Talk:AFN Bremerhaven

REF Article: AFN Bremerhaven Why do I keep getting this notation?: "This article should be divided into sections by topic, to make it more accessible" when the article is divided into sections and has been for some time? Is this division not done correctly? If not, what's wrong? I've tried, I believe, to follow the format provided by Wikipedia in making these divisions.

Also, attempts to add links to US government sites that provided references/info to that contained in the article (which is about a former US government entity) are repeatedly removed. Are only "print" sources allowed to be used as references; must links only be to other Wikipedia entries? I'm seen some of the same links used as reference on other Wikipedia entries with no "violation notation," and they have not been removed. Others, have a notice, but have been still posted for several years. Is this an oversight, or just that some of these links/references on submissions have not been "caught"?

In the "Categories" area, categories are found and copied directly as listed in the Wikipedia listing, but when added, they appear in "red" and indicate that that page or category does not exist. Does this indicated that the page/category no longer exists, even though the page/category "name" still appears in the Wikipedia listing?

I'm new at this, but, at best, I'm finding this lack of consistency or uniformity from entry to entry confusing. What some seem to be able to do or have included in various long-existing articles is not valid or allowed on some newer entries depending on the date of submission or the reviewing editor(s). TucsonTerp76 (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again TucsonTerp76. Notices like the "should be divided into sections" one (often called "tags") need to be removed manually.  Fixing the problem does not automatically remove the tag.  An editor has to see that the tag no longer applies and remove it themselves (as I've just done with the sections tag).


 * If the links you're talking about are the YouTube links you added, they were reverted by a bot, a computer program. In this case, the bot is designed to revert additions by new user of links to YouTube and other often-misused sites.  I'm sure you had no intention of causing harm, but the bot reverted anyway.


 * Now, as far as sources go. Sources can be print or non-print so long as they meet Wikipedia's guidelines.  The general gist is that the sources need editorial oversight and fact-checking.  User-submitted sites such as YouTube are rarely good sources.


 * You've said you saw other articles that are using sources that have been removed from your article. That's entirely possible.  There are over 4.5 million articles on English Wikipedia, and the number of active editors is somewhere in the thousands.  Pages with problems can go unnoticed for a long time before they're fixed.  New articles like yours get more scrutiny simply because they're newer.  Edits to the page attract the attention of user who watch the Recent Changes.  The old articles are not being edited, and aren't as visible.  Of course, if you see a page with a problem you could fix, you're welcome to do so.


 * Finally, could you perhaps give an example of a category or categories that show up in red? I can think of a couple different things that might cause that.


 * I hope this helps answer your questions. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)