Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 October 16

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.

October 16

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AllCity Wireless LLC

I am creating a new page related to a US company: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AllCity Wireless LLC. I would like to include a link to the company's logo, and they have given me permission to upload it to wikipedia commons, which is what I understand is the correct procedure. I would appreciate it if you would (a) confirm that is the correct procedure (and it is a pdf; is that OK or does it have to be a jpg or gif?), and (b) provide me a link to instructions on how to upload it and how to link it to the company's page.

Thanks very much.

Junckerg (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Any of .gif .png .jpg or .svg are OK. I wouldn't recommend .pdf in this case. In general, trademarked logos are treated as non-free images but may qualify under free use for the article on that one specific company only. Once the article is created, request the file to be uploaded at Wikipedia:Files for upload. There are various templates to indicate the copyright status and fair-use rationale for each page on which the logo appears. K7L (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Finn Zierler

Hi, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. My submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Finn Zierler has been declined but I don't understand why? The reason was: Unfortunately, at this time, many passages or statements are lacking references. I don't know which specific passages or statements are meant? What can I do to correct it and make it better? --Sylviakaleboel (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

All Wikipedia content must be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Here entire sections, such as the history up to 1999, are entirely unsourced, and many other statements sound as if they were based on a source but are not. For example: "Many critics and fans cite this album as the most haunting in the progressive metal genre." What critics, and where did they say so? How can I verify those fans' opinion? Was there a poll of progressive metal fans on which this verdict is based?

Even worse, the sources given in the draft don't say what they're cited for. Four of the sources are all the same web page: The band's own website. That's not an independent source, and it doesn't say what it's cited for anyway. If the true source is supposed to be some publication the band's website links to, we should link to that publication directly. But the other sources aren't much better. Prog Archives is cited for a "no. 1 spot on the Top 100 Progressive Music Album Chart of 2006" - it doesn't even mention the Progressive Music Album Chart. I'm not sure Prog Archives and Progressive Rock are reliable by Wikipedia's standards anyway - the former certainly doesn't look as if it has any editorial oversight at all. Huon (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar with Prog Archives. I think it's entirely user generated, and hence not reliable. About the only thing I've ever considered using it for is track listings, but even then there are better sites that have proper peer review on these sorts of things and get them right. This is why you won't see Van der Graaf Generator (currently up for a good article review) referencing it. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Neelakantha Sahu

How to paste a photograph in the article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.203.221.159 (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Your question is better suited to the help desk, but the easiest way to do it is to use the "Embedded file" link you can see in the edit window. By hand, the structure is [[File:MyFile.jpg|thumb|My file's caption]], replacing MyFile.jpg and My file's caption with the real values. You can reuse a file already on Wikipedia or WikiMedia Commons - if you want to use your own file, you need to be careful that your image is either your own work or it is using the correct licence for Wikipedia and is not a copyright violation. The upload wizard on Commons has some more user friendly hints towards doing this. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishagandhi Festival by Kerala Tourism

Please let me know why my article on Nishagandhi Festival was rejected?111.92.2.114 (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find that draft; apparently you didn't write it with your current IP address. A search for "Nishagandhi Festival" produced no results, and a search for "Kerala Tourism" nothing relevant. Could you please provide a link or the URL? Huon (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Submission not accepted due to inclusion of copyrighted information.

RE: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alliance For African Women Initiative (AFAWI)

I have used information from the website of the organisation I am writing an article about (AFAWI), however I have permission to do so. Can I use this information or would I have to re-write it?

Oscar Wynne (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not sufficient if you have permission to use the content; Wikipedia content must be released under a free license compatible with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. If it has been released under that license (example declaration of consent), you can mail confirmation to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". See WP:Requesting copyright permission for details.

But Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. We need significant coverage in such sources, both to establish a topic's notability and to allow our readers to verify the draft's content. Thus it's probably much easier not to bother with the organisation's own website but to write a new draft based on such secondary sources. Huon (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Oscar! As noted above, the AFAWI website is a WP:Primary source. While it can be okay to make limited use of citing a source for non-controversial content like founding date, HQ location, quoted official mission, etc., other than that we want to know what uninvolved parties have to say about them. So best to write it using WP:Secondary sources like books and newspaper articles (have you checked GoogleBooks[1], and GoogleNews Archive?). Hope this helps. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brihat Jataka

I am shocked to note that this 2000 years old Sanskrit text/book, Brihat Jataka of Varahamihira, now needs its notability to be established. It is one of the five major classic reference texts on Hindu astrology on which particular text four major commentaries were written some 1200 years ago which fact I have mentioned in the proposed article. Harvard University Library has in its possession the 1885 published translation into English by N.Chidambaram Iyer as being the first astrological work in the Aryan Miscellany Series taken up for translation of the book, Brihat Jataka, considered as one of the best works on the science of astrology. Soni Ruchi (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Every topic needs its notability established. For an ancient Sanskrit text that should be comparatively easy. But the current draft is heavily based on the text itself, with some unreliable sources such as an antiquarian's web page (which probably isn't stable; the entry will be removed if the book is sold) and a probably self-published text hosted on scribd thrown in. Surely there are modern textbooks on Hindu astrology that discuss the importance of this work? Huon (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason that all articles need notability established is we need to ensure anyone anywhere in the world can verify the information if possible. While we talk a lot about notability and reliable sources, it's actually verifiability that is the most important in Wikipedia. Just because something's familiar to you, it doesn't mean it's familiar to everyone. For example, I was recently surprised to find out the term "pram", which most people in the UK will recognise, is unknown in the US, who use "stroller". --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I know this great work of Varahamihira is being printed in original Sanskrit and with translation in English and other Indian languages on a regular basis ever since it was first printed long ago. Kindly conduct a Google search and see the results. Brihat Jataka had very long ago established itself as a standard text-book. In my article I have prominently mentioned about the commentary by Utpala, and I have also mentioned about three other commentaries written about the same time between 800 A.D. – 850 A.D. At the same time I have also referred to recent prints of the translation and commentaries by Bhattotpala (First published in 1912- isbn 9780404578121), P.V.S.Sastri (First published in 1947-recently reprinted in 2002), by B. Suryanarain Rao (1996 edition) and by N.Chidambaram (1885 edition) just to name a few that I found through Google search. I now possess a copy of this text. What more does one need to verify a time-honoured text. Please I beg of you to firstly make yourself aware of the subject, about the texts, about the people involved and thereafter review any article submitted for creation. Please do not dismiss the sincere efforts made by others at the mere press of a button citing a Wiki Policy page that most do not understand. I am persisting as a contributor for it is in me to share my knowledge with others and that too not for the sake of earning any laurels. We are all responsible persons. We must help each other instead. Let us jointly and gladly contribute. Sorry to have spoken as a school-teacher that I am.Soni Ruchi (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Soni, that's just the point: it's not incumbent on Wikipedia readers to go find their own footnotes, etc. If you want to write an article about a subject, you have to actually write it as an encyclopedia article, including clear footnoting, an easily-understood WP:Introduction, etc. To give an example, if you were wanting to learn more about the musician Ludwig van Beethoven, it wouldn't help to have a Wikipedia article that just said "trust me, this is true, and you should go Google it for proof." Much less, it wouldn't help to have an article that failed to give any explanation as to why Beethoven is an important composer, other than just having written music centuries ago. This book of yours isn't important simply because it's old, it's worth reading about because astronomers and historians have learned important things from it, and that's what's missing in your version.

So far as translations of the book, etc., those are WP:Primary sources. The book exists, granted, we all agree the book exists. What you need is Sourcing that demonstrates that the book is important. We can stand here all day and agree it's an important book, but the article must demonstrate this, must show that the book is "time honoured". What you want are modern or semi-modern works which explicitly state "The Brihat Jataka is a significant book because... it had a huge effect on such-and-such astronomers... etc."

I don't doubt this book is Notable, but you need to demonstrate this notability in the article. If you read no other Wikipedia policies in reference to this article, read Wikipedia:Notability (books), which gives a guideline for how you must evidence the importance of a book. Does this help clarify? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

We all have different areas of expertise. Mine is unloved articles about musicians, such as when I tripled the size of Matthew Fisher this morning because I know his background well and can easily write about it. So it's much easier for me to pick out relevant part of a source, and easily see what correlates to what I already know. The burden on proof is on the editor who writes the text - while other people can look for sources, you can't stomp your foot and insist they do. There's no way I'd do as good a job on this article as you would. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your logic. Help me in selecting the following as a WP:RS:-

I have come across on line the article titled - On the Authenticity of the Brhat Parasara Hora Sastra - written by the Vedic Astrologer Shyamasundaradasa which article was first printed in the July and August 2009 issues of The Astrological Magazine, Banglore. http://shyamasundaradasa.com/jyotish/resources/articles/bphs.html that high-lights the importance of Brihat Jataka, and wherein he writes - "In South India Brihat Jataka (and its commentaries) is held in the highest esteem" and "one was not considered a scholar of jyotish unless he had memorized Brihat Jataka and Prasna Marga but not Brhat Parashara Hora Sastra. Brihat Jataka was considered to be a jewel among astrological literature..", mentions about yet another commentary on Brihat Jataka by Talakkaulathur Govindam Bhattathiri titled Dasadhyayi, and cites Sloka 28 of Prasna Marga of Vishnu Nambudari commenting on this work of Varahamihira thus "his work is concise, of a variety of meter and full of meaning.."

Can I cite this article as a secondary/third party source? I cannot afford to locate and purchase more books supporting Brihat Jataka a copy of which text I have purchased.Soni Ruchi (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I have since taken the liberty to add second & third party reliable & independent references/citations which weren't there before in support of this article.Soni Ruchi (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)