Help desk
< March 18	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 20 >

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.

March 19

Submission re-consideration??

Hello,

I have added in a reference to my submission for a page on L.A. Jay that I hope will add to my case for notability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/L.A._Jay

Wax Poetics recently ran a feature on him : http://www.waxpoetics.com/blog/dj-mix/anomalous

How can I re-submit by submission for re-consideration?

Thanks and best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlicePS (talk • contribs) 01:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can re-submit the draft by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. However, I don't think a guest blog will be considered a reliable source - it's the blogger's personal opinion and not under Wax Poetics' full editorial control. Huon (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How long does it take to delete contents?

I have input some information and uploaded an image but would like to delete and start the whole contents again. I have inserted the"{{speedy}}" on top of the contents already. How long do I have to wait for the contents to be deleted?

What exactly do you want to delete? Could you provide a link? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Technal/sandbox

Hello, I want to publish an article in english (Technal)and linked this article to Technal (french). But my article Technal (France) is linked to Norsk Hydro ! Can you help me please ? Thank you Allison — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technal (talk • contribs) 09:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technal is a redirect to Norsk Hydro and should stay that way until we have a draft that shows Technal has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspapers or reputable trade magazines - not just the company's website or press releases. (You had put an ill-sourced article in place of the redirect; I reverted that.) Thus people following the interwiki link from fr:Technal will end up with the parent company until we have a well-sourced article that establishes the subsidiary's independent notability.

There are a couple of related issues. Firstly, your username is the name of the company, a violation of Wikipedia's username policy because such usernames are seen as promotional or implying shared use. Wikipedia accounts are for individuals, not for companies. You should change it as soon as possible lest you find yourself blocked. Secondly, the username suggests you may suffer a conflict of interest when writing about the company. Writing about your employer is discouraged. Finally, you do not own articles on Wikipedia; fr:Technal is not "your" article. I expect it will be up to some serious editing or maybe deletion; right now it looks like an advertisement masquerading as an article, but its fate is for the French Wikipedia to decide. Huon (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Fényi Gyula Jesuit High School Content

Hello and thanks for working with us. Here is an updated copy of our draft. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fényi Gyula Jesuit High School We have cleaned up the problematic text and cited all the requested areas. We've left the citation flags in place to make review easier. Please let us know what else we should edit.Irg1969 (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There are some claims in your article that are rather promotional and need to be rewritten in a more encyclopedic and neutral tone:

... the secondary school’s mission is to form disciplined, virtuous, and charismatic leaders ...
... Fényi Gyula is one of the best schools in the Miskolc region ...

I suggest you to remove the names of competing students from the article (mainly for privacy reasons) and provide a brief summary explaining that the school achieved good results in OKTV and other competitions. The “Choir of the year” prize in the National Singing Competition could be mentioned separately, but it should be properly cited.

I also suggest you to cite more independent sources (I mean newspaper articles, TV and radio news etc.) You can take a look here for an inspiration. The content of your article should be based mainly on independent sources. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Katharina Bregant

How can i get a connection to the german article for example Fautz http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fautz ; Camillo Bregant http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camillo_Bregant and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.u.k._Steirisch-K%C3%A4rntnerisch-Krainerisches_Dragoner-Regiment_%E2%80%9ENikolaus_I._Kaiser_von_Ru%C3%9Fland%E2%80%9C_Nr._5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bregant1 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~You simply add de: before the Title, so for Fautz, you would write [[de:Fautz]]. More information can be found here. Good day!~~ Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 17:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think I misunderstood your question. I'm going to go find the answer.~~ Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 17:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are looking for [[w:de:Fautz|Fautz]] and [[w:de:Camillo Bregant|Camillo Bregant]] etc. Basically add w:de: before the title. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 17:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Articles for creation/Myke Cole

In re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Myke Cole

First, thanks for the super-speedy turnaround on the review. That was awesome!

I've been editing WP so long that the culture has changed three times under me. I'm having trouble understanding what is required to create a new article these days.

I spent a fair amount of time trying to identify trustworthy 2nd-party sources for a new article, only to be told that the article was insufficiently sourced. I found three interviews from established journals, all of which were independent of the subject. (I also used materials from the subject's biography, which, yes, is a primary source.) The target has two published books with a major publisher; this would seem to adhere to the standards for notability.

What is the right number of reliable sources to establish notability? What is the barrier to notability these days? More bluntly, what could I add that would get this draft up to snuff?

Thanks!

-- Metahacker (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources do look somewhat problematic. Let me go through them in order:

My Bookish Ways is a personal blog, and I see no indication why it should be more reliable than any other random person's blog. At the very best it's a self-published source, reliable for the author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. Besides, the ultimate source is Cole himself, so it's not an independent source either.
Padwolf looks like Cole's publisher trying to sell Cole's books. That's not a reliable source nor an independent one.
The Small Wars essay is by Cole himself, clearly not independent.
Cole's website is a primary source, and for those rather impressive biographical details I, for one, would strongly prefer a secondary source. It's also obviously not independent.
The Qwillery is another blog interview with exactly the same issues as My Bookish Ways.

So in summary, the ultimate source for all the information in that article is either Cole or his publisher. To be considered notable, Cole must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Cole, such as newspaper articles about him or reviews of his books published in reputable literary magazines. There is no precise number of such sources required; "significant coverage" is usually interpreted as "multiple good sources of at least a paragraph on Cole each", but opinions diverge whether "multiple" means "two" or "four to six" - that depends on the quality of the individual sources and the person you ask. Huon (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. We disagree on the notability of certain third-party blogs. I'll see if I can dig up other sources. -- Metahacker (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User talk:Raad nile/Burj doha

[Draft copy removed]

That was a copy of your draft, which is currently not submitted for review. What exactly do you need help with? Huon (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ride Along the Divide (RAD)

I have a new submission. my entry is a draft presently, and the sources for this are myself and the US National Forest. It is a network of trails that creates one 1500 mile long trail route. Like the GDMBR before this, it is a bike route, but of different quality and different track. If I use the sources as myself and the US National Forest services (entities by which the affected trails are maintained) as the sources is that sufficient? I have a blog here and there too, but when I entered it, the name of the website was not saved to the article for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjjmtnus (talk • contribs) 20:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Wikipedia requires reliable, published sources such as newspapers or cycling magazines; personal knowledge or a self-published blog would not be sufficient sources (that's what we call "original research"). I cannot say whether the US National Forest services would be an acceptable source - that might depend on the particular publication, but since we also require our sources to be independent of the subject, the agency maintaining the trails probably isn't the best source for them - especially not if it's the only source. Huon (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Olympic results index

A number of users have expressed some resistance against putting this page into article space, mainly on the grounds that: It is not required, Wikipedia is not a directory, it goes against "longstanding (sic) policy" etc. I feel that as Wikipedia gets ever larger, pages like this will become more and more useful. I can't remember where I read it but somewhere in the maze of help pages, lists are mentioned as being useful; even lists of lists may be helpful. Just because a few people think this type of article serves no purpose doesn't mean that many others won't make use of it. I would like to put it out there and just wait to see if it gets put up for deletion; let the community decide (please). Jodosma (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can only echo the advice you received two days ago at the Teahouse: Technically you can move that draft into the mainspace yourself (see Help:Moving a page for details), but it may be a good idea to get a second opinion - whether a reviewer's or a reply at the WikiProject Olympics, which unfortunately doesn't seem the most active of WikiProjects.

Others have pointed out that we have lists and templates that may duplicate what you intend to achieve; have you had a look at categories? Category:Summer Olympic events and Category:Winter Olympic events seem to do more or less what you intend to achieve, namely give a reference that quickly allows readers to find articles on specific events in a given year. Huon (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have come to the conclusion that this article is misguided; I have discovered that templates are the way to find the information provided by my "results index". I am tempted at this moment to recommend my own effort for deletion; however I have decided to leave it to the community to decide its fate and will take no further part in the process. I have no idea how to make it into a template anyhow and I suspect it is a tedious job to put a template into all the articles which may or may not require it to be there.

Having said that, I would like to bring to the attention of anyone who cares to read this, that I don't believe that the typical user of Wikipedia even notices the templates at the bottom of most of the articles, let alone clicks on them. Is there a way to find out how many hits (a la youtube) a Wikipedia article/page/template gets? I would dearly love to know. After all, if you had created an article, wouldn't you want to know how many people were drawn to look at it? If you didn't care about how many people read your work and nobody else cared about your work what would be the point of producing it? More importantly, if nobody, or a very few people, used the template, shouldn't some thought be given to presenting a template in a different way? Ciao. Jodosma (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a way to ascertain how much use such a template gets: The people using template's links don't end up at the template page itself and thus wouldn't affect that page's number of views. Huon (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to put a template within another template? If so I might consider it, e.g. the top level template would be 'Olympic results by sport' then clicking on a sport would reveal another template listing all the years for that sport. Jodosma (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to put templates within other templates, but depending on what you want to achieve, that may not be necessary. If I understand you correctly, what you want to nest isn't necessarily templates, but the collapsing - you should be able to build a single template with multiple levels of collapsing, and unless you want to re-use the "years for sport X" components, there's no real need to put them in separate templates of their own, though it may be easier to build. Ultimately, all a template does is incorporate the content of the Template: page into the page calling the template. Huon (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's food for thought. I think I see something appearing from the mist now. I'm sure it can be done; I'll sleep on it. Jodosma (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Track Association

While my article was waiting for review, someone else created an article with the same name:

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Track Association.

This is fine and I've added my content to their article.

As a results I no longer need my article.

How do I get rid of it?

Dnd25 (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the submission as a duplicate. Nothing else needs to be done, but if you really want it gone, you can tag it for speedy deletion by adding {{db-author}} to the very top. Huon (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 March 19

Contents