Help desk
< March 16	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 18 >

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.

March 17

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/All Change Records

Can you help me please? This is my first attempt at a Wiki article and I am confused at what seems to be inconsistent applications of your guidelines.

My article is about an influential chain of independent record shops in the 1970s. It was influential as it played a key part in helping several other record shops come into being. Some of these are already on wikipedia.

My article has at least one reference from a webpage by a third party in the references section. We had no part to play in what was written in this web page.

That same third party has been accepted by yourselves as a wiki article. There are no citations or external / third party references to support their article.

There are also other record shops which have articles on wiki but, again, no citations or external references - I have found at least two on the first page of record shops. I would imagine there are more.

This seems unfair, to say the least.

As to objective evidence, would such things as images of records that were published under the record shop's label be acceptable? I also have a poster from the Isle of Wight Festival organised by one of the record shop founders, and referred to in the article. It has been hard to find very much that has been published about the chain, as the 1970s was not an internet age and articles from that time are not necessarily available online.

I would appreciate any help you might offer.

Jacky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyw27 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jacky. There are a few different issues to discuss here, so please bear with me.

First, I will assume the already-accepted article you're talking about (or one of them) is Honest Jon's. That article was created in 2005. At that time, anyone could create Wikipedia articles without them needing to be reviewed for acceptance - eight years later, that is no longer the case. In addition, in 2005 there was less emphasis on Wikipedia articles needing to be backed up by citations to independent reliable sources.

There's a possibility that in fact Honest Jon's does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability, and thus that there shouldn't be an article about it. If that's the case, you or I or someone else could nominate it for deletion on those grounds. However, some quick searching around makes me suspect the issue is not so clear cut; what appear to be independent reliable sources describe the shop as "legendary" and as having "played a part in Reggae history"; in fact there's one large internet site that is, rather bizarrely, using Honest Jon's as a landmark (literally). Some people obsess over independent record shops in a way that they don't over (for example) independent fast food shops; if enough people obsess about something then reliable sources will write about it; if reliable sources write about it enough then there can be an article about it on Wikipedia.

So while I can't say with certainty that Honest Jon's meets that requirement, it's likely that what needs doing is for reliable sources to be added to the article, rather than for the article to be deleted. Here's some you could add; they're not great but they're useable - [1] [2] [3] [4]

As regards sources for your article, no, photos of posters or records are not of any use to prove the notability of the business. What you need as sources are things like newspapers, books or magazines that discuss the business in detail. They do not have to be online. (So for example, many of the sources I used in the article about this dead guy are old books and newspaper articles that are not available online).

From your article draft, I see you indicate that the text of the proposed article is largely copied from another website that was also written by you. That's not permissible unless you choose to release the text under a free license; see WP:CONSENT. However, it may be necessary for you to re-write the text completely anyway; you have to write about what the third party sources say about the business, not about you personally (and others) remember as being the facts. Also, you should avoid phrasing like "Because of his passion for the planet and animals" - it's fine for Wikipedia to quote an independent reliable source saying that, but someone having "a passion" for something is not a citeable fact that an encyclopedia states in its own voice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James Lord Bowes

Hi, I have never created a page befoe and am having a lot of trouble understanding how to use citations and references within my page: for instance, I input the citations within the text using the ref tool <ref:ref> and got the panthesised numbers in those locations [in preview] but I cannot work out how to create a citation/notes/reference list at the bottom of the page and link them to it. Also [a really silly small thing!] a line about halfway down my text is placed within a bordered and grey shaded box, when I didn't include it, and I cannot seem to get rid of it whilst keeping the text in the original position? Any ideas that might help me? Many thanks, Leopold7 (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your question has been asked - by saving the page you placed your question here.

The grey shaded box is produced by putting a space at the start of the line. If you remove the space, it will go back to normal.

I don't use the ref tool, so I will have to defer to someone else to answer that. There's a fairly good guide to how to create references at WP:REFB. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Bn/sandbox

I'm splitting this off from the Russ Baker page. It might be objected that it duplicates material there. I'll remove the duplicated material from the Russ Baker page after this page on his book is accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bn (talk • contribs) 14:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bn (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a warning that this page already exists. The wikilink Family_of_Secrets, like the search key "Family of Secrets", goes to that section of the Russ_Baker article. Bn (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That warning has an entirely different reason: The algorithm that produced it guessed that the draft should be named "sandbox" and complained because we already have a sandbox article. That issue could be fixed by moving the draft to, say, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Family of Secrets (then we might possibly still have a warning, but for the right reason). I'd simply ignore it for now. Huon (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Searching, in general

I'm not active in AFC, so I don't quite know how this place is organized. However, as an OTRS agent, I often get permission statements related to images or text intended for draft articles. I understand why the drafts are in talk space, but this makes it difficult to find drafts. Is there some way to locate a draft? I have had some luck in guessing, by searching for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/XYZ if they tell me the permission relates to XYZ, but that doesn't always work.

For example, I am looking at permission related to something called "White Hat Rally". If someone can point me to the article, that will help this specific case, but I'd like to know generally how to search for a draft.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that White Hat Rally is not an AFC, but was a deleted main page item, so no need to search for that item, but the general question remains.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can try searching with prefix:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation - that should look through everything in the AfC space, but it won't find drafts in userspace. Thus I'd suggest two searches, one with the above prefix and one in the User: namespace. Huon (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that helps.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mildred Florence White

Hello, Incorrect created article name. I have created an article for submission, which is 50% complete, named Mildred Florence White.

I have realised I got the name wrong and the title should be Florence Mildred White.

I access the Wikipedia site by copy and paste from an XL document list as : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mildred_Florence_White

Can you tell me please the best way to alter the title name, and also how to access a revised name and cancelling the old name without losing the data already written?

Thank You.

Articles for Creation/Mildred Florence White.

TimothyWF (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the draft to the correct title, but the references seem problematic. For example, "Police records" is so vague it's useless - how could I find the relevant record, where would I have to look it up? Also, Wikipedia requires sources to be published - I don't think private family archives satisfy that requirement. Huon (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Lacerda

If I've created a new article how do I add pics to that article? Also with the current backlog of articles submitted for review how long is the waiting time before the article is reviewed? Thank you for your assistance. PersonZ777 (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The details of adding an image depend on that image's copyright status. If the image is available under a free license, or if you own the copyright and are willing to release it under a free license, you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. Once it's uploaded, the picture tutorial explains how to add an image to the article; to add it to the infobox, see Template:Infobox person.

If the image is not free, it may be possible to upload it to Wikipedia itself and claim Fair use, but Wikipedia's non-free content criteria are rather strict and in particular require non-free images to be used in articles only; a draft is not enough. Furthermore, no free equivalent may exist or may easily be created, which usually rules out images of living persons. Thus, if the image isn't free, you cannot use it before the submission has been accepted, and probably not even afterwards.

The oldest unreviewed submissions currently are from Feruary 21, so it may take another two or three weeks for a reviewer to look at your draft. I'd try and improve the references in the meantime; I don't think either Beauty Fit Beast or Stratusphere are subject to editorial oversight; they don't look like reliable sources to me, but like a two-person blog and a commercial website Lacerda is affiliated with. Huon (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Huon, that was very helpful, I'll do what you suggested in regards to uploading images and improving the references for this article, best regards PersonZ777PersonZ777 (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Masson

can you pllllllllllllllllllease publish and fix this article ??? "THANK YOU. I cannot understand how submit an article to wiki works.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.1.52.94 (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is correctly submitted for review (the "currently not submitted for review" message is an artefact that can safely be ignored as long as there's a "review waiting" message), but we cannot accept it in its current form. Wikipedia content should be verifiable from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspapers or articles about Masson in reputable music or gaming magazines. To be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards, Masson must have been the subject of significant coverage in such sources. Right now the draft's only source is his personal website, obviously not an independent source. Huon (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion about submitting article: Onsager-Machlup function

Dear Help Desk, on March 10 I submitted an article titled Onsager-Machlup function, but I have the impression that I must have done something wrong in the submission process. Shortly after submission I believe it received a "declined" status due to "no content". Since I did not understand this (I certainly meant it to have content) I tried to fix it, but now I am seriously doubting whether I managed to do that (I hope I have not made any mess!). For example, I do not find it listed under AfC submissions by date/10 March 2013 nor under declined submissions. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks.Bart van den Broek (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The version you submitted for review looked like this and was indeed empty except for the submission template. You added content, but then blanked that page with these edits and created a duplicate at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Onsager-Machlup function that was not submitted for review. I've reverted the blanking; the draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Onsager-Machlup function again bears the March 10 submission template. Instead I've nominated the duplicate draft for speedy deletion; we don't need two separate copies of the draft, and the preferred location for AfC drafts is Wikipedia talk:..., not Wikipedia:... I hope this resolves the confusion. Huon (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing things and resolving my confusion, it's much appreciated! Bart van den Broek (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]