Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 September 22

= September 22 =

New article is invisible to internet/Google searches, even after approval and categorization
I created Cannon Beach Christian Conference Center two weeks ago and it remains invisible to search engines. How do I fix this? It's easier to find the logo image than the article. Zero results and only bots viewing the page 1-2/day. Other articles I have created become visible and searchable almost immediately, so I must be doing something wrong. Rename the article? Thanks! Luke Kindred (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * New articles are not indexed by search engines until they have been reviewed, or for 90 days, whichever is the shorter period. There are currently over 5,000 pages awaiting review. Please be patient. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand, respect the backlog. and have also tried to help (as much as I can under 500 edits). But seeing that another page I created less than two hours ago was already reviewed and now appears in search results I am starting to believe that the system is failing somehow or revealing some kind of bias against religious / Christian themed articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Kindred (talk • contribs) 07:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, . Reviews are not done in chronological order.  Reviewers are volunteers with some expertise in referencing and in WP:Notability.  They review articles in any order, and thus, I suspect, there is a bias, but it is not against religion.  The bias will be towards articles that have independent references in WP:Reliable sources.  If most of the references are to the subject's own website or to brief mentions in "trade magazines" and local papers, then notability in the Wikipedia sense will be borderline, and reviewers might choose to review another article.  The difficulty may be compounded by the fact that some of your references are unavailable on-line to some reviewers for legal reasons, There is no deadline in Wikipedia.  While you are waiting for review, you are free to find and add better references.   Dbfirs  07:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Léonce Ndikumana. Born: 1959
My birth date on Wikipedia is incorrect. It should be 1959, not 1950.

The bio page should read:

Born: 1959 (age 60 years), Burundi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:180:8200:5060:cd79:c077:93a6:11be (talk • contribs) 22 September 2019 03:12 (UTC)
 * Hello, I cannot see a DoB in the article? However, Google search results do show a DoB. Google draws information from many sources and often displays it in a way that implies it comes from Wikipedia. We have no control over what Google displays. There is a feedback link at the foot of the panel in the search results. For future reference, requests should be made at the article talk page. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is requested that a DoB be added to the page, it will require a reliable source. Eagleash (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The WikiData page had 1950, referencing a a VIAF page. But I can't see any birth date on that page, so have removed the birth date from WikiData. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks John, it completely 'slipped my mind' to look at Wikidata. Eagleash (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea
Dear Sir and Madam,

I would like to tell you this article isn't correct. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_Korea

I'll attach pictures why these sentences are wrong. Japanese government taught Korean language in the schools during war time. Here's textbooks what students used for back then.

Please remove these sentences if you see the truth and right organization. And, please do not accept pro-JP opinions. Most of them don't use any evidences such as I attached pictures.



Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usagidot (talk • contribs) 09:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, . The place to discuss this is on the talk page Talk:Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_Korea. But I would caustion you that Wikipedia doesn't accept original research: to carry your argument you will need to find reliable secondary sources which put forward the argument you want to make. I also suspect that the images you have uploaded are copyright violations: the photos may be your own work, but the originals are surely not. --ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The penalty of death claim sounds extreme. It was added by an IP in 2007.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_Korea&diff=next&oldid=168890745] I have removed it [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_Korea&diff=917130035&oldid=916851530] and restored "formally" about the language ban from an editor who has apparently read the source.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=139749823] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply, I am a new to Wikipedia, so I misunderstood where to ask. I'll check secondary sources. Then, I'll put something on the right page. However, as you might know, it is not easy to find out documents in English for back then. I guess it wouldn't be not English sources if I show you next time. Perhaps, people who edit wikipedia on this page use some kind of documents, but I think they use it what were not written in around 1945. There are a lot of errors if it was written recently. Especially if the sources are books. Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usagidot (talk • contribs) 22:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You can use sources in any language. Also, remember to sign your messages by typing four tildes. Best wishes. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Are Bible translations primary or secondary sources?
- are translations of the Bible considered primary or secondary sources? - I couldn't find anything in the guidelines - a new editor is claiming that Bible translations are peer-reviewed scholarly works and therefore reliable secondary published sources - Epinoia (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * They are primary sources. "Examples of primary sources include [...] religious scripture". Would recommend finding a quote from the scholarly sources cited to settle this. (Link to discussion in question) – Thjarkur (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * - thanks, that's clear - but sometimes translators make comments about why a particular passage was translated in a certain way and this commentary is printed with the text - would those commentaries by the translators be considered primary sources (as part of the translation) or secondary sources? - Epinoia (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * - my gut feeling on this is that if the commentary is published with the text as line notes or footnotes, then it would count a primary because it is part of the translation process, but if the commentary is published in a separate volume, then it would be considered a secondary source - does that make sense? - is there a guideline on this? - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding a New Interview
Can this background interview by Mike Foldes, managing editor, please be added to References of Carol Smallwood entry? It provides information that volunteers have said was lacking so far; I was advised not to enter anything myself.

September-October 2019; Volume 15 Number 5 https://www.ragazine.cc/smallwood-interview/

Carol Smallwood (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject says about herself, but instead it wants published reliable secondary sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about placing repetitive footnotes in a Wikitable
If I want to place a "footnote" at the bottom of a Wikitable, I use the following code within the Wikitable: for example,   . Then, at the bottom of the Wikitable, I place the code that says:  . This will then "number" all of the footnotes (with letters, actually) as footnote A, B, C, D, E, F, etc. My question: what is the way to make several entries have the same exact footnote, without having to have that same exact footnote repeated several times? So, in the above example (footnotes A, B, C, D, E, and F) ... what if footnotes A, C, and E were the same exact footnote (and I did not want it to be repeated three times)? What I'd essentially have, then, is footnote A, B, A again, C, A again, and D. Is there a way to do this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * If you read Template:efn-ua you will see that it says: " supports |name= and |group=, which work the same as the parameters in . Do not enclose values in quotes."  If you don't know how |name works in references, please read WP:REFNAME.  --David Biddulph (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I read both links.  I can't make heads or tails of any of that.  Can you offer an example of how it would work?  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is an example in one of my "Sandbox" pages: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page125. At the top of the page is my ORIGINAL table. At the bottom of the page is a section for MODIFICATIONS to the original table. In this table, I have three separate footnotes (Footnotes D, E, and F). They all say the same exact thing. Is there some way to make those last three films still each have a footnote listed in the "Notes" column ... but that the footnote text itself is only listed once at the bottom of the table (instead of repeating the same Note three times)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I guess what I am saying is this. I want the last three films (film number 23, 24, and 25) to each have a Footnote "D" ... and that there be no Footnote E or F.   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The examples (with markup) in the documentation at Template:efn-ua seemed clear to me. I have updated your sandbox example accordingly.  --David Biddulph (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks!  Exactly what I was looking to do.  Thank you!  (P.S. I find that computer code documentation on Wikipedia is very hard to follow, unless you already know what you are doing.)   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for all of your help!  Much appreciated!      Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)