Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 August 3

Help desk
< August 2	<< Jul | August | Sep >>	August 4 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation 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.

August 3

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Funicular pain

Hi. I've resubmitted the article. It was declined because I only cite one source. I've read the verifiability policy and the reliable sources policy carefully. The source I use is reliable, and it confirms every word of the article. The verifiability policy doesn't say anything about needing more than one source.

I shall over time add to the article diagnostic methods and treatment options. When I do that I will be using different sources. But I'm still studying the topic so it may be several months before I'm confident about proceeding with that. Can the article please go public now, since the topic is not covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia and the description is verifiable? --Med Dude (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it may be verifiable, but if only one source ever used the term, it's probably not notable. More sources are needed to confirm that this is an actual term used outside of the one study. Howicus (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It's commonly used in the literature - journals and textbooks - and in the pain clinic. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Funicular+pain%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22Funicular+pain%22 Med Dude (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Then add some of those as sources, to show that it's a notable term. Howicus (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would I add more sources that say exactly the same thing to the article? If that is Wikipedia policy, can you show it to me please? I'd like to know how that could be possibly justified.

Thank you, by the way, to the person who published the article for me! Med Dude (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is the general notability guideline: It requires "significant coverage" in reliable sources, and a single article is not considered significant enough to satisfy that criterion. Besides, I doubt all those journal articles would say exactly the same things about funicular pain. Huon (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That page doesn't say you need to cite multiple sources, it just says multiple sources are generally expected to address the topic. Also, all I'm comfortable saying about this notable topic at the moment is a simple description of the thing. That can be found in numerous reliable sources but I'm not going to cite more than one source for that because it would be redundant. I will get back to the article with more about diagnosis, management and treatment once I feel confident about that. Med Dude (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/WITS_-_Water_Industry_Telemetry_Standard

I've had this article rejected as its "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. ". This is the 1st article I've written so I'm not too suprised by this, but I am unsure what I need to do.

I am on the committee of the 'standard' that this article is about so I have written about our work and what the WITS protocol is for. I guess I could more strongly reference the underlying standard in some way ?!?! ( DNP3 ) or is it that I need to reference things that mention WITS ? for example, this page here http://www.dnp.org/Pages/NamespacesDefault.aspx directly mentions and links to our standard - is that something I should use ??

Any help appreciated. Vtgav (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles or reputable trade magazines discussing these standards. The committee's own reports are not independent sources, and random websites like your above link are not subject to editorial oversight and are not considered reliable. Huon (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'm addressing this now with a number of references in Trade material that I have found. As an aside, the reference I did use was not random, it was a link to the DNP3 standards organisation which WITS is based on and the page linked was to demonstrate the formal relationship between the DNP3 standard WITS. Vtgav (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Why my page is not yet accepted?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Silver

Dear Reviewer, I submitted a page on Wikipedia entitled Daniel Silver, which has been rejected on the 26th of July since it didn't have enough sources. So I resubmitted it again with more links and references, the same amount of links and references I found in similar pages, by it hasn't been reviewed yet and I was wondering what is wrong with it. Thanks for your help

Valentina3000 (Valentina3000 (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC))

Removing the template removed the ability to resubmit it. However, the article is still weak. If you can find more references from independent sources, by all means add them. LionMans Account (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Hawks (band)

I was wondering where I can go to get information on how to place a "band stat" text box in this article similar to the ones I have seen on other artists pages? The one I'm referring to is located on the top right side of the page and contains artist name, dates active, members, etc. Thanks!THX1136 (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for Template:Infobox band. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:Wander Woman/sandbox

Hello,

I have just submitted an article for review via my sandbox. This being the first article I have created (rather than just edited), I'm not sure I've submitted it correctly, since I did not have the opportunity to name the article! I simply followed the link for creating an article from my sandbox and did not change anything when I came to the prompt (which said not to change anything) at the next page.

The article's title should be: Rescue Remedies Dog Rescue

This should be fairly evident by the article's content, but I'm not sure who or how many people I shall be annoying by submitting something that still has my username and sandbox title on it!

Is there anything else I should have done or should be doing to rectify the title?

Many thanks!

Wander Woman (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Wander Woman

You have done the submission correctly - the title is clear because you have (also correctly) bolded it at the start of the text. I have now moved it from your sandbox into the Articles for creation space - it is in the queue waiting to be reviewed. At first glance - you don't have sufficient independent reliable sources such as news or magazine articles. The subject's own publications are not evidence of notability. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:Buba1974/sandbox

i had submited an article about my website and i had used the same philosopy i've in my webstite and my article got blocked in the first instance cause of infringing the copyrights, wen the copyrights are from my website and i do hold them..., so the question is why i cant use on my own article my own words from my own website??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buba1974 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, even if they're your words, they're still copyrighted, and Wikipedia can't accept any copyrighted info except under some very specific licenses. Also, not that I don't believe you, but we have no way to tell for sure if you're who you say you are. You're much better off just rewriting the article. Howicus (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the copyright notice at the source location, we must treat the content as copyrighted, and it can only be used if released through the proper channels, see Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Before you go that route, you should seriously consider starting from scratch. Take a look at WP:Notability and WP:WEB. If you think your site passes, then try to write the article as if it were an encyclopedia article. Its unlikely you would include that entire statement in such an article. Monty₈₄₅ 23:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)