Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 November 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Help desk
< November 6 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 8 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

November 7[edit]

agi llc[edit]

Агь ХХК анх үүсгэн байгуулагдсан цагаасаа хойш гадаад улс орнуудаас дээд зэрэглэлийн чанартай бараа, бүтээгдэхүүн импортлон оруулж ирж монголынхоо хэрэглэгчдэд тогтмол хүргэж ирсэнээр зах зээлд өөрийн гэсэн тодорхой байр суурь эзэлж чадсан залуу компани юм. 2011 онд компани гоймонгийн үйлдвэрлэл эрхлэх үйл ажиллагааны чиглэлийг нэмсэнээр үйл ажиллагаа, бүтээгдэхүүн, үйлчилгээгээ өргөжүүлж нэрээ "АГЬ" ХХК болгон “Шилдэг менежмент, дэвшилтэт технологоор, онцгой чанар, цогц үйлчилгээг хэрэглэгчдийн таашаалд нийцсэн үнээр нийлүүлж, зах зээлд тэргүүлэгч байх” эрхэм зорилготойгоор бүтээлч, эрч хүчтэй 150 гаруй ажилтан ажиллагсад ажиллаж байна. Бидний ашиглалтанд оруулсан баяжуулсан гоймон ЛАПША брэндийн үйлдвэр нь орчин үеийн дэвшилтэт технологи бүхий бүрэн автомат үйлдвэрийн шугам юм. Манай компаний өнгөрсөн хугацаанд бараа бүтээгдэхүүний нэр төрөл, борлуулалтын орлогоо тогтмол нэмэгдүүлж амжилттай ажиллаж ирсэн. Одоогоор нийт 52 нэр төрлийн бараа бүтээгдэхүүнийг зах зээлд нийлүүлж, хэрэглэгчдэд хүргэж байна. Өмнөх онуудад сар бүр борлуулалтын орлогын түвшин тогтмол хувийн өсөлттэй байсан ба 2013 онд энэхүү өсөлтийн түвшинг хадгалж борлуулалтаа улам нэмэгдүүлж ажилсаар байна. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Агь ХХК (talkcontribs) 02:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Articles for Creation that are in languages other than English are not likely to be accepted. If you have previously edited some other Wikipedia, you may be here by accident. If you want help in translating, you may go to Wikipedia:Translation. Many editors of the English Wikipedia are familiar with only one language, English. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
No wonder I could make no sense of this at all ... I think it is written in Mongolian Cyrillic alphabet and is about a company (based on one of the OP's other edits). Astronaut (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The user's edits may need to be cleaned up as they appear to post the above in a variety of places. I tried to get a Google translation, but it could not figure out the language. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's Mongolian. --ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/March 7 2012 Apple media event --> Apple media events[edit]

Now that draft articles at Wikiproject Articles for creation are being routinely nominated for deletion by a bot if not edited for six months, articles such as the one above can't be left there with a notice not to delete them. What should be done? Is there a way to properly merge the page into the target article, or, if not, can the page be moved to mainspace and changed to a redirect? Or is there some better solution? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:G13. Abandoned Articles for creation submissions. HasteurBot. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
if the claim that the content was merged is true and the flag is not just a desperate attempt to "save" the article, a history merge can be done. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I thought that the easiest thing was to move the AFC draft to a talk subpage of Apple media events (standard procedure, methinks) and update the {{copied}} template on the article's talk page (which has been there since March 2012, so this is not an attempt to game the AFC system). That keeps it out of the AFC area and avoids accidental G13 deletion. BencherliteTalk 11:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, that's a good idea; I keep forgetting about subpages. It should have a NOINDEX tag, too. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that. Subpages does allow talk page archiving and "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/March 7 2012 Apple media event" is a "talk page," but the draft article on the talk page is not discussion. However, if "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/March 7 2012 Apple media event" was copied/pasted to Apple media events and the attribution remains in the proposed G13 deleted Articles for creation page, then it would seem OK to move the AFC draft to a talk subpage of Apple media events. Subpages links to Template:Article history, which provides transclusion of talk subpages such as seen at here. However, only the page history is needed for the attribution and some editors might see this as a way to game the system. Perhaps any such move should be to a talk subpage called /Article attribution so as to make the purpose clear to anyone trying to figure out why a subpage disallowed permanent content draft revision is being stored in an article talk subpage. The essay Wikipedia:Merge and delete discusses some of these issues. G13 should not result in deletion of attribution and the list of G13 pages for deletion do not make the deleting admin aware of the potential loss of attribution issue. Anne Delong, when you finalize a solution, HasteurBot should be program to cross reference the proposed G13 AfC page with any Template:Copied posted on a corresponding article talk page to flag the issue. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The page wouldn't need to show any article text at all, just the notice about the history being saved, so there wouldn't be any advantage to someone trying to display content that Wikipedia doesn't want. And yes, we should find a way to pick these types of pages out besides someone like me happening to notice. Jreferee's suggestion for a title seems right, and he has suggested that it be a talk subpage rather than an article subpage. Is this the usual procedure? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, article space, unlike other namespaces does not support sub-pages, so it can't be a direct sub-page of the article. Correct me if I am in error, please. DES (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
You ae not in error, see Subpages. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, that settles that! —Anne Delong (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

New article outside Wikipedia:Articles for creation[edit]

I have written a new article on Eric Estorick. There was already a redirect page for this, so I simply replaced the contents of the redirect page with my new article.

Should I have submitted the article to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review? How can I do so now? Verbcatcher (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want feedback on an article before creating it, you're always allowed to go through WP:AFC, but there's absolutely no requirement so to do. Please remember WP:BOLD — replacing a redirect with an article is pretty much always okay, unless the contents of the article are horrid, e.g. not English or a copyright infringement or something like that. You have no reason to think that you did the wrong thing; thanks for the work! Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The article you posted looks good (you do not have a need to post at AFC). It's much better than most early editing efforts. You used independent reliable sources and summarized the information in them and have the information in somewhat chronological order. The next step is to connect the sentences together via transitions. I also suggest using "Early life" (through college) and "Career" section heads and to initially put all the sentences in chronological order. The Art collecting and dealing could be a third section, depending on how much information you find on the topic. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

News Reports[edit]

Please tell me HumanRightsWatch report is more authentic than FoxNews,CNN,BBC etc. reports or not?? SpidErxD (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Is your question in relations to this edit? The FoxNews report in question appears to be[1] I did not find any particular HumanRightsWatch report, but the website is . -- Jreferee (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
This seems to be part of an ongoing edit war between SpidErxD and Rezashah4. It has been discussed here but does not seemed to have abated since then. They were recommended to dispute resolution but I did not find the subject there. I don't believe this is the correct place to resolve this dispute. XFEM Skier (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I posted a note at Talk:2009–10 Iranian election protests. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Heritage sites - Koopmanskraal in the Piketberg district[edit]

List of heritage sites in Western Cape

Sadly Koopmanskraal farmhouse was destroyed in a fire quite a while back. There was a palm tree that caught fire and the thatched roof started the fire that destroyed the house - I do not think it was ever restored.

Our farm was adjacent to their neighbours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is your question? You can feel free to add that information yourself. Here is a cached version of the website, page 14, that mentions the fire. It looks like their new page is under construction. CTF83! 11:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I just added it for you. CTF83! 11:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

How To Delete A Sandboxed Article?[edit]

Hi all,

I was trying to create a small article on The Windows Club, a Microsoft featured community, that offers plenty of freeware and is run by Microsoft MVPs. However, when I searched and clicked on WindowsClub, a page was created here: User:KiranMudumba/Windows club

The title has to be edited. The 'THE" is missing there.

Also, is it okay if I am a fan of some website and write about it? What do you suggest - whether or not to cover it, if yes, what all to cover and any other suggestions. I have written another article on MVP on Wikipedia but that was more general so it was easy. I know organizations are covered but I do not know the template. And yes, the URL of The Windows Club is in case any of you wish to check it out.

Please help.

Thanks & Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiranMudumba (talkcontribs) 10:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want that article deleted, put {{db-g7}} {{Db-u1}} at the top of the article, since you created it, and an admin will delete it soon. If you just want it renamed, so it has "the" at the beginning, just move the page to User:KiranMudumba/The Windows club. If you're just a fan, there is no problem with you writing about it...I personally write heavily in areas that I'm a fan of. Now, if you run the page, you should read WP:COI before contributing. As far as what to cover, while I can't give you a specific page to look at, think of other generally related websites, and see what those articles cover. CTF83! 10:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
@CTF83!: Actually, {{db-u1}} should be used in userspace... --Mdann52talk to me! 11:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Mdann52! CTF83! 11:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

What happened to the GUI?[edit]

There used to be an option to edit with GUI, instead of dealing with all the markup. What happened to that? Beyondallmeaning (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I assume that you are talking about VisualEditor? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) VisualEditor was disabled by default at the English Wikipedia due to a lot of complaints about bugs and other issues. You can select "Enable VisualEditor" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I meant. Thanks. Beyondallmeaning (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


I don't think Casualism should be a redirect to Causalism. It is a completely different thing. See Wiktionary.--Shantavira|feed me 13:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest you post your reasons on Talk:Causalism. You could then write a new article over the redirect at Casualism. There seems to have been a brief discussion of the difference on Talk:Causalism back in 2007. Do you need any assistance in this process? DES (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Either WP:RfD or WP:AfD might be the way to go to figure this out. I posted a note on Talk:Causalism. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ytech International[edit]


Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ytech International

I submitted this page for review, but it was declined because of copyrighted information. All the work was original, so I'm wondering what was copyrighted so I can rectify and submit again. Thanks!

Wacurbelo (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If you click on the red link above, you will see an extract from the deletion log with more detail.--ukexpat (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It was deleted as a copyright infringement of and and It looks to be a matter of close paraphrasing rather than exact copying. (that was based on only the 1st of the three URLs.) The lead paragraph in particular is quite close. But even if there were no copyright issue, the former draft was quite promotional in tone and would not have been approved without significant rewriting I think. If you start a new draft, remember that all articles must be written from an neutral perspective objectively stating both favorable and unfavorable information that is supported by sources. Also, remember that discussion by (not mere mentions in) independent reliable sources is normally needed to establish notability. This excludes press releases, as well as blogs and other self-published sources. It also excludes simple directory listings. See the general notability guideline and the guideline for notability of corporations and organizations. DES (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep your head up Ben Howard[edit]

Keep Your Head Up (Ben Howard song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I represent Chris Bond who solely produced Keep you head up, Darren Lawson was not a producer but engineer on this recording. Please up date your records. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

the producer is not sourced in the article, the record company site does not list the producer either. I have removed the unsourced and challenged claims about who the producer was. if you can provide a reliable source either here or on the article talk page, the name of a producer can be re-added. As someone who has a conflict of interest, however, you should refrain from editing the article directly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
This says the Every Kingdom album was produced Chris Bond and that album includes the Keep Your Head Up song. That does not directly answer the question about the song Keep Your Head Up, but it does source the Every Kingdom album. I did not find support for Lawson as producer. I changed Every Kingdom.[2] -- Jreferee (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Dismay of Wikipedia[edit]

Royal Artillery Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Royal Artillery Mounted Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am the author of two articles: the Royal Artillery Band, and the Royal Artillery Mounted Band. I am unhappy about edits being made without the culprits first contacting me. Edits include not just text, but photographs. Some of these photographs are my own work, and therefore my own copyright. I have also received official permission to use other photographs, but it seems that Wikipedia does not recognize or accept permission.

My work is the result of over thirty years' research, and twenty-five years of experience in the organization about which I am writing. Few people living today have been in a position to carry out similar research in this field, and changes in the organization (Royal Artillery Band) mean that much of what I have included in these articles cannot be recalled, or experienced by other persons. Therefore, the history about which I have written is now almost impossible to research, and my documentation is unique.

I am regularly attempting to improve my articles in accordance with comments I receive, and whenever I find new information and facts which contradict prior findings, I edit these accordingly. However, Wikipedia don't seem to understand that such attention to detail is time-consuming, and that it is impossible to make all these adjustments straight away.

If my work continues to be interrupted like this, and edits are made without consulting me beforehand, I shall remove my articles completely from Wikipedia, and will refuse to support Wikipedia in any way, or to consult the website for any future research.

A great deal of my work has been published and printed by leading publishers over the years. Never, have I encountered the problems and difficulties which I have come to expect from Wikipedia. Regardless of your organization's worldwide acclaim, and recognition, I believe that you should seriously consider major improvements to the way you operate.

Yours faithfully,

Franck Leprince — Preceding unsigned comment added by FranckLeprince (talkcontribs) 17:03, 7 November 2013‎ (UTC)

While you may be dismayed, it may be that you did not read the big disclaimer on ever article editing page "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone".
You may also wish to see WP:OWN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Re your copyright photos: if you wish them to be used in Wikipedia, you must relinquish your sole copyrightprovide them under the appropriate free use licencing. Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
(To expand a bit on what Red Pen of Doom said) Hey, Mr. Leprince, we really appreciate your work. It's great to have subject-matter experts working on articles; it's a luxury we often don't have. But what you have to understand is that we really do try to stick to "the encyclopedia that anyone is allowed to edit" (obvious exceptions notwithstanding). Part of this ethos is that we allow people to edit articles that they didn't start. It's true that this gets us into trouble sometimes, since it means that people with less experience can edit things written by people with greater experience, but on the whole, it works decently well. So, the Wikipedia model stipulates that the articles you write and submit to Wikipedia are allowed to be (and inevitably will be) edited by others. It's just the nature of the beast. In fact, this is why our copyright policy is formulated the way it is: whenever you submit text to Wikipedia, you're releasing it under the terms of the CC-BY-SA and GDFL content licenses, which include the rule that anyone will be allowed to modify or redistribute your work without needing to ask permission. This is the gist of the text that appears above the "Save page" button on every page in Wikipedia. I'm sorry if this makes you unhappy, or if it makes you want to stop contributing to Wikipedia, but that's just the way it is, I'm afraid. (Just as a side note: the same licensing also means that we are not obligated to delete articles at the demand of the primary author.) I'm sorry you had a rough time of it, and I hope you'll have better experiences in the future, on or off Wikipedia. Thanks, Writ Keeper  17:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding copyright, the above post by TRPoD isn't strictly correct - you do not relinquish the copyright to uploaded photographs - it is however a condition of them being uploaded that you agree to others using them subject to the terms laid out here. If your images have been uploaded by others in breach of copyright, see here for the appropriate course of action. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
comment stricken ( although in practice, having freely licensed it to use by anyone is in essence the same effect as having relinquished having sole copyright).-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Not quite, you can still insist on proper attribution, and, at least in theory, sue infringers who fail to make such attribution. But you effectively lose most of the value of a copyright. DES (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Your sense of dismay is unfortunately not the first, but it seems unavoidable, since articles like this to some extent clash with Wikipedias policies and guidelines, if based on personal knowledge and own research. WP:EXPERT might help some if you want to keep working on the articles. Please do! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for your quick responses, but I now cannot regard Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia, and shall not waste my time any further. If Wikipedia disappears from the World Wide Web in the near future, it will not surprise me in the least. We are desperately in need of a trustworthy encyclopedia on the internet, and I am sure one will appear in time. I shall not be checking for further responses.

F. Leprince 07/11/13

Sorry that User:FranckLeprince is dismayed as the Royal Artillery Band has the basis of a really good article but it suffers from a lack of inline citations and at times an unencyclopedic style. I am sure if he stayed around and with some help and guidance from others the article could be improved, but without his help it may not be possible to attribute most of the text he has added and it may need to be pruned to reflect reliable sources. It helps to have experts around so it is a shame when they dont stay around to improve the encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree, it's sad that he's leaving. A number of editors have tried to discuss these issues with Franck on the article talk pages and on his user talk page, though, but without any replies that I can see, which has made the issues hard to resolve. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

link to category not working?[edit]

I added a colon into the link to Category:Astronomy Software at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astropy but it's still just putting the deletion discussion in the category.-- Brainy J ~~ (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a another mention of the category elsewhere in the debate, colon now added. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Changing a Page Title[edit]


I am trying to change our company name, from W. P. Carey & Co. LLC to W. P. Carey Inc. W. P. Carey in no longer an LLC as of October 1, 2012 when it began trading as a REIT instead of an LLC. I can only edit the page and not the title of the page. Currently, Wikipedia is displaying incorrect information. Please let me know how I can change.

Thank you, LBennett1227 (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Lauren Bennett Communications Associate W. P. Carey Inc.

A page title is changed with the "Move" function. This is available to confirmed or autoconfirmed users. A user becomes autoconfirmed when that user's account is at least 4 days old, and the user has made at least 10 edits. Users who are not confirmed can use the Requested moves process. DES (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
However it appears from your comments above that you have a Conflict of interest in regard to this article. In general you are discouraged from editing the page except to make obvious, sourced, non-controversial factual corrections. Otherwise, you should make suggestions on the talk page and allow other editors to adopt those suggestions, or not. DES (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
There is already a redirect with an intervening edit at W. P. Carey so this will require admin intervention.--ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
At present our article on the W. P. Carey firm is called W. P. Carey & Co. The term 'LLC' is not used in that article though it appears in a couple of redirects. The article already says that the firm is a REIT. Whether the firm is called 'Inc.' or 'Co.' doesn't seem very significant. If you have references that indicate a different name should be used for this company, you could provide them at Talk:W. P. Carey & Co. and let other editors make any needed changes. If the redirects that include 'LLC' need to be eliminated that can be requested at WP:Redirects for deletion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
In general, redirects at incorrect but plausible names, including former names, are a good thing, since they may help users to find the desired article. There may be exceptions to that general rule, of course. DES (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it is the "& Co" bit that's no longer part of the name, as per the website, and I see that OrangeMike has done the move.--ukexpat (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Help with information about Guillane Barre Syndrome[edit]

Hi, I am looking for some help. I am an Executive Director for the GBS-CIDP Foundation International. My Board has asked me to help get information to our patient and family base regarding all of the diseases that we touch. We are international and reach all around the world. There are a number of articles that have been written by some of the leading doctors in the world for the many disease types. I totally understand that our organization can not be listed as it would be self promoting, however these articles and books would be helpful to anyone trying to get information about our diseases. There are many. Any suggestions would be helpful. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktsingle (talkcontribs) 20:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I think discussing your ideas at WT:WikiProject Medicine would be a sensible approach. Editors specializing in medical topics are arguably the best people to assist you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Morrisburg Ontario[edit]

Dear editors: While checking through the old declined AfC articles, I came to the above article and was a little taken aback to find that someone had decided that this historic Canadian village shouldn't have an article. Instead it was to be lumped in with South Dundas Township, even though the village was a pioneer settlement and has at least 150 years of history before South Dundas came into existence through a government amalgamation. Morrisburg has its own newspaper, post office, and a famous pioneer village. Townships in Ontario are like counties in the US - they usually have a number of towns and villages, as well as agricultural areas, within them. In fact, every village, town and city in Ontario is or has been in a township. What process do I need to go through to reopen this so that Morrisburg can have an article? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I think this was a poor decline. One "dead" link needed a trivial adjustment to work, which I have made. I see multiple reliable sources as it stands. More could perhaps be found. Whether to merge is an editorial decision, but I see no discussion of it in talk:South Dundas, Ontario so I have no idea where the reviewer found the "consensus" to merge. in any case consensus can change, and almost none of the information from this draft is currently in the South Dundas article. DES (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
However, two of the inline cites now lead to pages that do not give any specific info about Morrisvile, and one is a dead link. Ideally someone should look through the general references for additional relevant information (if any is to be found) and for proper inline cites.
Anyone can submit this for re-review at any time. It need not get the same reviewer. While this isn't ideal as it stands now, i think I would pass it with minimal update, and leave it to other editors to consider a merge or not as they pleased. Or, of course, anyone could simply move it to mainspace and remove the AfC templates, that is always permitted. DES (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. I am tied up right now with checking the G13s (Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue, but if I can get a little ahead with that I will fix this one up myself. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Moving it to article space is fine. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I have done a lot of work on it now, so I feel more comfortable submitting it and letting someone else move it. Thanks for the advice. There are a lot of interesting articles like this among the stale drafts, but also a lot of hopeless cases. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I tried moving it to mainspace, but I'm pretty sure I fouled it up. Right now the information is at Wikipedia talk:Morrisburg Ontario, Can someone please salvage and the resulting page should be Morrisburg, Ontario. There is no comma in the way that it is named.Naraht (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It should be at Morrisburg, Ontario per naming conventions, but that page is a redirect to South Dundas, Ontario. The redirect was originally an article with an edit history going back to 2004, so I think the appropriate course is to undo the redirect and edit the old text of the article to update it with material from the draft, assuming of course that it is in fact the same place.--ukexpat (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That would lose the attributions for the edits to the draft, which involve multiple editors. The proper way forward is a history merge, i think. I will do one. DES (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done see Morrisburg, Ontario now. and check the history. DES (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)