Help desk
< June 9	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 11 >

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.

June 10[edit]

==

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cornelius Carr[edit]

Hi,

I would be grateful if you could indicate which reference in this article isn't considered reliable. The first is a boxing record site widely used on other boxers wkipedia pages and the 2nd is a well establish regional UK newspaper.

Many thanks in advance.

John

Asturiasjohn (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Asturiasjohn[reply]

I don't know either. The newspaper article is clearly reliable. As a boxing World Champion, Carr is clearly notable enough for Wikipedia. I've accepted your article. However, the article could do with better sources, particularly for any personal information. Sionk (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i got three rejections on my article[edit]

hello there! after my latest (third) edited version of Science Supercourse article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Science Supercourse, i truly have no clue why the article has been declined. the editor did not however give any reasons. Just to clarify, i am representing the Library of Alexandria and i was trying to post an article about one of our digital initiatives "science supercourse" (http://ssc.bibalex.org) through wikipedia to increase the visibility of this project. i am keen to get this through so please help!

thanks Bibliotheca Alexandrina (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is consistently declined because it does not demonstrate notability. On Wikipedia, it really doesn't matter how well you describe what an entity is or how well you source the fact that it exists. That's certainly necessary for an article, but if you can't show that it has received significant coverage from independent sources, then it will never have an article. Increasing the visibility of a project is NOT a good reason to be on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW you are not allowed to "represent" anything or anyone. You may only edit Wikipedia in your individual private capacity. Your username is thus also problematic. Roger (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M.T. Hla (U Tun Hla)[edit]

Dear Editors,

An hour or two ago, I submitted an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M.T. Hla (aka U Tun Hla) about a well-known late painter of Burma.

While the article was under review, I went back to do a small edit, and while doing so, suddenly found something had disappeared from my "Notes" (References) section. I tried to correct this. But before I could do this, I found that I had stumbled upon an "edit conflict" (someone else had started to edit the article also apparantly.)

I had difficulty understanding the directons for how to correct the matter. The problem of making the correction in my reference section was tricky to fix, too.

I decided to try and start all over again. I resubmitted the article. But the second time, I mistakenly entitled it differently with the "aka" not included in the title and reading as follows Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M.T. Hla (U Tun Hla). I saved this page, but when I saved it, I could not find the polished copy of the article, although the notice read that it was under "review". The deep structure of the article does turn up, however, when I push the edit button. So the article as it should read is still there, in its deep structure, and under a new title.

Thank you very much. HsayaHsaya (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second copy of the draft had a broken HTML comment tag, and all text was interpreted as "just a comment not to be displayed". I fixed that. But I would suggest merging the two drafts' contents into one and blanking the other one (or better yet, nominating it for speedy deletion by adding {{db-user}} to the top) to save the reviewers some work.

An edit conflict happens if someone else (in your case, Citation bot) finishes his edits after you began editing, but before you want to save your edits. Help:Edit conflict gives tips on what to do in such cases. If the other party you're in conflict with is just a bot, you might ignore it and simply paste your preferred version over the bot's changes; the bot will return and re-do his fixes at a later time. But this requires caution; if there were intervening edits by other humans, they will likely not be amused if you just overwrite their edits in this fashion, so you't have to check the article's history to make sure the bot is the only one you're in conflict with. Depending on how complicated your edits were, it may be easier to simply re-add them to the article's current version. Huon (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the addition of missing information to second copy and so the polished draft reads now as I would like to submit it. It was a reference in the "Notes" which had mysteriously disappeared. However, there is a problem that persists. Every time the article is opened for editing, the reference disappears again. It is reference 10 in the Notes.

Here is the information that should go in for Note #10:

<ref name=ARana>{{cite book |page=58, Fig. 60 |title=Burmese Painting |author=Andrew Ranard |year=2009 |ISBN=9789749511763}}</ref>

Now I wish to delete Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M.T. Hla (aka U Tun Hla) , but I am not sure how to do it following your instructions above. May I just "blank" it out, as you say? Does "blank out" just mean go in to the editing section and erase everythng and then save it as an blank page? Thank you again. HsayaHsaya (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken care of the deletion nomination for you; saving a blank page is indeed considered a request for deletion if you have been the article's only editor, but by using a deletion template, admins will be notified of the page to be deleted, and it will be quicker (it's gone already).

The reference is a little strange; apparently Citation bot kept removing it. Maybe it's because your references' names are too similar (ARana vs. AR or ARanard) and the bot believed it a duplicate. I have notified the bot's operator at User talk:Citation bot/Archive1#Removing a non-duplicate reference. I'll keep an eye on the draft; if the bot removes that reference again, there may be workarounds, ranging from simply renaming it (which may or may not work, depending on the exact nature of the bot's bug) to adding the reference without a name at all. I don't know which workaround would actually help, and since the bot for now stopped removing it, we cannot (and need not) test them. Huon (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that the bot feels the reference should go directly in the text itself as the book in which the painting appears is mentioned in the text. In other words, that the text copy should read to the effect, "....Burmese Painting: A Linear and Lateral History, Fig. 60, but this painting..."

If the bot feels this is better, I will correct it. I listed the reference to the painting in the "Notes" because another painting in the book is also referenced in the "Notes", and I thought consistency of citation was better. HsayaHsaya (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the bot is that smart, and it would still be a bug, but that could indeed be one possible workaround. For now I'd just wait and see what the bot operator comes up with - the bot ceased reverting you, though I don't know why. Huon (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I don't mean to take up your time, but the bot (or someone else) laid out the "Notes" and "Bibliography" in the M.T. Hla article in a very simple, clean way. I think I will try to follow this method in the future.Hsaya (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Symarip Pyramid[edit]

My article was declined twice. I do not know what I need to do next... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symarip Pyramid (talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was declined only once; the "declined" template you see is still the old one. But I don't think you have addressed the reviewer's concerns - the article still shows no significan coverage in reliable secondary sources. What you have seems to be either trivial coverage (such as a listing in a book on British charts) or primary sources such as their record label or their MySpace page. Unless significant coverage in independent, reliable sources can be found, the band probably is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Huon (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation/Ballyhannon Castle (aka Castlefergus).[edit]

Hi Wikipedia,

I have been working on my first article for Wikipedia, and have been excited at the prospect of its publication. Your most recent reply to me advises that it has been deleted because it appears to infringe copyright as being a cut and paste form http://www.ballyhannon-castle.com/history.htm

Yes it is a cut and paste of the official history of this castle as researched and prepared by local historian, Martin Breen, who undertook same for the Local Government Authority of Clare County Council, and which he also provided to the owners of this castle for posting on their site. I was publishing it on Wikipedia with Mr. Breen's assistance and support.

If you let me know what proof you need from me to establish this to your satisfaction, I will provide same immediately. If you would like Mr. Breen to post it himself, he will do so.

I had spent many days reading your editing and formatting procedures, and posting the article for approval, but I see that it seems to have been permanently deleted (or at least it is not visible in 'my contributions'). I really could not afford the same amount of time writing, editing and formatting it again, so if you could email me the full (html) text of it, I can either pass it on to Mr. Breen for him to attend to (if that is what you require), or I can at least save it on my pc until such time as you have approved its submission.

Best regards,

--CorneliusWilliam (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)CorneliusWilliam[reply]

Thank you so much for your speedy guidance on this issue, Huon. I will follow your suggestions, and hopefully get closer to my first publication! Much appreciated indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorneliusWilliam (talk • contribs) 22:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be undeleted if permission has been obtained, but permission to publish the text on Wikipedia will not be enough - Wikipedia is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License, and in order to use long copyrighted texts that are not covered by fair use, the texts must be released under the same license, prefereably also under the GNU Free Documentation License. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission explains the steps that need to be taken to secure the release of the text under a free license. You can also ask the deleting admin (Nyttend) to provide you with the article text (probably wiki-code, not full HTML), but until the permission has been obtained and confirmed, the text should not be put on Wikipedia, not even in userspace. Huon (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the original here and added the permission template there.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrei Prychodko[edit]

Greetings, This is my second request for help as a beginner in contributing to Wikipedia. I have received useful feedback from Huon regarding the need for references to relate directly to the subject of the stub article viz: the artist, Andrei Prychodko.Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrei Prychodko At present the text refers to two galleries who influenced post war art history both of whom discovered and exhibited this artist. References relating to the history of the two galleries were included. Huon has indicated that only references applying directly to Prychodko should be listed. To apply his advice in revising references I have opened the stub article. However, when I click on "edit" the stub text appears for a mere moment and then disappears. This occurs repeatedly and I cannot access the text to continue. How can this problem be resolved? Second question: how can the stub be removed from the waiting list for review? (in order to forge it again and then re-submit it later.) Thanks for your help! Arpast (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could not replicate the problem; the text is clearly visible to me when I try to edit the article. You might get further help at the Village pump (technical); people there know more about the technical details of Wikipedia. Does the problem occur only with the draft, or with every article you try to edit? You could (obviously) edit this page, so the problem does not seem to prevent you from editing all of Wikipedia.

Regarding the second question: I have removed the {{Afc submission}} templates from the very bottom of the article; the article is thus no longer awaiting review. Huon (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Huon: Thank you for your very prompt reply and assistance concerning Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrei Prychodko The technical problem seems to have resolved itself. The stub text now appears and can be edited. Thank you also for your direct help in removing the article from the review waiting list. The article will be reworked according to your guidelines and resubmitted. With thanksArpast (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/3WF-Third Wave Feminism[edit]

I am the founder of 3wf what kind of sources are you looking for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.122.112 (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We require reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article - that rules out 3wf's own website. Of course the sources should also mention the article subject; otherwise we get original synthesis, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. For example, I doubt a book published in 2008 has much to say about an advocacy organization founded four years later. To me the group does not (yet) seem notable; maybe there will be news reports covering it once it has held its teach-in and strike?

You might also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. It might be better not to write the article yourself and to wait until someone not affiliated with 3wf does so. Huon (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]