Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

June 15

Thomas Markle

Please repair ref number 32 on this page and place it immediately after the words/link Robert I of Scotland in this section - I am having a lot of trouble doing this. Thanks 00:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.147.205.88 (talk)

Hi 110.147.205.88, Greetings to you.  Done. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Requesing for Adminship

How do I Request for Adminship ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigBoss3900 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@TheBigBoss3900: There's the quick way and the sure way:

The quick way: Go to WP:RFA, follow the instructions, and have the page WP:SNOW closed as unsuccessful after a dozen oppose !votes saying "WP:NOTNOW" or "WP:TOONEW."

The sure way: Edit for at least a year, make at least 10,000 useful edits, demonstrate familiarity with our policies and guidelines through resolving conflicts and filing reports on noticeboards, study Wikipedia:What adminship is not and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, and wait for an established member of the community to nominate you (a lot of folks will !vote against self-nominations just on principle).

Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Start by reading WP:Guide to requests for adminship, then spend a few years editing Wikipedia and building up a record of a few tens of thousands of trouble free edits, then read WP:Guide to requests for adminship again. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TheBigBoss3900 - I won't beat around the bush... you just created your account a few moments ago. Administrators are trusted users who have years of contributions and the demonstrated knowledge of policies and the ability to understand and use the tools. You are a very long ways away from that role, and I would not waste my time considering it if I were you... not without a very long history of experience. You should read this page and this page for a better understanding of exactly what I'm talking about... Instead of focusing on that, you should instead go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial, as it will provide you with a significant amount of help and walkthroughs so that you can get started with improving the project. Hope my response didn't burst your bubble, but I want to dispel any thoughts that adminship is for new users. Good luck and happy editing to you! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Both of the above posts are full of good advice, I would just add that seeming over-eager to be an admin is the surest path to not being one, so you may want to reconsider what you’ve put on your userpage. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Ordinary users can, and do, do almost all the the work on Wikipedia. Admins just muck with the boring fiddly bits. Regular editing is much more fun. Rmhermen (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Merging Grazing Occultation and Grazing Lunar Occultation into Occultation article.

Hello,

There are two articles, Grazing Occultation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grazing_occultation and Grazing Lunar Occultation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grazing_lunar_occultation , that I think should be merged into the Occultation article.

Reasons; - they describe the same thing, so at least one is obsolete - they are a type of lunar occultation, and there is not a separate article on lunar occultation - that is described in the Occultation article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occultation , so both Grazing articles are obsolete.

Do I improve the Occultation article first, including Grazing info, first, then ask for the two Grazing articles to be deleted. or Vice versa,

What consultations do I need to address before I begin?

thanks KuriwaObs (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Please read WP:MERGE. If you have questions, feel free to come back here with them. -Arch dude (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I created an article

I created this article Draft:Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election. How do I get it out of draft status please?Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jerry the Bellybutton Elf: If you consider the page to be ready for mainspace, place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. This will submit it for review. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh my god there's almost a thousand articles waiting for review. Wow. Thank you for your help tho... Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

To put that into perspective, it's about 0.0176% of the number of articles we already have. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.224 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

PayMate page listed as 'Bank' on google search

Hi, I have edited the information on PayMate here and it is now reflecting on Google searches as well. However, the term 'Bank' appears under the name PayMate when it searched on Google. We are not a bank and our company category is defined in the infobox. Here is a screenshot for your reference -

File:Screenshot of the google search page

I would like to know how to remove the word 'Bank' and replace it with an alternate word.

Looking forward to getting this resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hetal Sha (talk • contribs) 06:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines..

I would also suggest that you stop editing the page until you have read WP:COI and WP:PAID. NZFC^(talk) 06:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hetal Sha: "Bank" is added by Google and not by Wikipedia. The screenshot was commons:File:Screenshot for Google search.png but screenshots are generally covered by copyright and must not be uploaded to Commons. It has been deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hetal Sha: Also, in the Google search below the box there is a small link titled "Feedback", which you can use to inform Google about the mistaken categorization. Regards SoWhy 09:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Derrick Todd Lee

Please list all of his victims, including Pamela Kenamore! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D5F0:E800:95FC:7C53:CFFA:E0DC (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. As far as I can tell, he was only alleged to have killed her but never proven or convicted, see [1]. Wikipedia is not a memorial to the victims or alleged victims and even a serial killer is innocent until proven guilty of a certain crime. Regards SoWhy 09:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Problem

When I click desktop on mobile Wikipedia the link was not load 138.75.248.139 (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 Works for me. Can you specify on which article page this happens? Remember that the desktop page will still look more "mobile-y" on small resolutions because of the limited space. Regards SoWhy 09:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Missing submission

For context, I repeat your earlier reply to my question, followed by my comment:

Follow-up question to June 13th

I had asked how to create a new article and was directed to the appropriate page. I had submitted the proposal. What is the next step? Where do I look for any response? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.161.227.206 (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

   Your IP address has not submitted any proposal. Your only 2 edits are your 2 questions here on the Help Desk. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC) 

I had submitted a proposal for a new lemma / entry a few days ago. How could it not have registered? Please double check. Otherwise there is little point in going through all this trouble. Apart from the issue of depriving your readership from relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.161.227.206 (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi 82.161.227.206 , No article has been submitted from your IP address. All three edits you made were to Help desk. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's quite possible that you submitted your proposal from a different IP address (though not one beginning with 82.161.227.) Can you remember where you saved your proposal? One advantage of creating an account is that you will have a full record of your edits. Dbfirs 12:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

See below, please for context reference, That's twice now you are trying to deflect the issue. No, I did not submit from another IP address. I asked earlier how to create an article, went there, and uploaded it. What more can one do? There seems to be a glitch on your end, which your technicians may like to look into. Please trace the submission, it's important, or I would not have bothered in the first place. I've been a fan of Wiki for many years. It offers great advantages. But this aspct requires some attention. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.161.227.206 (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/82.161.227.206 shows the only saved edits by this IP address are to this help desk. Many people have changing IP addresses or use different Internet connections so your IP address may have been different when you made the page if it was saved. If you say what the page was about or preferably give the precise name then we can search for it. "a proposal for a new lemma / entry a few days ago" is not searchable and too vague. Thousands of pages were created in that period. Some users click "Show preview", miss a step or overlook a warning after trying to save a page or edit. There is for example an extra step if unregistered or new users try to save a page with external links. Nearly all claims that a saved edit is missing are from new users so if a page wasn't saved then a user misunderstanding the interface is much more likely than a software error. I have saved 51,000 edits and never discovered one was missing. Click "Contributions" at the top right to check that an edit was saved. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I have experienced failed saves when I know I've clicked the correct buttons, but the fault has been in my inadequate and intermittent internet connection, not in the Wikipedia servers. I usually check the save to make sure that it has gone through. We are not trying to deflect any issue, just trying to help as requested. Dbfirs 14:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You asked for the precise name of the newly created article? It is: FROM MONISM TO NONISM

I look forward to hearing if you are able to find it. Thanks. I observed nothing special after clicking 'Publish Changes'. No hitches. My IP address / ISP has been the same for the past 25 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.161.227.206 (talk)

Thank you for deigning to give us some information about the item which you have repeatedly demanded that we help you find. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be an article called "From Monism to Nonism", or a draft called "Draft:From Monism to Nonism". Nor is there a record that either of these has ever been deleted. So I am sorry, but it appears that, for whatever reason, you did not succeed in saving your draft. --ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I am also unable to find any sign of such a saved page. It was almost certainly not saved. I haven't seen the content but the title sounds more like a personal essay or original research than an encyclopedia article suited for Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Cannot remove unread status for "The page ‪Continue?‬ has been reviewed"

At the top right corner of the page, when I click on "The page ‪Continue?‬ has been reviewed", it will not remove the "unread status". I posted about this at WP:VPT, but to no avail. Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: Which page and feature is this about? It sounds like "Continue?‬" is incorrectly displayed on top of "The page ‪has been reviewed". What is your browser and your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Reply - @PrimeHunter:, my skin is "Vector", my browser is Internet Explorer 11.0.9600-18977. The icon to the left of "Talk" and the right of "Jax 0677" is rectangular, and contains my notices, one of which says "The page ‪Continue?‬ has been reviewed". It continues to display "1" unless I get a new message, at which time it displays a number greater than "1". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Reply - @PrimeHunter:, just fixed the issue by opening Special:Notifications and marking the "Unread" notification as "Read". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. You did create the page Continue? so my guess was wrong. Some features have problems with page names containing question marks. They have a special meaning in url's and need encoding in some places so maybe that is what went wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Where to discuss ideas and notify related people?

Dear helpdesk,

I am a software engineer and I am experimenting finding cross-language fact conflicts on Wikipedias. I put it up in a page (User:Xinbenlv/Cross_Lang_Conflict_Examples), but don't know how should I get related editors to comment on it. What do you suggest as the best channel and best practice to engage people in this kind of discussion? Xinbenlv (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Xinbenlv, the folks who watch the Technical Village Pump would probably be interested in your idea. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Village pump. I don't know which subsection best matches your experiment. If you are asking how to your (eventual) bot can identify each problem that it finds, I suspect that it should place a section in the talk page of each article on each affected Wikipedia. For structured data such as your example birth dates, it may be best to suggest that the Wikipedia articles be modified to pick the data up from Wikidata. -Arch dude (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both very much, @Dodger67 and @Arch dude. A follow up question: I sometimes see people when moving discussion, use a template to include content from another wikipedia page, what is that template? (I can't find any page but I had impression that it was possible).Xinbenlv (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

How do I find out if my article has been published, or if it has been rejected?

Hi I wrote an article/bio on Cathy Yanni, a Special Master recently assigned to the upcoming lawsuits spurred by the opioid crisis. How do I find out if my article has been published, has issues or was rejected? The article is still in my sandbox, but I did contribute in April. No word since, from Wikipedia but I may be missing something. Any help is welcome, Thank you, Lisasheeran 21:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC) 21:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisasheeran (talk • contribs)

Lisasheeran: you have a sandbox User:Lisasheeran/sandbox, which is about her. It has not been published or (as far as I can tell) submitted for publication. It does have issues: the referencing is weirdly done, it has things that look like [1] [2] etc. but don't actually cite anything. I suggest you read Help:Referencing for beginners before you submit it for publication. Maproom (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I have added a box with a submit button. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

June 16

New Listing.

How do you add a new person.

Harry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Albers (talk • contribs) 04:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Welcome. I added our standard welcome to your talk page. It has some places to start for you. We don't add people, we add articles about notable subject, some of whom are people. If a subject is notable, it can have an article. If a subject is not notable, it cannot have an article: this includes articles about people. We have a very peculiar and specific definition of "notable": see WP:N. Any attempt to add an article about a non-notable subject will only end in frustration. If you find that you person is notable, then come back here and we can help further.-Arch dude (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

How to request permanent ban

I request for a globally permanent ban of my username. How can I do? --Marcello Gianola (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marcello Gianola: meta:Global bans are not made on user request. Why do you want it? You can just make a strong password and stop editing. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm here to formally complain.

A few years ago, the NOW Music team located in the UK and members of Virgin EMI created Wikipedia pages of the albums within the series. All this effort has been removed, and it's very infuriating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.140.21 (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Your complaint is hereby formally acknowledged. Please read WP:PAID, WP:COI, and WP:N (and specifically WP:NMUSIC), which you were instructed to read before you went to all that effort in the first place. Please read each article's deletion discussion.If you feel the deletions were not compliant with our policies, then contact the administrator that deleted them using that admin's talk page and you can then initiate a deletion review. -Arch dude (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Please look at Now That's What I Call Music!, and in particular at the block at the bottom of the page. That block shows links to a large number of individual album articles. Are these the articles you are looking for? It appears that the ones you are interested in have been renamed, not deleted. I looked at a quasi-random sample of these. Almost all of them should be deleted as they do not meet our notability criteria (or at least do not assert notability). I will not nominate them for deletion myself as I am not all that interested in this subject. -Arch dude (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

June 17

Archive sources

This sounds like an embarrassingly newbie question, but are there other sites like the Internet Archive that are considered good digital libraries for web pages that vanish over time? Archive.org is usually pretty good for finding pages to rescue broken citations, but I have encountered some links where no archive exists. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You'll find a number of options listed at Help:Archiving a source. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Cheek

Hi Colin,

Such cheek. DEIGNING? I thought I phrased the question very politely (see below):

Q: You asked for the precise name of the newly created article? It is: FROM MONISM TO NONISM. I look forward to hearing if you are able to find it. Thanks. I observed nothing special after clicking 'Publish Changes'. No hitches. My IP address / ISP has been the same for the past 25 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.161.227.206 (talk)

A:   Thank you for deigning to give us some information about the item which you have repeatedly demanded that we help you find. 

Remember that tacit assumptions are always the trickiest. By assuming I made a mistake, you are glossing over a possible problem on your end, which I have tried apparently in vain, to call to your attention.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.161.227.206 (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Three times you requested investigation of your submission, without giving enough information for anyone to figure out what submission you were asking about, despite being asked to do so. If that wasn't a mistake, what was it? Maproom (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I think "By assuming I made a mistake" refers thinking that the edit was never saved because the user misunderstood the interface. That still seems far more likely than a software error. The MediaWiki software has saved around 1 million edits at the English Wikipedia in the last week, and it's used by thousands of other wikis. If it has an error where users are incorrectly shown that their edit was saved then why does this error apparently only hit new users who don't know the software properly? You still haven't been able to sign a single post in spite of the edit window saying "please 'sign' any statement you post here by placing ~~~~ at the end of your post", and "Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.161.227.206" being affixed to your posts with a link to more details. And please edit the existing section by clicking the "edit" link at the section heading instead of starting a new section for new comments. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the edit window also says:

• Please give the exact title or URL of any page you want help with.
• If possible, please be specific in your question rather than general and link to any page or article your question involves, or at least tell us the title of the page.

If I was cheeky, I might say your ability to see or follow instructions is not impressive for somebody who insists there is a software error instead of a user error. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• We have no technical way to find your submittal at our end. Our only information is in our logs, and those logs show no edits or other inputs from your IP address prior to the your first edit to this help desk. Note that Wikipedia edits (and their log entries) occur at a rate of more than one per second, so more than 86,400 edits occurred on the day of your failed submittal. None of the other 130,000+ editors that used the system in the last month has encountered your problem, so we are forced to conclude that it occurred somewhere between your keyboard and the network interface to our computers. -Arch dude (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Marc Bola

Marc Bola is being released from Arsenal, so I removed him from the squad. I don’t really see anything wrong with real stuff, do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombo Elbo (talk • contribs) 13:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tombo Elbo: You need to provide a reliable source. Also remember that most football contracts run until the end of the 'official' season; 30 June. When making changes to football articles you also need to make sure that changes are consistent across all relevant pages. Team page (all sections), the player's own page, squad templates, new team page, where relevant etc. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Percentage of primary sources

What is the preferabe percentage of Primary sources used in a WP article? I fell it must be lower than 10% and always supporting a secondary souce? But am I being a fundamentalist on that??? What does the Policy says? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Τζερόνυμο (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• We have very few "policies" (WP:COPO). Our policies are expanded by a larger corpus of "guidelines". The sourcing policy is WP:V. The guideline for this is WP:RS. There is no guideline on percentage of primary sources that I know of: see WP:CREEP. Basically, an article subject must be notable (WP:N), or the article may be deleted. This requires multiple independent (i.e., not primary) substantive reliable sources. (The number is not absolute, but usually at least two.) If those sources exist, then the article stays. If not, it's deleted. This is independent of any other sources, primary, seconday, minor mentions, whatever. An article with only two sources that meet WP:N and no other references should be kept. An article with a hundred references, none of which meet WP:N, should be deleted. Beyond the notability requirement, editors must provide references for any fact that may be disputed (WP:V). If there are 100 facts from 100 different sources, then you need 100 additional references in addition to those that establish notability. The selection and use of these is subject to the discretion of the editors, who are supposed to be trying to collaboratively build the best encyclopedia article they can. The quality of the source is important, whether it is primary or secondary. -Arch dude (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Player numbers

Naby Keita has joined Liverpool, he wore the number 8 jersey at Leipzig, that number is vacant at Liverpool. Shouldn’t he just have that number now? I’m having this with Jonny Evans. Thanks. Tombo Elbo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombo Elbo (talk • contribs) 15:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

No. It's up to the club to allocate the player Nos. when submitting their final squads. Eagleash (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Ndjoli

According to Soccerbase, Keenan O’Connell wears number 57 for Bournemouth, and Mikael Ndjoli wears the vacant 52 jersey. Tut tut tut — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombo Elbo (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @Tombo Elbo: did you have a question about this? If you've found a mistake in one of our articles, you need to discuss it on that article's Talk page, not here.
Also, can you please sign your entries on Talk pages and other discussion pages (such as this one) with four tilde characters, like this ~~~~? Thanks, Rojomoke (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

saving my page

How do I save my page? I can't leave the page because it says my changes will be lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahmuffins (talk • contribs) 20:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sarahmuffins: You save your changes by clicking 'publish' (which really means 'save'), the same as you did to create your post at this page. If you are seeing an error message, please provide greater detail so volunteers here can comment. You seem to have successfully saved Draft:Barbershop (shop). Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I did click on publish and it shows my page. I can click edit to make more changes and then click publish again. But if I click any link other than edit or try to close the window it says my changes will be lost. (Sarahmuffins (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fairly standard message. If you click a link which would take you away frfom the edit window then you will usually see that warning. It should not appear if you click 'preview' but if you click 'history' (for example) or any other link then the warning will display. It will display even if you haven't actually made any changes after opening the edit window. Any changes you made previously and successfully 'saved' will not be lost or affected. Eagleash (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see 'preview'? But if I click 'Submit your draft for review!' for example it says my changes will be lost. But if I have clicked 'publish' (save) after my last change, my changes will not be lost?Sarahmuffins (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

'Preview' should be shown alongside the 'publish' button, beneath the edit window. It's a good idea to use that before saving changes to check for errors and see how the page looks before saving. If you click the 'submit draft' button with the edit window open, the aforementioned message will appear. A page would be 'saved' and then 'submit draft' clicked. Any previously saved changes will not be lost. On another note, I would not recommend submitting the draft for review as it stands. There are some layout and formatting anomalies. If you have not already done so, please read WP:YFA and WP:REFB and also WP:GNG. Also, the content is probably already covered in Barber and the page would very likely be rejected at review or at best redirected to the Barber article. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I will read the links you gave me. There is nothing beneath the edit window, the 'publish changes...' button is in the top right corner and next to it is an image of a pencil. How do I preview? I wanted to write an article about barber shops, not about the barber. I'm sorry if Wikipedia doesn't want an article for barber shops, do I need to delete it?Sarahmuffins (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you editing from a mobile device? Scroll right the way down and select 'desktop', which should give you a different page display. (Or are you using the visual editor... where you click 'edit' rather than 'edit source'?) I believe the mobile editing interface gives you an automatic preview at the point where you are asked to summarise your edit. An article for the type of shop as against the profession may have a place in Wikipedia. It depends on whether it can be demonstrated as independently notable (see that link also). There's no need to rush into deleting it if you think it can be found worthy of a page. But, be aware it might well not pass review. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

My laptop is a mobile device (I can carry it but it's a bit big lol) but I think I'm using the visual editor. The editing here looks different from when I edit my barbershop article. I don't understand the article about notability. I need to find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Does that mean I should link to a book about barbershops or something? Will that demonstrate it as independently notable?Sarahmuffins (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It sounds as if you are using the visual editor: when you click 'publish' at the top right you should get a new small pane displayed wwhere you write the edis summary. At the bottom of that is a review button. The vis ed. can be a useful tool in certain circumstances but can create anomalies and a lot of experienced editors do not like it. I think notability for this topic is going to be problematic in that, there is little doubt that there would be a reasonable amount of information in reliable sources... but I suspect that however well-researched and sourced the finished page may be, when it comes to review, it is quite likely to be redirected to the Barber article. Sorry. Eagleash (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

June 18

Grammar of lead

I don't know if this is the right place to request this, but can someone please check the grammar of the lead section of the article Aladdin? specifically the last paragraph. Thank you. Javiero Fernandez (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The article's talk page (Talk:Aladdin (1992 Disney film)) would be a better place for this request. —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Changing "Raúl Midón" article title

Hello, musician Raul Midón does not use an accent mark over the "u" in his first name. The article title should be changed from "Raúl Midón" to "Raul Midón". I would like to know how to get the title spelling changed. Thank You! - Stan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan edit (talk • contribs) 06:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Sam Sailor 06:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Michael Kitces

Ref #17 is broken on this page and I'm not sure how to fix it. --76.14.38.58 (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)