Help desk
< January 28	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 30 >

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.

January 29

How do I contribute a photo for an article?

I recently edited a page but cannot find a way to contribute a photo for it? I uploaded the file but it is not showing up on the Wikipedia page. Please help. Thank you.

RB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricabaja (talk • contribs) 00:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The picture tutorial explains how to add an image to an article. Huon (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ernest So

I had already included more references and citation from website and newspaper link in the article ‘Ernest So' but still declined. Would appreciate some assistance to advise how to improve it in order to make it matching the criteria to pass through the review. Thank you! Clientwiki (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't easily check the print source, but of the online sources only the very last, this SCMP article, is a reliable, independent source that covers So in appreciable detail. The "Biography" section doesn't cite any sources at all, the "Teaching and vocational activities" section exclusively relies on primary sources, namely sources written by his various employers, and the "tours internationally" sources are mostly just minor notes on upcoming events, not significant coverage. Such routine news coverage does not contribute to a subject's notability. In short, much of the draft's content is unverifiable and/or not based on reliable third-party sources. I don't think these sources allow us to write an article on So. Huon (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Theater der Zeit

Hi,

I am having problems getting my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Theater der Zeit accepted after review. I suspect that it might have something to do with the lack of references (I only have the link from the official website, in German). However, this is a one-to-one translation of the German wikipedia article, and there is only one reference there (the owners of Theater der Zeit asked me to produce an article in English).

Could you help me further please?

Thanks.

Thomascrowe (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article does not have any reliable secondary sources that verify any of the information. We cannot pass an article without evidence that it has been noted (hence the term "notable") by the wider world outside the theatre itself. Uncle G's notability essay might be useful to read. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mens Fitness Germany

Hi, just submitted this again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Men%27s_Fitness_Germany

Please offer some help. I have added more references some to wikipedia and some external — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perrymanku (talk • contribs) 11:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of your three sources, iTunes is not reliable nor independent - it has no editorial oversight, and what information it provides is supplied by Mens Fitness Germany itself. The Alliance for Audited Media provides just a list of circulation figures, not significant coverage - and for all I can tell, those aren't the German circulation figures anyway, so it's grossly misrepresented. The Press Gazette article actually is a reliable source, but unfortunately it says nothing at all about Mens Fitness Germany. In summary, this isn't even close to the significant coverage in reliable, independent sources we need to establish the magazine's notability, and all claims relevant to Mens Fitness Germany itself are unsupported by sources. Furthermore, the second paragraph reads like an advertisement straight from Mens Fitness' PR department. Huon (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been told all of this before. I personally have pointed them to WP:VRS at least three times, and no doubt other people have as well. Given the repeated bad AfC requests, their refusal to read the appropriate literature, and the advertising nature of their contributions, I will likely soon block this user. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly oppose blocking this user until some direct interaction has happened on his talk page to get him to understand the issues. I appreciate you have replied on your talk page, Deskana, but I would rather we actually got confirmation he read and understood the direct problems, then he can be blocked per a mix of WP:COMPETENCE or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have spoken to this use at least three times on IRC and made it quite clear. Every time I linked WP:VRS and they added some useless link that clearly doesn't satisfy that. And that's just me, I don't even know how many other users they have spoken to. Three times is patience enough. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but a paper trail on their talk page is still useful, so that if the user requests an unblock, another admin can see the backstory immediately and get a good idea whether to accept or (more likely) not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Useful yes, but I won't allow the disruption to continue just so we can "have the appropriate documentation" or whatever. And it's not like I won't make it clear in the block message... --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page move problem

Dear reviewers: I accidentally typed the wrong title when I submitted my page for review. It should read "Central Canadian Bluegrass Awards", not "Central Ontario Bluegrass Awards". I tried to undo it so that I could submit it with the proper title. It appeared to be working; the "View History" process said it could be undone, but after I clicked on save the undo did not happen. How can I get the page name corrected? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Central Canadian Bluegrass Awards per request. In future, if you move a page incorrectly, simply move the page again to the correct title. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Deskana. I looked up how to move a page. It's not obvious; you have to notice and hover over the tiny rectangle before you see the Move option. Next time I'll know. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Now I feel empowered! Near my submission in the queue is one called Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chandrapur Muncipal Corporation. Looking in the text makes it clear that it should be Chandrapur Municipal Corporation. Should I move it, or mind my own business? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can't hurt, but I'd probably leave it to the reviewer who will have to move the page anyway. Huon (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I waited, as you suggested, and now the article has been created, but still with the spelling error. Should I move it now? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually yes, but the page has by now been turned into a redirect to Chandrapur. There's not much use in moving a redirect; it's easier to create a new one from scratch if we find that Chandrapur Municipal Corporation should also redirect to Chandrapur. Anyway, thanks for watching the page! Huon (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Migration of Moroccan Jews to Israel

Hello, I am having a bit of trouble in understanding how to create links for the article. Could you please help me a bit? I would like to create links both for pages within the English wikipedia, and in the Hebrew wikipedia, as well as some external links/ could you please help me understand how to do all these different things?

Thank you very much Meital Meitsi (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links to pages in the English Wikipedia are created by double square brackets: "[[Israel]]" will give "Israel" (linking to our article on Israel). If for whatever reason you want the link text to differ from the article name, you need a "piped link": "[[Foreign relations of Israel|Israel's relations to Morocco]]" will give "Israel's relations to Morocco" (linking to our article on foreign relations of Israel).

Links to pages in foreign-language Wikipedias are technically possible, but we should not use them except to link to the foreign-language equivalents of the article. Such links should be added at the very end of the draft. For technical reasons they won't be correctly displayed until the draft is accepted. The requisite code is: [[he:Title of the Hebrew Wikipedia article on migration of Moroccan Jews to Israel]] Once the draft is accepted, such links will appear in the left sidebar.

External links should be used either as references (and your draft desperately needs some sources!), preferably in footnotes, or in a dediated "External links" section at the very end of the draft. They are generated with single square brackets and without a pipe: "[http://www.google.com/ Google]" will give "Google" (and link to Google).

For more detailed help on links see Help:Link. Huon (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Template:AFC statistics

This is not exactly a question, but the general Talk page for this page has a scary red box at the top. I was looking at Template:AFC statistics and noticed that it appears to be malfunctioning. I just wanted to report it. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I currently don't see any error message nor a major problem with the template; it was known to break when the backlog got too large, though. Maybe that issue still isn't properly fixed. Huon (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the top thirty or so lines look like when I view the page:

Template:AFC statistics/rowTemplate:AFC statistics/rowTemplate:AFC statistics/rowTemplate:AFC statistics/rowTemplate:AFC statistics/rowTemplate:AFC statistics/rowTemplate:AFC statistics/rowTemplate:AFC statistics/rowTemplate:AFC statistics/rowTemplate:AFC statistics/rowTemplate:AFC statistics/rowTemplate:AFC statistics/rowTemplate:AFC —Anne Delong (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I too see the problem, and I do believe it's due to too many submissions. Huon (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New article being reviewed

Hi, I submitted a new article that was declined on Jan 20, I then followed the notes and resubmitted on Jan. 23. I was just wondering how long it usually takes for articles to be reviewed and if there's any further edits I need to make before getting the below submission approved. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Seculert

Elimay123 (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a backlog of almost 900 unreviewed submissions; it will probably take about two weeks for a reviewer to have a look at yours.

At a glance, most of the article reads more like a list of security threats found by Seculert than an article on the company itself, which is usually only mentioned in passing in news reports on the threats. The article is largely devoid of facts on the company itself beyond the year of founding and some acquisition of venture capital - how many employees does it have, what are its revenues and profits? Huon (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon,

Thanks for the feedback. I edited the article to give some background on the founders. True that the reference articles are not "feature" articles about Seculert but I thought they added color to their findings and the threats in general. Do you think it's a little much? A lot of the Wiki articles about those specific threats mention Seculert as a key source in detecting them.

Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Seculert

Elimay123 (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the threats Seculert has discovered are indeed more notable than Seculert itself, but notability is not inherited, and to be considered notable, Seculert itself should have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I'd probably condense the threat list into a single paragraph that just provides the viruses etc. they found, with links - everything else readers are interested in can be covered in the relevant articles on the individual malware. Huon (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simon Murdoch

Hi All,

I am writing an article on behalf of our company chairman Simon Murdoch. I can see you think he is writing this about himself but this is not true. My name in Lindsey Robins and I am the ecommerce marketing Manager for GetLenses.co.uk.

I do believe Simon is notorious enough as he is the founder of bookpages, sold to amazon to become amazon.co.uk. He is a founder of Episode 1 who invest in early stage software driven businesses in the UK. He is on the board of many companies Shutl, Zoopla, lovefilms, BetFair and of course GetLenses.co.uk to name a few. I also understand that there are too few articles written about him in the last few years but the information is there about the companies he invests in.

I have added the Bookpages aquasition to the Amazon.com Wiki page and I think that has been accepted. I have also added Episode 1 to the Notable businesses from former employees on the Amazon page and would love to link Simon's name to his page if it is accepted.

I really feel he has a place on Wikipedia, not on the user pages. How do I get the article published? Please help!

Kind regards, Lindsey

Simonmurdoch1 (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing you do is get a different username - yours is in violation of the no impersonation rule. Failure to do so asap will get your username blocked without warning. Secondly you read the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and then seriously consider whether you really really want to continue with this - most attempts by editors to write about their bosses end in failure. Roger (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger,

Thank you so much for coming back to me so quickly. Couple of points. I am doing this for Simon, so definitely no conflict of interest or wanting anything out of it except that he is on Wiki. Question: Should I register as myself and then just copy the code of the page with the warnings and all?

Simonmurdoch1 (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the fact that you are doing it for the subject is your conflict of interest - The conflict of interest exists between you and Wikipedia, not between you and your boss. Wikipedia may not be used for promotion of any subject whatsoever Please read the page I pointed out to you.

About fixing your username see WP:Changing username. BTW please use colons to indent your replies on talk pages by placing one more colon in front of your reply than the post you are replying to has, like this -

Original question

:Reply

::Follow-up question

:::Followup reply.

Roger (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edmund Battersby

Dear Editor I have a couple of questions which, when answered, may improve my article so that it can be published. How do I create a text box for reference when one doesn't exist? I am working on my article in the Sandbox. Hopefully this is the correct location. When I have the reference section set properly then how do I insert footnotes? If you have had a chance to take a look at the article is there anything else that I need to do to make it worthy? Professor Battersby has a CD coming out and I would like to link publicity to this wiki. Many thanks. Mildred Jirak MildredJirak (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:REFB carefully? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Houndmouth

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Houndmouth

i'm not clear on what doesn't make the band in this article notable:

- signed to and released an album on an internationally acclaimed record label - Rough Trade (home of The Strokes, Arcade Fire, My Morning Jacket, and... way back - The Smiths)
- named "Band of the Day" by The Guardian (the UK's most respected daily newspaper)
- toured nationally with significantly notable artists

Fogsnob (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BAND, where none of those three items are listed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be more precise, our notability guidelines for musicians state that you need two albums released. Signing to Rough Trade Records is a good step, but until the band gets a bigger catalogue, or their releases hit the charts, they probably aren't notable enough yet for an article. If their forthcoming album charts, that might be the time for this article to pass. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

charts? if that is a requirement there are thousands bands on wikipedia who have never "hit the charts". grimes has never hit "the charts". the germs only ever released one album. i think your criteria needs to be put into a context where charts and bands releasing albums isn't core. because that is not a requirement to have a wide audience.

just a suggestion. it's like someone from Universal Music wrote your "notable" requirements. or more likely, someone at wikipedia who isn't familiar with the current landscape of music creation.

Fogsnob (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]