Penn's Creek" but it was changed directly from that to the no-apostrophe "Penns Creek" in 1802). I'm completely lost as to how to fix it. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
See WP:BEFOREMOVING, bullet point #2 applies and list at WP:RMT. Eagleash (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. I have submitted a request to have it moved. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The references in the article (that I have been able to check) mostly call it "Penn's Creek", including one published in 2013. Wikipedia policy is to name an article in the way its subject is usually referred to, rather than its official name. E.g. "Newt Gingrich", not "Newton Leroy Gingrich". Maproom (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid I find the opposite - most sources (including the 2000 book Union County Pennsylvania: A Celebration of History by the Union County Historical Society, the 2009 article from the Snyder County Historical Society and the 2010 article from the Snyder County Post) all list it without the apostrophe. Also, the Wikipedia entry for Penns Creek has no apostrophe - the apostrophe is only in the article for the massacre, which is merely named after the Creek. I found some other information in researching that I will post on the talk page for the proposed move rather than go into it here further. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
What you have found is that the name of the creek itself is now spelled without an apostrophe. The massacre happened when the creek's name was usually written with an apostrophe, so it is not surprising that texts about the massacre refer to it, even now, as the "Penn's Creek massacre". Wikipedia should follow those texts – just as it has an article about John of Gaunt, even though the name of his birthplace is now spelled "Ghent". Maproom (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What is this citation style called? And where is the WP-instructional page for it?[edit]

Health of Abraham Lincoln uses a somewhat odd to me citation style, where the inline references are constructed like this:

<ref>[[#author|author name]] page numbers</ref> which then links to the "cite id" code nested around cite book references placed in the Bibliography section.

So, all I need to know is 1)what this citation style is called and 2)is there a template page/instructional page for how to use it? Shearonink (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Not got a name so far as I know. It's sort of like author-date (Harvard referencing). It is sort of cryptic and requires the use of html (<cite id="...">...</cite>) use of which is, if I remember correctly, discouraged. I would note that in that article the <cite>...</cite> tags are not closed (each <cite id="..."> is supposed to have a matching </cite>)
Were it me, I would remove the <cite>...</cite> tags and use the id value from them in the |ref= parameter in the associated cs1|2 template: <cite id="Donald">|ref=Donald. This is a technical fix that should not run afoul of WP:CITEVAR.
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in on this Trappist the monk...it was driving me crazy yesterday trying to find any info about this style. Yeah it did seem somewhat related to Harvard cites that was then merged into a system of internal anchoring - very unique. One of my concerns is that this referencing-style is so different that it could possibly be keeping interested editors from contributing. I knew I hadn't seen it before and now I see you hadn't seen it before either... I'll post about any ref changes on article-talk...heh, am kind of thinking that because of the singularity am not quite sure CITEVAR would/should apply in this case. (I have noticed that the editor who created the article in 2009 seemed to have used this style on the handful of other articles they created that same year.) Shearonink (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Trappist the monk I do have an additional question... The [[#author|author name]]...what does that do? Is it kind of an internal anchoring system, where the # links back to the main cite book ref down in the article's Bibliography? I'm just trying to understand why this works... Shearonink (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, just that. The heading at the top of today's section of this help desk page has this:
<h1><span class="mw-headline" id="July_20">July 20</span> ... </h1>
When I want to wikilink to that heading I write:
[[#July 20]]
which MediaWiki translates to:
<a href="#July_20">#July 20</a>
and which renders as:
#July 20
This is a link to an anchor. Anchors are created by the id= attribute in an appropriate html tag. In Health of Abraham Lincoln, the tag <cite id="Donald">, adds an anchor just ahead of the Donald citation and [[#Donald|Donald]] links to that anchor. cs1|2 templates are wrapped in <cite>...</cite> tags with the attribute (anchor) id= set to the value assigned to |ref=.
I can extend that and link to anchors in other pages. For example:
a section heading:
[[Health of Abraham Lincoln#Bibliography]]Health of Abraham Lincoln#Bibliography
or, if I want (this is not recommended practice, though I have seen it done), to the Donald cs1|2 template:
[[Health of Abraham Lincoln#Donald]]Health of Abraham Lincoln#Donald
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

contributions deleted[edit]

Hello, why my contributions were deleted? It from a novel study done by Cedars Sinai Medial Center - Heart transplantation. Posted at the new Journal of Investigative Medicine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor.sebas (talkcontribs) 09:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Doctor.sebas, here is one stated reason: [2]. In general, if you check "view history" at an article you'll see who did what and hopefully a reason given in an WP:EDITSUMMARY. If you disagree with the revert, start a discussion with the reverting editor, at the article talk page or their talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I reverted your edits for the reason I stated on your talk page: "You have been replacing existing references on various medical pages with references to one particular paper, which is not a reliable source per WP:MEDRS guidelines and may be considered spamming." Additionally, some of the content you have added appears to have been copy-pasted from that paper, which is a copyright violation and is unacceptable. Please familiarize yourself with the linked policies before making such edits again. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Dr. Sebas, please note that a single-purpose account such as yours, and the use to which you put it, suggest that you have come to Wikipedia to engage in vigorous promotion of one paper. This is completely at odds with the purpose of Wikipedia. If you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, please make a note of it on your Talk page per WP:COI, and desist from making the edit which has been previously reverted, or you may find your account blocked.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

WP Policy regarding the translation of names of organisations and political parties[edit]

I could not find a page regarding this subject and the current situation is de facto inconsistent.

For example the title of the article Lega Nord is consistent with the original Italian name, while the article of the Rassemblement National has been translated to National Rally (France).

I intend to create a page for the French political party fr:Ligue du Sud (France). Should I name the article "Ligue du Sud", "Southern League (France)" or "League of the South (France)"? Azerty82 (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Azerty82! You'll find guidance at WP:COMMONNAME. Do your best to judge what it is commonly called in english-language sources and go with that. It can always be changed later if there is reason. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Btw: Ligue du Sud. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding occupation to an entry[edit]

How do I add a person’s occupation to the title on their page? Ex: making the entry go from “Kobe Bryant” to “Kobe Bryant (Basketball Player). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cici10032 (talkcontribs) 11:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Cici10032! See WP:MOVE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
In general, you don't. The occupation should go in the infobox and the text, not in the title, unless there is another notable Kobe Bryant and WP:Disambiguation is required. Dbfirs 11:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Btw, only do that if WP has several articles of people with the same name, and even then at least one will be "name only", like George Washington. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cici10032 (talkcontribs) 12:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi..Help I just wrote my first wikipedia ......blurb on myself Lynda Diamond...I don't know if I did it properly!? Thanks! Lynda[edit]

I don't know what specific question to ask because i'm not sure exactly what I may have done wrong.

Lynda Diamond — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovefirst11z (talkcontribs) 15:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lovefirst11z: creating a sandbox, as you did, is one way to start. For a new user, Articles for creation may be a good choice. However, writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia: please read Autobiography. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Lovefirst11z: Your sandbox text needs to be below "Edit below this line", so I moved it for you. TSventon (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Lovefirst11z: You need to find independent WP:Reliable sources in which you have been written about at length, and your article should be a summary of what these sources say. Don't try to submit the article for review until you have added these sources to establish WP:Notability. You might like to read WP:Referencing for beginners to see how to add the cites. Dbfirs 20:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

What type of links, websites, sources can be used to add information to a Wikipedia page?[edit]

Hi,

My question is, What are the different kind of articles, websites, sources I can use to add information to an individual's Wikipedia page as a reference?

Thank you, Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImportantMail (talkcontribs) 15:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@ImportantMail: Multiple types of source can be used as long as they are reliable (see that page for more information) with a reputation for fact checking and are independent of the subject. Both online and offline sources can be used. See WP:REFB for a guide to adding references. Sources such as Facebook and other social media are not acceptable and neither is Wikipedia itself per WP:UGC. (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@ImportantMail: Also note that sources for facts must meet the reliability standard. Sources to support a claim of notability must be reliable, but they also need to meet the more stringent notability standards. See WP:N. Facts do not need to be notable, but the subject of the article does. -Arch dude (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to refer to make one mention of a person by only their last name?[edit]

Specifically, I'm talking about this sentence from the article "Dead Sea Apes":

"It is also a metaphor used, for instance by [Thomas] Carlyle..."

This is the only mention of Carlyle in the article. (For the record, Carlyle's name contains a piped link to the page "Thomas Carlyle".) Could anyone please tell me if this is appropriate?--Thylacine24 (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no reason not to spell out the name in full on first mention - it makes things much clearer. Popcornduff (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.--Thylacine24 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) He's one of those people that is frequently referred to by their last name without the need to disamb by given name and the piped linked makes it clear who it is. However, if you wanted to add the fullname I doubt there would be many objections either. Technically, I suppose... it should have the fullname... Eagleash (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.--Thylacine24 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It is far preferable to give both forename and surname at first mention. It is kinder on the reader. DuncanHill (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.--Thylacine24 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thylacine24 That is actually a case of an incomplete citation of the source of a quote. It should be converted to a proper reference, with complete bibliographic information. The more general answer to your question is that we usually use such surname only mentions in the biographical article about the person. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll add the "fix cite" template to it.--Thylacine24 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, upon attempting it, it didn't seem to work. Could you please tell me if I should just add Category:Pages with inadequate citations instead?--Thylacine24 (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Help with a 404 error[edit]

I'm a long-term editor and typically make several edits a day. Once in a while, when I try to publish an edit, I get a 404. Screenshot

The only solution seems to be to reload the page and try to make the edit again. This is a pain because I have to copy the edited text and then paste it back in.

I almost always use the visual editor. Don't know if that's connected. Popcornduff (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It sounds as if you have problems with your internet connection. Does clicking the "back" button on your browser not take you back to the edit you are trying to make, so that you can repeat the attempt? Dbfirs 19:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
When it happens, I'm always able to browse the internet normally. I can continue to hit Publish as much as I like but it stays broken until I reload the page (and potentially lose the edit). Popcornduff (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Am I allowed to add the following counter argument to this entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law ?[edit]

Am I allowed to add the following counter argument to this entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law ?


Counter argument:

While Goodwin appears to be coming around as documented in the above "Generalization, corollaries, usage" what Goodwin originally pretended to fail to take into account when he created Goodwin's Law is that some ideologies, like Conservatism and Nazism require innocent people be murdered for the ideology to be even be implemented - THAT, not the racism of the Conservative base, or the Nationalism that American Conservatives use as a bludgeon is what makes Conservatives' vile evil murderous pro-pollution ideology no better than the Nazis' vile evil murderous race-purifying ideology.

It doesn't matter if an ideology requires 1,000 people to be murdered, or if an ideology requires 6,000,000 be murdered - crossing the line into murdering people is what makes these two ideologies no different from each other.

Without the murder of innocent civilians, Conservatism could not be implemented:

http://news.vice.com/en_us/article/kzmy79/trumps-epa-knows-its-new-coal-rule-could-kill-1400-people-per-year "Trump’s EPA Knows Its New Coal Rule Could Kill 1,400 People Per Year"

Other ideologies, like Democratic Socialism, or as it used to be called "a mixed market economy", aka Capitalism, does not require people to be murdered for those ideologies to be implemented. Even Socialism can be implemented without actually having to murder people - just incarcerate those who don’t believe that private property is theft from humanity.

Conservatism requires that people be murdered or it's just another example of what the sociopaths call 'Radical Extremist Far Left Big Gubment Socialism.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuni Leml (talkcontribs) 17:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Not unless you can find a WP:Reliable source that makes that claim. Dbfirs 17:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Kuni Leml:No. You can only add an argument like this if you have found it in a reliable source, not if you propounded it first. Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, you could only add this argument to that particular article if the source itself referred to Godwin's law. -Arch dude (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Who makes the decisions for the Wikipedia Main Home Page - "On This Day" Feature?[edit]

Who makes the decisions for the Wikipedia Main Home Page - "On This Day" Feature? And why did they include nothing for today (July 20) regarding the 50th anniversary of the 1969 moon landing? That's a shame. Yet, they put something about Viking I? And the guy who shot 12 people at the movie theater? Really? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro, that would be because it's July 20th and the 50th anniversary of the 1969 moon landing is July 21st. (Technically, it was still the 20th when it touched down, but Armstrong didn't leave the capsule to make his One Small Step—which is what's significant here—until the next day.) There will be boatloads of moonery. ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Huh? Wikipedia lists it as July 20, 1969 ... in the July 20 article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
No it doesn't;; it says that's when the spacecraft touched down. Apollo 11's crew successfully makes the first manned landing on the Moon in the Sea of Tranquility. Americans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin become the first humans to walk on the Moon six and a half hours later.. The spacecraft touched down at 20:17 on 20th July, but that wasn't particularly significant as lots of craft had already landed on the moon; what was significant was Armstrong becoming the first person to set foot on another celestial body, six hours later in the morning of July 21. Trust me, the scheduling of what to run and when to run it has been discussed to death in the appropriate venues. ‑ Iridescent 19:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
So, the "space ship" landed on July 20 ... but the guys did not exit until July 21? Which calendar were they using? USA? Cape Canaveral time zone? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
You do realize that we have an article on the topic you can read to see the exact timings for yourself? ‑ Iridescent 19:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the confusion (at least from a US point of view) stems from the fact that the moonwalk began on July 21 at 02:56:15 UTC, which was 22:56:15 Eastern Daylight Time on the evening of July 20. For everyone in the US watching the television broadcast of the moonwalk, it was still July 20.--Thomprod (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Uh, yeah ... I do realize that. And I did not think that the article would discuss time zone matters or such minutiae. But, since we were discussing the matter, I asked you. Sorry to have bothered you. Sheesh. People are so friendly and helpful. Huh? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, UTC. A meaningless convention with which no one does the "math" to figure out what it really means. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow shows the expected Main Page for the next day. The Moon landing is heavily featured with items in four different sections and images of all three astronauts. I have never seen a story dominate the main page like that. We usually say a story should only be in one section. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. All of my life, I thought that July 20 was the big day. Had no idea that July 21 was actually the big day. It still seems wrong to me, for some reason. Probably having to do with the UTC time business monkey business. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the answer to this issue is that it is set to use UTC time, even though the key date is July 20 in the United States. Starting at 7/8 p.m. Eastern/Central Daylight Time, the Main Page should update. The On This Day feature for that time is here. Master of Time (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. But, I was also asking who decides all of this stuff? Is it just us regular Wikipedia editors, somehow? Or some special group of editors? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Joseph A. Spadaro: Yes, it is just regular editors who have taken an interest in making the list. You can participate also, if you want. See Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries. RudolfRed (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Capitalizing the first letters of common nouns under "See also"/"Further Reading" lists[edit]

I just decapitalized all the first letters of common nouns under the "Further reading" section of the "Non-ferrous extractive metallurgy" article, which all had piped links with the common nouns decapitalized. Could anyone please tell me if this was this the right thing to do, and also if "Further reading" should have been "See also" in this case? Normally, I wouldn't ask about (de)capitalization, but since the links were originally piped, it felt mildly necessary to ask here. Anyway, I feel mildly guilty asking this, since I didn't bother asking about this in a series of earlier edits I did in the "Vacuum packing" article in its section titles and picture captions (though those weren't piped links), as it feels liek I'm half-consciously just doing this to get attention. (Edit: Including writing that last sentence.)--Thylacine24 (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Thylacine24: Seems OK to me. The guidance for editing is to Be Bold. If another editor doesn't agree with your changes, they will revert it, and then you can discuss the changes, following the Bold, Revert, Delete process. You don't need to keep asking if your edits are okay. RudolfRed (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I have OCD, so it's difficult for me to be bold with a lot of these edits. I still have uneasy feelings about "Further reading" not being named "See also", though. Could you please tell me if you're sure that the section title shouldn't be changed?--Thylacine24 (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. Eagleash (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. As I wrote in response to RudolfRed, though, it seems like "Further reading" should be changed to "See also". Could you please tell me if you agree on this in particular?--Thylacine24 (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Thylacine24: Yes, you can change it to "See Also". Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#"See_also"_section. Further Reading section is usually a list of citations and external links. RudolfRed (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know.--Thylacine24 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes that would be better.  Done Eagleash (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.--Thylacine24 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Searching for text on the "recent changes" page[edit]

On the Special:RecentChanges page, I don't see any option to search for text in the list of recent edits. Is there another way to search for specific keywords in Wikipedia's recent edits? Jarble (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

'Crtl + f'? Eagleash (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I think they are wanting to search within the diffs of each recent change. RudolfRed (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

July 21[edit]

Removed "on" from phrasal verb[edit]

I try to avoid coming here for grammatical edits, but there's this from the article "Shadhavar":

"Horns of those creatures, sometimes gifted to kings, can be played on like flutes."

I removed the word "on" from this sentence. Could anyone please tell me if that's okay?--Thylacine24 (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not a common phrasing but it's not ungrammatical. †dismas†|(talk) 01:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
One can play an instrument, or one can play on an instrument, but I agree that the article is better without the extra preposition. Dbfirs 09:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Discovered overly long paragraph[edit]

In the article on the Petronas Towers, in the section "History and architecture", the fourth paragraph is much too long. I think the best place to split it would be at the sentence beginning with "As a result of the Malaysian government..." Could anyone please tell me if this is the right place to split it?--Thylacine24 (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Since the paragraph begins: "The construction of the superstructure..." –where it starts discussing something else would be a good place to split. Where you suggest seems fine to me. That wall-of-text could easily be split into 3 or more paragraphs. There are probably "rules" for such, but trusting your common sense would be fine. If its less than perfect, perhaps somebody will come along and fix it; that's how Wikipedia works. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks.--Thylacine24 (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Refs are missing from article[edit]

Hi,

There are 14 references that give the "The named reference $1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page)" error on the Marvel Cinematic Universe article. However, if I search for them on that article, nothing even shows up. How do I get them fixed?

Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I left a message on the article's talk page. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! It was fixed. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrator error[edit]

I'm a multiple national bestselling and award winning author and editor, and this user just speedy-deleted my page for lack of "Credible importance." After the page has been up for 15 years and expanded regularly with my works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FabrictrampMzmadmike (talk) page Michael Z. Williamson

@Mzmadmike: Speedy deletions that have occurred may be challenged at Deletion Review. 331dot (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, I'll point out this has happened before. It comes down to editors who don't like what they perceive my politics to be trying to delete my presence. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Z._Williamson?

I think the article is unlikely to be deleted, but just be patient and things will go back to normal. Dbfirs 09:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Current attempt to delete his presence: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson (2nd nomination). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
That first AfD had at least one proven sock and a few new accounts with virtually no other edits. The comments about his politics came from a sock and a new editor, both voting keep. Hm, I just looked at the new AfD and User:Koncorde made the same comment, and worse yet, there's obviously canvassing going on with new editors, an IP who has edited twice, etc. @Mzmadmike: can you explain this? Doug Weller talk 15:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I had no interest or idea of the topic but saw the warning header at the top of AfD #1 and then when I saw all the lack of edit history etc I had to raise my concerns. Williamson may well be notable, but how the AfD is (and maybe was) influenced had me questioning a few things. Koncorde (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The OP is not just canvassing but also harassing an editor - both from his FaceBook page. I've brought this up at ANI suggesting a community ban unless he apologises. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Citing an archive[edit]

Hi Folks, How would I cite an archive, specifically this: [3] Thanks. scope_creepTalk 12:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

{{cite magazine |department=Geschichte |title=Was Archive berichten |volume=2008 |issue=1–2 |page=22 |magazine=Antifa |first=Hans |last=Coppi |url=http://www.antifa.vvn-bda.de/200801/2201.php |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20081207090454/http://www.antifa.vvn-bda.de/200801/2201.php |archive-date=2008-12-07}}
Coppi, Hans. "Was Archive berichten". Geschichte. Antifa. Vol. 2008 no. 1–2. p. 22. Archived from the original on 2008-12-07.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thankee. I thought it was that, but every time I see them on the de wikipedia, the webarchive template I seem to go down that route. Keep this for later use. scope_creepTalk 12:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Confused about formatting in this sentence[edit]

In the page "Trikuta", I found this sentence (link removed):

"The mountain is believed to be {according to hindu mythology}|the second home of the divine goddess Durga."

Could anyone please tell me how to fix this? Also, I changed the section title from "Significane on History and Hinduism" to "Significance to history and Hinduism", which I don't think is objectionable, though if it is, then please tell me. (Unfortunately, I neglected to provide an edit summary in a bout of laziness. I'll try to make things clearer in my next edit on that page.)--Thylacine24 (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the stray pipe. Eagleash (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks.--Thylacine24 (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

update article[edit]

hello , on this article http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NASCAR_fatalities. it is missing a fatal accident. driver Blaise Alexander died in 2001 in an on track accident. he drove in the ARCA series of stock car racing. wiki already has separate article about this driver but he is not listed on wikis list of fatal NASCAR fatal accidents. he should be listed under the other series category.

I tried to edit it but having trouble .!maybe someone can update this please.thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.29.91 (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. However, that's not a list of NASCAR drivers who died. It's a list of drivers who died in NASCAR events. Blaise Alexander died in an ARCA event, not a NASCAR event. -Arch dude (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Arch dude. If you are having trouble editing, then you can visit the Help Editing page or take the Tutorial. If you have anymore questions please return or visit the Teahouse. Best wishes, Willbb234 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


July 22[edit]

adding info[edit]

I'm new to this. I'd like to add a name, in alphabetic order, to an existing detailed list in Wikipedia. But I don't know how to go about adding that name and it's accompanying information. Any specific help as to how to edit this list would be appreciated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reefy14 (talkcontribs) 00:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Reefy14, which list do you want to edit? (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) --MrClog (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Added info to new section[edit]

In the article "Sin-eater", I changed the following paragraph, originally listed under the "History" section (citation removed at the end of the first sentence):

"Margaret Atwood, The sin-eater, a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio feature from 1981, . In the film The Bourne legacy, 2012, the subject is used: Buyer tells Cross that they are "sin eaters," doing the "morally indefensible" but absolutely necessary thing, "so that the rest of our cause can stay pure." ... The story is that a village has one person who is treated extremely well and whose job is to eat food symbolic of people's sins, so that he assumes all their sins so that they can die in a state of grace. The sin eater is extremely old and weighed down by the sins of hundreds of people. A young man is being groomed to be a sin-eater. The old sin-eater dies and the first task the pure and innocent young man must do is eat the sins of the sin-eater including the lifetime of sins he has consumed which, by extension, includes the sins of all the thousands that have been absorbed by endless generations of sin-eaters. In other words, lured by the comforts to be provided by the adoring villagers, the young man becomes the most damnable person in history. His only hope is that one day, many years later, another young man will be similarly lured into eating all the sins that this young man will have to bear."

to the following, for which I created the section "Popular culture":

"Margaret Atwood wrote a short story titled 'The Sin-Eater'.

Sin-Eater is the name of a Marvel Comics villain.

The Sin-Eater was a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio feature from 1981.

In the film The Bourne Legacy (2012), the subject is used: Buyer tells Cross that they are 'sin eaters', doing the 'morally indefensible" but absolutely necessary thing, 'so that the rest of our cause can stay pure.' ... The story is that a village has one person who is treated extremely well and whose job is to eat food symbolic of people's sins, so that he assumes all their sins so that they can die in a state of grace. The sin eater is extremely old and weighed down by the sins of hundreds of people. A young man is being groomed to be a sin-eater. The old sin-eater dies and the first task the pure and innocent young man must do is eat the sins of the sin-eater including the lifetime of sins he has consumed which, by extension, includes the sins of all the thousands that have been absorbed by endless generations of sin-eaters. In other words, lured by the comforts to be provided by the adoring villagers, the young man becomes the most damnable person in history. His only hope is that one day, many years later, another young man will be similarly lured into eating all the sins that this young man will have to bear."

I hope my added example wasn't too irrelevant, or too lacking in detail. Please let me know if any or all of what I did was good or bad. (Note: I added these two sentences at the end after the first posting.)--Thylacine24 (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Undelete a version of a file - Verifone Logo.svg[edit]

Request to have a deleted version on File:Verifone Logo.svg undeleted so it can be moved over to WikiCommons. The logo is public domain, consisting of only text. (It'd previously been categorized as a fair use file and resized.)--The Navigators (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done In the future please use WP:REFUND, as the help desk is not typically for requests for admin assistance. -- King of ♠ 04:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I have created a new page.[edit]

The move option is missing on my wikipedia sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainul Ahsan Noble (talkcontribs) 07:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

See WP:MV. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mainul Ahsan Noble: The move option will not be available to you until you have made at least 10 valid edits and your account is at least 4 days old. In the meantime, there are messages at your talk page which you should study carefully. (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

UK Inter Services Cricket[edit]

Dear Sirs,

I am the archivist for all matters relating to Inter Services Cricket from 1928 to the present date.

I note on Wikipedia that there is no article that covers this, just individual articles relating to the individual services. Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force.

My question is how can I submit an article about this please.

Many thanks, Victor Isaacs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stattovic (talkcontribs) 10:16, 22 July 2019 10:16 (UTC)

@Stattovic: You will need to read the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy first. You can then read Your First Article and use Articles for Creation to submit a draft for review; however, you will need independent reliable sources for what you write about. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Headings - Sheffield Futsal Club[edit]

Hi,

Headings on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_Futsal_Club

All the headings under 'Managerial History' are falling under that head and not creating their own heading. If you look on the page on mobile the 'Honour' and 'References' etc are under the 'Managerial History' heading

Could you let me know where I have gone wrong please

Thanks, Carl CarlosW14 (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I've removed a few lines of table formatting that were causing the problem. I'm not sure what they were doing there in the first place though so I hope removing them hasn't inadvertently broken anything else. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Published draft[edit]

My page has been published but it's still showing the draft and it can redirect to the main page when I searched it online. How can I remove the draft from google search so that it will be showing the main page directly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opeinoluwa101 (talkcontribs) 11:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Opeinoluwa101: I'm not sure which page you are referring to, but unless the page states "Draft:" at the beginning of the title, it is not a draft. It takes time for search engines like Google to index new articles; they must also be formally reviewed before they can do so. Wikipedia has no control over Google's search results. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Opeinoluwa101: On the assumption that this refers to Olukoya Ogen, the page has been accepted via AfC and should be indexed by Google shortly. Google searches do not usually return Wikipedia drafts. Where did you see this? (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)