Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 November 18
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < November 17 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 19 > |
| 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. |
November 18
[edit]I cannot understand why my page for Andrew Berry Hairdresser hasn't been published. I've supplied all the correct information.Lucyarnott (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Because Berry is a living person, the minimum standard for his article is stricter, and all information in the article must be cited to a good source per our policy on living people using in-line citations. Currently, your submission has none. The subject seems to be tangentially related to a number of people centred around Factory Records, but notability is not inherited so he can't have an article just because several of his friends do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm hoping to improve a Wiki entry that was rejected recently but have not heard anything as to why or what I need to do to get it published. I would be most grateful for any advice on how to proceed.
Many thanks for your help.
Best wishes,
Tanja
Forum on Information Standards in Heritage (FISH), UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasu08 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- The submission was declined because it does not appear to be a notable topic for a standalone article. Web forums are generally unsuitable topics for Wikipedia (simply because anyone can set one up and there are so many of them), and your references mostly deal with English Heritage. You might be able to mention MIDAS Heritage in that article briefly, but I don't think you'll be able to do much more at present. By the way, you should generally avoid writing about articles dealing with subjects you are closely involved with, as it can create a conflict of interest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ian_Morison
...top of page shows "Article not currently submitted for review."
...bottom of page shows "Review waiting."
I suspect some meta markup has been left in place accidentally, please confirm that article is in review or advise corrections if not!
Thanks! 52degreesN (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- The article was correctly submitted for review, and has now passed. Thanks for your submission! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Why does the article Barry Jon Beck have a warning that it's an orphan, when other Wikipedia pages link to it? How can I get this removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gremlin700 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Question
[edit]Hi Folks, I am editing the entry Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Søren Brier as suggested by DGG but I am a bit confused on how to discriminate between information that should go into References, Sources and External Links. Thanks so much ˜˜˜CRAU999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crau999 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- @DGG: is, as he says in your submission, a specialist in biographies on academics. I've pinged him as he's probably the best person to answer your specific questions. For what it's worth, I tend to put references to inline citations in "References", general references (such as books or related reading where the entry in "References" is a shortened footnote) in "Sources" and anything that's also worth reading but not directly related to anything in the article in "External Links". However, to cut a long story short, for the purposes of getting your submission accepted, the honest answer is "it doesn't really matter too much". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Ritchie has it right: it doesn't matter much. What matters is that we do have references, not where we put them. The way I think on it, the distinction between additional reading and external links is that the reading is normally print, but can be online if it;'s book-type material, the ER's are web pages and the like. If something is in the refs it doesn't have to be duplicated, but sometimes it does help--like always adding the official CV as the first EL, even if you have previously used it to support routine biographical facts. It has happened that people have rejected AfCs for handling references in a way they don't like, but they're shouldn't do that, because any way that clearly documents the material is acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I've recently submitted a new article for creation. The first feedback was a little disappointing and actually confusing. I wonder if I could get a better one - what is actually wrong with it and how to improve it. I have a COI here and would very much appreciate your help so I can go back and try to make it better. Many thanks, Kat Kt1502 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I am having trouble uploading my article. Everytime I think I have submitted it, the next pages says "Article Not Currently Submitted for Review". Are you able to tell me if my article has been submitted, or how I can submit it? Thanks! Lboureston (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Lindsey
Done. When you submit the article there is a section of text that explains that you should ignore the grey box and it will get cleaned up later. I've just been and done the clean up and your article is awaiting review. Rankersbo (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Please inform me of the reasons for which this submission has been rejected and advise me as to how to rectify it. Yours Mark Daniel (Daniboy72)Daniboy72 (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Generally candidates for Westminster or Brussels/Strasbourg aren't considered notable under WP:POLITICIAN so either UKIP would need to take 2 seats in his region at the next EP election, or he needs to have a high profile in the press to be proved notable. The reviewer seems to feel that the mention of Mr Carvers name in the reliable sources of the article aren't significant. Rankersbo (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)