Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1036: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:31, 4 December 2019

Revision as of 06:16, 5 December 2019

Line 139:

I am working on the draft [[Draft:Markov constant (Diophantine approximation)]]. It was declined 10 days ago, and I changed (quite a lot of) wording. However, I asked something else at the Teahouse and the people still think my article is too technical. So can anyone kindly help me to improve my draft? I prefer a user excelling in mathematics. [[User:數神|數神]] ([[User talk:數神|talk]]) 03:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

: Hi {{u|數神}}. If you prefer {{tq|a user excelling in mathematics}}, you might want to try asking at [[:WT:MATH]] since that's where you're likely to find other editors interested in mathematics. You might also want to try [[:Talk:Markov number]] since that seems similar in content to the draft you're working on. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 04:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

== Birth name: [[Candy Darling]] ==

Not sure if this is a Teahouse or Help Desk question; but - the Warhol actress [[Candy Darling]] was born James Lawrence Slattery. "He" later became a transsexual so the pronouns in her article are "she" - which is appropriate. But there is not one mention of his birth name in the lede, infobox or article. Is this proper encyclopedic entry writing? Thanks in advance. [[User:Maineartists|Maineartists]] ([[User talk:Maineartists|talk]]) 03:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

:Hello and welcome [[User:Maineartists|Maineartists]]! If properly sourced, a treatment similar to [[Chelsea Manning]] in the lead might be appropriate. In [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_120#Clarifying/updating_WP:BIRTHNAME_with_respect_to_MOS:IDENTITY|this discussion]] we decided that ''birth names of trans and non-binary people should only be included in their articles' lead sentences if the people were notable prior to coming out''. I'm not familiar with the case of Darling specifically but hopefully this guidance is helpful. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 04:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

::Thank you: [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] for pointing out the WP policy. Of course, to me this is absolutely ridiculous and exclusive to "trans" and "non-binary" as opposed to anyone else who simply changes their names and becomes famous after the fact: [[Irving Berlin| Irving Berlin / Israel Isidore Beilin]], [[Al Jolson| Al Jolson / Asa Yoelson]] etc, etc, etc. Why on earth should trans, non-binary or anyone else exceptional to the rule be given special treatment here at WP? [[User:Maineartists|Maineartists]] ([[User talk:Maineartists|talk]]) 04:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

:::Hi {{u|Maineartists}}. The [[:WP:RFC]] cited above by Chetsford seemed to be fairly well participated as RFCs go, but it was also something discussed back in 2015. There's nothing wrong with seeking further clarification or even seeking that the situation be reassessed since a [[:WP:CCC|consensus can change over time]]. The best place for you to probably further discuss this would be at [[:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography]] since that seems to be the relevant guideline for this type of thing; however, if you do, try to keep "[[:Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]" in mind and avoid jumping to the conclusion that those who participated in that previous discussion who were in favor of the change just had to be doing so for the [[:WP:NOTHERE|wrong reasons]]. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 05:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

:::You may have a valid point, though I haven't given the matter much study so can't offer an informed opinion one way or the other. I think [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] offers excellent advice as to possible next-steps, however. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 05:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

::::Note also, {{U|Chetsford}}, that the 2015 discussion linked above dealt '''only''' with wheather to include the birth or pre-transition name '''in the lead sentence'''. It did not so much as mention the question of whether to incldue it later in the articel, yet most of the arguments for keeping nit out of the lead sentence or lead section would also apply to keeping the old name entirely out of the article. That really should be more clarly settled. Further discussion may be needed, as Marchjuly suggests boive. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|_{DESiegel Contribs}]] 06:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Maineartists }} [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|_{DESiegel Contribs}]] 06:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

:::::Correct! [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 07:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

== Language translation ==

Is it possible to translate English Wikipedia article in another language you do not speak or understand? If yes, how do I do it <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Akgideens|Akgideens]] ([[User talk:Akgideens#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Akgideens|contribs]]) 10:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{ping|Akgideens}} Welcome to the Teahouse. I am not sure I fully understand the question - are you looking to translate a Wikipedia article into another language to help you read it? If so, you have two options really: The first would be to see if the page exists in another Wikipedia in your language, just visit the [https://www.wikipedia.org/ home page] to see all the options. However, that page may not be a direct translation of the English page, as generally each Wikipedia is written by different volunteers. Option 2 is just to put the page into Google Translate, simply to help you read it. But I am a bit puzzled by why you say you want to translate a page into a language you ''do not'' speak? Why would you want to do that? If what you are asking is how to translate a page from English into another language, it will be down to the policies of the other language Wikipedia. For example, if you are translating into French, you would need to go to the French Wikipedia and find out what their rules are - for example would they accept a machine translation (i.e. through Google translate). It seems unwise to get involved in that if you don't speak the language, though. Maybe if you can explain more about why you ask the question, I can give better advice. [[User:Hugsyrup|<i style="background-color: Blue; color:#FFE">Hug</i>]]^{[[User_talk:Hugsyrup|syrup]]} 11:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

== Withdrawing AfC of new content for now-moved page? ==

I've been wanting to improve an article originally titled Sacred Heart Preparatory (Atherton, California), and my first step was to propose a move to the more accurate title of [[Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton]]. The move request was unopposed and so, at the end of 7 days, an uninvolved editor moved it over{{snd}}apparently a few hours ago.

In parallel, I've been working on improving the content, [[Draft:Sacred_Heart_Schools,_Atherton |a draft of which]] I also submitted for AfC review about a week ago. It sounds like it can take up to six months to get these reviews completed, though, and because the new title isn't all that consistent with the more limited scope of the old content, I'd like to hasten the process. Can I just move the content over, [[Be bold |boldly]] and in sections, via copy and paste (but plowing over its history, sparse and stale though it may be, in the process)? If so, what do I do with the request for review? [[User:Ottoump|Ottoump]] ([[User talk:Ottoump|talk]]) 08:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

:Maybe it's not really plowing over the history as much as radically appending it? [[User:Ottoump|Ottoump]] ([[User talk:Ottoump|talk]]) 08:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

::{{u|Ottoump}}, I have declined the submission as a duplicate. You can bring the text from there and improve the article. Take it slow when you radically alter an article. Start a talk page discussion about what you intend to do, have done, are doing. Make one or two bold expansions, and wait a few days to see if anyone objects and/or reverts. If someone does, discuss it with them. If no one does, continue. That would be my advice. <b>[[User:Usedtobecool|<i><span style="color:#b9272b">Usedtobecool</span></i>]]&nbsp;^{<small>[[User talk:Usedtobecool|<span style="color:#080">TALK</span>]]</small>}&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Usedtobecool|✨]]</b> 08:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

::{{u|Usedtobecool}}{{snd}}that's excellent. Thank you. Do you know how long I have before the draft is deleted? Can I move it back over to my sandbox, as a staging area? [[User:Ottoump|Ottoump]] ([[User talk:Ottoump|talk]]) 08:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

:::{{u|Ottoump}}, you have six months before it will be considered for deletion. You will be notified when that happens. Yes, you can move it back to your userspace. <b>[[User:Usedtobecool|<i><span style="color:#b9272b">Usedtobecool</span></i>]]&nbsp;^{<small>[[User talk:Usedtobecool|<span style="color:#080">TALK</span>]]</small>}&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Usedtobecool|✨]]</b> 08:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

::::Thank you. Good to know.

Hello, {{u|Ottoump}}. To clarify, the AfC process is ''only'' for a new article about a topic not currently the subject of a Wikipedia article. It is not appropriate to submit drafts of rewrites of existing articles to AfC. The best way to improve an existing article is through a series of incremental changes to that article, explained clearly through edit summaries and talk page discussion. Massive rewrites all in one fell swoop are often controversial, and are sometimes perceived as disrespectful to the previous editors who have worked on the article over the years. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 08:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

:Thank you, {{u|Cullen328}}. In retrospect, I see how that makes sense. I'll proceed incrementally, and use the talk page to make it clear what's going on. [[User:Ottoump|Ottoump]] ([[User talk:Ottoump|talk]]) 12:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

== Editing a Contentious page ==

Hi there,

I just made a small edit to a page in the field of Politics (the page not the edit!). I debated whether I should make the edit for the past day or two, even though it is a tiny edit and is really a "houskeeping/admin" type edit. I had this internal debate, not because I imagine the edit to be problematic, but because the subject matter of the page is one that provokes strongly-held views.

The specific edit is that I marked the page Militant (Trotskyist group) as being in the category "Labour Party (UK) factions", but my question goes to the general case... Is there a way to mark an edit for independent review for such very small edits? Or, should I just go ahead and make them and see what happens?

I would love to know what is the correct etiquette. I don't want to waste anybody's time with unnecessary reviews.

Any help appreciated.

Paul <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Paul Dublin|Paul Dublin]] ([[User talk:Paul Dublin#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paul Dublin|contribs]]) 11:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

[[User:Paul Dublin|Paul Dublin]] ([[User talk:Paul Dublin|talk]]) 13:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

:Hello, {{U|Paul Dublin}}. No there is not exactly any facility to mark a specific edit as needing review. A few pages have a form of protection known as "pending changes", where '''every''' chnge by an editor without special rights is reviewwed before it goes live. More commonly, people may be using a personal watchlist to be notified of changes to a particualr articlewor page of interest, and may then choose to reveiw any such change.

:The steps you shoulkd take are: 1) include an [[Help:Edit summary|Edit summary]] with each edit, explaining what you are doing, such as "add ctegory" (or "+ cat") for the edit you describe. 2) If you think the edit might be at all controversial, you can also post to the article talk page, explaining at greater length what you are doing and why you think it is a good idea. Usually adding a category does not rquire that, unless the category is controversial. 3) When adding or changing factual statements, be sure to have the support of [[WP:RS|reliable sourcves]], and in all but the most obvious cases [[WP:CITE|cite them]] in the article. See [[WP:REFB|referencing for Beginners]] for how to do citatioins in various styles. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|_{DESiegel Contribs}]] 13:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

::Hello, {{U|DESiegel}}. Thank you for the prompt response and sound advice. To be honest, part of my concern was that it is exactly those users with strongly-held views that have the pages on a personal watchlist!

::I appreciate you taking the time for me and will do as you say and also post to the talk page when I feel I may be straying into controversial territory.

[[User:Paul Dublin|Paul Dublin]] ([[User talk:Paul Dublin|talk]]) 14:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

== Is Dr Rosie Knowles notable enough to have a Wikipedia page written about her yet? ==

She is an award winning speaker and the author of Why Babywearing Matters published by Pinter & Martin. She is in demand as a public speaker in the Babywearing world. Last week she was the main subject of a yahoo news report. She has previously been interview on BBC TV and Radio. Her Carrying Matters project focusses on the importance and benefits of carrying babies for good mental health for the parent and carrier. She is a citation in an article about "Baby Transport" on Wikipedia.

https://www.carryingmatters.co.uk/about-rosie/

https://www.pinterandmartin.com/why-babywearing-matters

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cuddling-babies-helps-them-grow-into-confident-adults-expert-says-110915366.html?soc_src=community&soc_trk=ma

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_transport

Any thoughts about whether she should be included yet would be welcome. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Robekn|Robekn]] ([[User talk:Robekn#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Robekn|contribs]]) 14:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{ping|Robekn}} It's difficult to come to a general assessment about whether an individual is notable enough to have an article about them without doing substantial research of my own, but what I can say is that your sources are not sufficient to establish her notability. Carrying Matters appears to be her own website, so is not [[WP:INDEPENDENT|independent]]; Pinter and Martin is a shop stocking her book - not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]; the Yahoo article quotes her in order to support reporting on another topic, but the article is not ''about'' her, so this is not significant coverage of Knowles (the same would probably go for her BBC interviews); and of course Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source - nor does the fact that her book is used as a citation elsewhere make her notable in her own right. [[User:Hugsyrup|<i style="background-color: Blue; color:#FFE">Hug</i>]]^{[[User_talk:Hugsyrup|syrup]]} 14:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

:Also, are you by any chance Rosie Knowles, or do you know her well? If so, please just check out our policy on [[WP:COI|editing with a conflict of interest]]. [[User:Hugsyrup|<i style="background-color: Blue; color:#FFE">Hug</i>]]^{[[User_talk:Hugsyrup|syrup]]} 14:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for your reply. She is actually my wife and I'm aware of the conflict of interest issue. I hope in the future she'll become more notable and someone will consider creating a page for her. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Robekn|Robekn]] ([[User talk:Robekn#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Robekn|contribs]]) 14:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{u|Robekn}} I would note that Wikipedia has '''articles''', not mere "pages". This is a subtle but important distinction. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

== Academic profile ==

Hello,

I am trying to publish my academic profile as independent researcher on wikipedia.

I have listed notably commissions and publications.

Unfortunately, publishing the article has prompted a speedy deletion.

please advise in how I might improve my article?

best...

mark <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:DrPilk|DrPilk]] ([[User talk:DrPilk#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DrPilk|contribs]]) 16:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not here for [[WP:promotion|promotion]]. Please read the advice against trying to create an [[WP:autobiography|autobiography]]. --[[User:David Biddulph|David Biddulph]] ([[User talk:David Biddulph|talk]]) 16:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

::Hello {{U|DrPilk}}. Your deleted sandbox draft [[User:DrPilk/sandbox]] read in many ways like a resume, combines with a brochure or personal profile from a personal web site. It does not [[WP:CITE|cite]] any [[WP:IS|independent]] published [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Those are key to making a Wikipedia article work. Text such as {{tqqi|The music reflects the emotion of electronic sound made with analogue and digital synthesisers its angular with strangely warm melodies, thoughtfully syncopated rhythms, noise textures to pushing beyond the conventions of techno and ambient music.}} do not belong in a Wikipedia articel except perhaps as a quotation attributed and cires to a named person or entity. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|_{DESiegel Contribs}]] 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

== is wiki going down ==

I heard that wiki needs money because it will soon go down is that true. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Txgjayjay|Txgjayjay]] ([[User talk:Txgjayjay#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Txgjayjay|contribs]]) 19:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{u|Txgjayjay}} Unless you have a media report to the contrary, I'm not aware of any financial issues that the Wikimedia Foundation has that are as dire as putting Wikipedia at risk. As a nonprofit, it does operate on donations, but there isn't a particular or extraordinary need for them at this time. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

:: Welcome to the Teahouse, {{u|Txgjayjay}}. You are welcome to donate money to the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] if you wish. However, the foundation had income of over US $100 million in 2018 and has an endowment of about US $35 million. It is not in imminent financial danger. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 19:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

== References ==

So do references mean that the whole article we cite is about what we put the reference on <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tysaurasrex|Tysaurasrex]] ([[User talk:Tysaurasrex#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tysaurasrex|contribs]]) 19:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Hello, {{U|Tysaurasrex}}, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, a cited reference does not need to about the point it is cited for and nothing else. It should contain information that supports one or more statements in an article. If it is unclear exactly what information is being cited, and if citation templates are being used, the {{para|quote}} parameter can be used to include a short quotation showing exactly what language supports the statement. If the source is a book, PDF or other paginated source, a page number (or numbers) should be specified to help locate the exact part of the source which supports the statements in the article. See [[WP:CITE|citing sources]] and [[WP:REFB|Referencing for Beginners]] for more on how to use citations to sources. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|_{DESiegel Contribs}]] 20:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

== How to report editors that censor Wikipedia- How to block governmental control of information ==

Hello Wiki Community,

There have been ongoing protests in Iran and over 400 killed. The Islamic Republic blocked the internet for a week so the news are not leaked outside. Some users are actively deleting pages that contain information about the protests. Is there a way to resist such governmental supported efforts to block the control of information? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Esmomen|Esmomen]] ([[User talk:Esmomen#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Esmomen|contribs]]) 19:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Welcome to the Teahouse, {{u|Esmomen}}. Please provide the exact names of the specific articles that have been altered or deleted. Please consider filing a detailed report at the [[WP:ANI|Administrators noticeboard/Incidents]] [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 20:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

::The most relevant article appears to be [[2019 Iranian protests]] which has extensive information about the protests, the casualties, and the efforts of the Iranian government to suppress and conceal the facts. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 20:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

== Hi. ==

Hi. How can I edit at least 6-month-old articles? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Sponge333|Sponge333]] ([[User talk:Sponge333#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sponge333|contribs]]) 19:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: {{re|Sponge333}} With the exception of a small number of protected articles, you should be able to edit any article in the encyclopedia. Check out [[WP:TUTORIAL]] and [[WP:ADVENTURE]] to learn how. [[User:RudolfRed|RudolfRed]] ([[User talk:RudolfRed|talk]]) 20:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

:: {{re|Sponge333}} Indeed; there isn't any age-of-article based limitations on editing. Some articles may be protected for periods of time, but that isn't based on the age of the article or when it was created. If you want to edit a protected article and cannot, you should make an [[WP:ER|edit request]] on the article talk page. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 20:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

== Judging grounds for reverting articles. ==

One editor has frequently criticised my writing as appropriate for academic papers but not for encyclopedia articles. He reverted my "Fact-value distinction" on the following grounds (without discussion on talk page): "22 May 2018‎ 131.111.185.45 0‎ Recent changes have turned this article into an essay. Reverted to previous version which represents a better starting point for a comprehensive re-writing." Are there any WP protocols or definitions to which I can appeal against these arbitrary definitions and actions? Thanks.[[User:TBR-qed|TBR-qed]] ([[User talk:TBR-qed|talk]]) 22:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

:{{u|TBR-qed}}, I see multiple reviews about your edits on the article's talk page. The IP has a point, but the editors who left you their thoughts on the talk page opined that your edits were generally helpful and only had some issues in need of addressing. One of them even linked two pages which they said would help an editor understand what makes an article more like an essay and less like a summary of what sources say. Why not first ask them there, whether they too agree with the wholesale revert, or would they be ok with restoring your edits and letting you work on improving it further to address theirs and the reverting IP's concerns?

:

:Back to your original question, the burden would be on the asserting editor to show that their argument is per policy and guidelines. So, it is they who need to say what exactly, per policy, do they mean when they say it has turned into an essay. Usually the most likely answer to that would be [[WP:NOTESSAY]], and the elaboration on how your contributions might veer into the essay territory and how you can fix that would be in those two pages that were linked for you by one of the editors who reviewed your work on that article. According to [[WP:BRD]], when your [[WP:BOLD]] edit is Reverted, you should initiate a talk page discussion as a productive alternative to rereverting and starting an edit war. Thus, the recommended course of action is to ask the IP why exactly they reverted, and what they mean when they say the article has turned into an essay. Could they provide a few specific examples and explain how they could be written better or not written at all? Etcetera. Hope this helps! <b>[[User:Usedtobecool|<i><span style="color:#b9272b">Usedtobecool</span></i>]]&nbsp;^{<small>[[User talk:Usedtobecool|<span style="color:#080">TALK</span>]]</small>}&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Usedtobecool|✨]]</b> 23:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

== Nat Turner ==

The talk pages for [[Nat Turner]] and [[Nat Turner's slave rebellion]] both seem to have come to a consensus that the two articles should be merged. I would like to take a stab at taking the best content from both articles and consolidating it to a single article but I'm not sure how to get started. Should I copy / paste from Nat Turner to Nat Turner's Slave Rebellion or is there a more elegant way tool to merge the articles? If there are step by step instructions for merging articles and setting up the redirect that would be especially helpful. [[User:MarylandGeoffrey|MarylandGeoffrey]] ([[User talk:MarylandGeoffrey|talk]]) 02:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

: {{Re|MarylandGeoffrey}} Is [[WP:MERGE]] helpful? <span style="color:red">—[</span>[[User:AlanM1|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:green">Alan</span><span style="color:blue">M</span><span style="color:purple">1</span>]]([[User talk:AlanM1#top|talk]])<span style="color:red">]—</span> 03:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That is the guidance I was looking for. Apologies if everyone already knows that process, I'm a fairly new editor. [[User:MarylandGeoffrey|MarylandGeoffrey]] ([[User talk:MarylandGeoffrey|talk]]) 03:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

:Hello, {{U|MarylandGeoffrey}}, and welcome to the Teahouse. [[WP:MERGE]] is the right guideline, (IMO) but before proceeding you might want to consider addressing the arguments of {{U|GuzzyG }} opposing the merge, and consider seeking a wider consensus. [[Nat Turner's slave rebellion]] is a '''very''' significant historical event, and [[Nat Turner]] a central figure in that event, who is very widely known and has been much written about, althoguh the basic data available is quite limited. The points of those favoring a merge are not invalid, but this is a case to move with care in my veiw. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|_{DESiegel Contribs}]] 06:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

::I think a discussion is essential because it'll fundamentally change how we treat rebellion biographies. There's tons of articles of figures like [[Pemulwuy]] that are in the same situation. I think a rule that was meant to keep reality tv show and beauty pageant contestants from all having a article is bad to apply to historical rebellions. They're highly significant events and as the central figure responsible the leaders should get a pass; even if the information is relatively similar. Britannica has it's article on Nat Turner himself. There's not much information known with [[Spartacus]] beyond the rebellion too, should we merge him for example? Where do we draw the line? [[User:GuzzyG|GuzzyG]] ([[User talk:GuzzyG|talk]]) 06:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Since this appears more controversial than I thought, I'm not going to take any action until a consensus is reached. [[User:MarylandGeoffrey|MarylandGeoffrey]] ([[User talk:MarylandGeoffrey|talk]]) 05:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)