Help desk
< August 1	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 3 >

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 2

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Translate existing article to another language

Hi I want to know how I can create an article in another language about a topic that already exists in Wikipedia.Ela2012 (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to translate an English article into another language see WP:Translate us.

To translate other language articles to English see WP:Pages needing translation into English Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BICS

Dear, can we please have feedback on our submissin for the above mentioned page? We have initated a conversation on the 15th of July with Richie333 but nobody is answering us anymore. We much appreciate your attention. Scib2013 (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Scib2013[reply]

I don't think there's much to be added to what Ritchie333 and DGG said back in July (see here). The draft is still heavily based on primary sources such as the company's own website. Even the few sources that arguably are third-party sources read like thinly-veiled press releases in niche publications. Other problematic articles may exist, but that's no reason to create more. Huon (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, none of you has come back to us with comments on our point concerning BICS's competitor having the type of page that you are actually refusing us. It appears that our direct competitors such as IBASIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibasis) has its own page although they are fully owned by KPN that has another completely separate page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPN) As BICS is an independent company, owned by Belgacom, Swisscom and MTN, I dont see how we should be present and related and only to Belgacom page. ALL the sources of the articles of IBASIS are press releases and Investor relations report as the ones we provided. We would very much like to have an explanation for this different treatment. Another case is SYBASE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybase, they have their own page but actualliy the company is owned by SAP. Their references are mostly from their own website and press releases. I can provide you many more examples of similar telecomunication companies that refer only to press releases and that they got a page in Wiki. What you call reference from "thinly-veiled press releases in niche publications" are actually key magazines for the wholesales carrier industry and constitute relevant source for the telecom b2b business. I have now removed all the links to our own website that were there only to provide more product details. Thank you for your re-consideration Scib2013 (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)scib2013[reply]

The presence of existing problematic articles does not mean that more articles with problems should be created. I have just declined your article submission because in my opinion it does not meet the requirements of WP:VRS (or WP:ORG). The article Sybase already has a template indicating that it is problematic, but it does have a variety of reliable independent sources in amongst the press releases. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/TUTHILLTOWN_SPIRITS_FARM_DISTILLERY

I have resubmitted, revised, the article at the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/TUTHILLTOWN_SPIRITS_FARM_DISTILLERY

It has been refused, reason on that link. I have rewritten this three times and believe it is not an advertisement as the reviewer continues to assert. Please intervene OR give me some guidance what is not acceptable in the text.

Ralph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuthilltown Spirits (talk • contribs) 12:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a couple of review notes. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Glossary of social media terms

This submission was declined: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Glossary of social media terms They said Wikipedia doesn't accept articles like this, but I'm unclear why it was rejected as numerous glossary pages exist on other topics such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_architecture

Jb1986 (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)jb1986[reply]

There's no reason at all why you can't create list articles (I've put together List of Hammond organs just now), but each entry must be attributed to a reliable source, and there must be significant evidence that the list itself would generally be notable. In your case, you've cited blogs, Google searches and Twitter, which are all unreliable sources. Unless you can supply sources, the list would appear as original research and hence be unacceptable. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was told in the latest review the issue was not the sources but that the article was a list. In this case, I also do not follow why Twitter would be an unacceptable source. It is used as a source to describe what Twitter is. How can Twitter's description of itself not be a reliable source when defining Twitter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb1986 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer was wrong - we have lists, and we even have featured lists. Generally Twitter is not a reliable source as anyone can sign up and tweet about anything to anyone, so there is no editorial control. For definitions of Twitter itself, its own site might be reliable if it's controlled specifically by the editorial staff there and not user-editable, but then it would be a primary source. You would need to find a third party source that talks about Twitter instead. If the information is significant enough to be notable, somebody probably would have. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I declined it because it appears to be more of a dictionary definition than an article. However, looks like someone made a similar article on another site which is licensed under Creative Commons. No idea if this is the kind of article you were aiming for though. LionMans Account (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/THE VIRTUALS - A Philosophical Fantasy Thriller

Sir, The article I submitted was an intended article/page on Wikipedia on a novel which can be termed as first Philosophical thriller of the world. The novel is also very secular in nature. Please guide to to any objectionable phrase/word, which can be addressed to make my article aceeptable to you as per norms. Regards and Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockhardened13 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the article name - I believe Rockhardened13 is referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/THE VIRTUALS - A Philosophical Fantasy Thriller.

Dear Rockhardened13: Wikipedia only has articles about subjects that have already been discussed extensively in other publications. If you add to your article references to book reviews, news reports, magazine articles, etc., about this book, the article will be much more acceptable. The article also doesn't name the book's publisher. If it's unpublished, it is probably too early for an encyclopedia article. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vision Research Phantom

HI- I seem to have an issue with this article. I was declined a while ago and I just went back and make some major revisions, cleaning it up and hopefully eliminating the issues. I saved it but I did not receive the "your article has been submitted for review" that I received in the past. I am afraid that the article is just hanging out in wiki-space.....

Also once it is approved, I want to make sure how to link to it from other articles. There are many, many references throughout wikipedia currently that I would like to link to this page including here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Flight.

Thank you for your help! (Mhoistion (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)mhoistion)[reply]

It has not been correctly submitted - the submit template must have double curly brackets - you have only one on the left. You made a similar mistake with the heading here. The correct way to link other mainspace articles is with double square brackets containing only the page name, like this The Art of Flight - exactly as it appears at the top of the page (don't use underscores in place of spaces). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I completely missed that other curly bracket. I have resubmitted it for review now.

(Mhoistion (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CumuLogic

I've submitted my article. It has errors. 2 problems: 1. It is giving me the ref warning but I don't see what's wrong with my refs? I've got the section at the bottom as indicated in help and I've used the ref templates to cite. Not sure why it won't work? 2. I followed the instructions, clicked the button to insert a picture but it just asks for name of the file. Where do I put the file so that it would be shown on the page?

I tried using the IRC chat help, and people were talking to me but there was no where to type back to them? It said to type in the window at the bottom of my browser but there was no such window.

Totally confused! Thanks, Michelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtrostler (talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mtrostler, welcome to Wikipedia! First off, I don't see a reference issue anymore...looks like you figured that out on your own. Second, the image wasn't added because you have to upload it first, and you can't upload an image because you aren't WP:Autoconfirmed, with over ten edits and an account that's at least four days old. Third, to talk in IRC, click on the very bottom of the browser window. There's a little bar, which isn't really clearly marked. Hope this helps! Howicus (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]