Talk:Brookings, Oregon

Climate data

The climate data needs to be reviewed. Celsius conversions are wrong for some of the months.--IoanC (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Katr67 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Azalea Park

"Azalea Park" is using this page to advertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.178.58 (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This page reads like an advertisement

I have removed and reworded a few sections to remove advertisement like content. I really wish people didn't use Wikipedia that way. :/ 68.33.74.34 (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced content

@Sea Cow: If I find sources for some of that content, can I re-add it? KJ7RRV (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes.Sea Cow (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. KJ7RRV (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sea Cow: How do my edits look? KJ7RRV (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

They all have sources, which is great. But per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources aren't great, which is what you mostly provided. They can work in the meantime, but secondary are going to be better. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. So I should look for secondary sources before I add more content?

Also, what is the purpose of if unsourced content can simply be removed? --KJ7RRV (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

If you can find it, yes. If you can't find a secondary source, and you think that the given subject is worthy enough to be in the article, a primary can suffice, as long as there is no obvious strong bias to the included content. Editors opt to use the CN tag on their own accord. I personally don't believe in it, as for to long things go unsourced, and you see those tags dating back to 2007, having unsourced content sit around does nobody any good. Sea Cow (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to comment out unsourced content, so it doesn't show up but it's still there if someone wants to find a source? KJ7RRV (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Just use the CN tag if you want to go that route. Sea Cow (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. --KJ7RRV (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)