User talk:EngelskOversetter
Welcome!
[edit]Hi EngelskOversetter! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Interesting draft. The different language WP:s doesn't have exactly they same rules. Here, per WP:GNG, WP:BIO etc, your draft currently has a severe flaw, no independent sources. If you want to see this draft in article-space, add sources that are at the same time independent of Oscar Magnusson (as in not his own books), about Oscar Magnusson, and reliably published (books by reputable publishers (universities if you have them), decent newspapers/magazines etc). Per WP:NOENG, not in English is ok. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång! Thanks for the positive feedback. However, the full version of my translation includes all the original references. I have also translated any descriptive text contained in said references into English. For some reason, none of the references are included in the draft version. I translated the original article, section by section, and additionally translated the reference descriptions. It should be unnecessary to seek out other references when all the original references are being translated and used. Right? EngelskOversetter (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Norwegian Wikipedia and English Wikipedia are entirely independent projects, and an article in one exists entirely independently of the other. From the perspective of English Wikipedia it doesn't really matter that you have translated it rather than written a new one from scratch: here it is just "a new article". And because they are independent projects they have entirely different rules and norms. Norwegian Wikipedia is relatively lax about citing sources, but English Wikipedia expects detailed citations. If you think along the lines of one citation per sentence you're not far off. And the sources cited must be high-quality reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. This means you can't use Magnusson's own books as a source, except for direct quotes (which should be used sparingly). Preferably you would find sources that are peer reviewed, published by a major university press, and written by an expert in the relevant field (e.g. a historian specializing in the Norwegian resistance during WWII). Lesser sources can certainly be used, but the further from that ideal the less likely they are to be considered acceptable. In addition to making the content of the article verifiable, reliable sources are used to assess whether a subject is notable, that is, whether the subject has been afforded sufficient attention from scholars to merit their own article here. All sorts of books, newspaper or magazine articles, or scholarly journal articles can help here; but higher quality sources that discuss the subject in depth will weigh more heavily than passing mention in a tabloid newspaper or similar.You'll probably also want to be aware of some of the cultural quirks of English Wikipedia. For example, when a Wikipedian includes links in their messages, like the ones I have included above, they are often to a policy or guideline that they feel is relevant in this context. For example, I have included links to our policy on "reliable sources", "verifiability", and "notability"; all of which are central concepts here, and foundational for a lot of what we do. I am going to include another such: WP:NPOV, the "Neutral Point of View" policy. I am including a link to it because the article as it stands has a few places where its descriptions are not neutral. For example, to write, in Wikipedia's "voice" that
He received horrible treatment …
is not a neutral statement (it sounds like Wikipedia is taking a side). It is also unnecessary because the rest of the sentence informs the reader that he was tortured, which most readers would immediately understand as a pretty horrible treatment. Similarly, that[His] story … is both a source of inspiration and extremely relevant in modern times
is a value judgement. As written it makes that assertion in Wikipedia's voice. If that aspect is to be covered it needs to be filtered through reliable sources, and opinions like that have to be attributed to such a source. There are a couple of instances of this kind of non-neutral language in the article.PS. You've used the term "blocked". To be blocked here is having your user account locked, typically because it has been used for some wilfully unconstructive purpose. That's why several people were a bit shocked to hear you had been blocked for translating this article. To avoid confusion you'll want to use the term "prevented", or rephrase as "was not able to", or something like that. --Xover (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Norwegian Wikipedia and English Wikipedia are entirely independent projects, and an article in one exists entirely independently of the other. From the perspective of English Wikipedia it doesn't really matter that you have translated it rather than written a new one from scratch: here it is just "a new article". And because they are independent projects they have entirely different rules and norms. Norwegian Wikipedia is relatively lax about citing sources, but English Wikipedia expects detailed citations. If you think along the lines of one citation per sentence you're not far off. And the sources cited must be high-quality reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. This means you can't use Magnusson's own books as a source, except for direct quotes (which should be used sparingly). Preferably you would find sources that are peer reviewed, published by a major university press, and written by an expert in the relevant field (e.g. a historian specializing in the Norwegian resistance during WWII). Lesser sources can certainly be used, but the further from that ideal the less likely they are to be considered acceptable. In addition to making the content of the article verifiable, reliable sources are used to assess whether a subject is notable, that is, whether the subject has been afforded sufficient attention from scholars to merit their own article here. All sorts of books, newspaper or magazine articles, or scholarly journal articles can help here; but higher quality sources that discuss the subject in depth will weigh more heavily than passing mention in a tabloid newspaper or similar.You'll probably also want to be aware of some of the cultural quirks of English Wikipedia. For example, when a Wikipedian includes links in their messages, like the ones I have included above, they are often to a policy or guideline that they feel is relevant in this context. For example, I have included links to our policy on "reliable sources", "verifiability", and "notability"; all of which are central concepts here, and foundational for a lot of what we do. I am going to include another such: WP:NPOV, the "Neutral Point of View" policy. I am including a link to it because the article as it stands has a few places where its descriptions are not neutral. For example, to write, in Wikipedia's "voice" that
A further point is that if your English draft is a translation of the Norwegian version, you need to provide attribution, see WP:Translation. David Biddulph (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- @David Biddulph: Attribution was provided in the edit that created the article since they used the translate extension. --Xover (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Oscar Magnusson has a new comment
[edit]
AfC notification: Draft:Oscar Magnusson has a new comment
[edit]Your thread has been archived
[edit]
|
Hi EngelskOversetter! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Oscar Magnusson (July 9)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Oscar Magnusson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Oscar Magnusson, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, EngelskOversetter!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
|
Concern regarding Draft:Oscar Magnusson
[edit]
Hello, EngelskOversetter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Oscar Magnusson, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Oscar Magnusson
[edit]
Hello, EngelskOversetter. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Oscar Magnusson".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 16:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Oscar Magnusson
[edit]Hello, EngelskOversetter. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Oscar Magnusson".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)