Help desk
< October 1	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 2

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cristóvão Tezza

So, my article was rejected for lack of sufficient citations for information on a living person. I accept the critique, but I have some questions on how to best fix it. In preparing the article I initially translated the bulk of it from the Portuguese Wikipedia (pt:Cristóvão Tezza), and then supplemented it with additional details I found on my own. The parts that need sources come from the part I translated, which leads to the following problems:

Q1: The original article had few inline citations, but when I did a search I discovered that the original source I was looking for was in the original article as an external link. There are two problems with this link. The first is that it is a blog entry that claims to reproduce the content of an interview with Mr. Tezza that was published elsewhere. Is citing to the blog good enough or do I need to find a copy of the original magazine that published the original interview? (It's a Brazilian magazine that I can't find online, so I don't think I can find it short of going to Brazil.)

Q2: The second problem with the link is that the original Portuguese Wikipedia article copied about a paragraph worth of content exactly word for word. I'm pretty sure we can't copy that much material even with citations. I can't rewrite the original because my Portuguese isn't good enough to write, so my question is how do I fix it for my English article? The fact that I translated it means it is not a word for word copy. Should I rewrite that portion anyway to make it clear we're not plagiarizing?

In addition to the above, I have another question about citations.

Q3: I know I'm supposed to give attribution to the original article when I translate it, and I'm not sure I did that correctly. I initially wrote a comment to that effect in the edit notes when creating the page, but when it went in the the Articles for Creation queue it disappeared, so I put another note on the page itself in the references section. Is this sufficient or is there another preferred way of giving attribution when translating from another Wikipedia?

Help on these issues will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Vojen (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to cheat: Use a template such as {{cite journal}} to cite the original Brazilian article, provide the URL to the online version, and trust that the online version is a faithful representation of the magazine interview.
Rewriting that part can't hurt. I'm not that much of an expert on copyright, but I believe it usually includes the right to translations—thus too close a translation of a lengthy copyrighted text would still have copyvio issues.
I believe the preferred method is the use of Template:Translated page on the talk page. That template should take four parameters: The language code of the source article, its exact title, its version number, and the version number of the target article where the translation was added. All other parameters are unnecessary. Huon (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your advice. The translation templates are just in the main space as there is no dedicated talk page yet, but when the article gets approved I'll check and make sure they transfer over to the new talk page. I also added some citations and rewrote a lot of the text to make it more of a summary than translation. It's not a great article and could still use some cleaning up, but hopefully it's good enough. Thanks for your help. Vojen (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Invincible Defence

I would like to know why my article on Invincible Defence was declined for inclusion in Wikepedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian G. Mc Enery (talk • contribs) 06:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined due to a complete lack of references to independent reliable sources describing the concept. Click on the links added to the submission page in order to learn more about this. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Oak Furniture Land

Having had the article reviewed by an Editor who said "I see references to The Times, BBC News and The Daily Telegraph, so your submission has a good chance of describing a notable company and passing." I am surprised and confused that the article was declined on the basis "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule."

Any thoughts or comments? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDPW75 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A problem may be WP:CORPDEPTH, which says that "routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops" are not useful in establishing the notability of a company. The submission does seem to include numerous references to material of that nature. However, because the submission also has references to thoroughly reliable national-level press (including The Times) discussing the business in more detail, I disagree with User:Hasteur's assessment of the submission. I suggest you submit it again to see if you get a different result. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree then why don't you review it yourself. I declined for the percieved WP:CITEKILL nature of the references for each major city's outlet. If you had taken the time to review the comment I left underneath, you would see that removing every reference beyond the Oak Furniture Land: From eBay trader to retail mogul you would see that there's only 3 references left which would clearly be in danger of having a NPPer or any mainspace editor jump up and down on it. Fix the problems identified and it'll probably pass. Don't and you will not receive any help from me as I think the submission has a greater than 50% chance at being put up for deletion. Hasteur (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed 4 of the references for the outlets. My concern is "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability". I was not aware of WP:CITEKILL. Where is the balance? Should I resubmit now? All feedback welcome, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDPW75 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MemoQ

I recently made my first attempt at article submission with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MemoQ. It was a quick effort to start a page describing commercial software used for translation support; similar pages exist for other software in use for that purpose, such as OmegaT and SDLTrados. Considering that this tool is probably the second most popular in use and has some interesting differences with others, I thought it appropriate to have a description available. I am trying to organize an informal group to look after a set of relevant pages on translation technology, because the current pages are, for the most part, out of date.

Before I submitted, I asked an acquaintance to have a look at the page and tell me what more was needed before I submit the stub. He made a few changes and said that he thought it was ready, which surprised me a bit, because I had added only the most basic skeletal information to familiarize myself a little with the editing process. I had made my first edits to any Wikipedia page only an hour or two before.

Not surprisingly, the make submission was rejected. I would like advice, specific if possible, on what additional referencing or other changes would be considered adequate for the page to be accepted and be more readily available for review and improvement.

Best regards,

kslossner Kslossner (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing to add is references to coverage of the software in independent sources. For example, reviews of the software in computer magazines, or translation industry magazines, whether online or printed, would be ideal to add as references. Some more information on this requirement is at Wikipedia:VRS. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NB the draft is at User:Kslossner/MemoQ.--ukexpat (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Garden of Martyrs

I have submitted a new article titled The Garden of Martyrs (opera). Wikipedia states that there is an entry with the same name. I have not found any articles with this name. Is this a unique title for an article? Heron10 (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)heron10[reply]

Actually the "same name" warning referred to "sandbox". I have sucessfully moved your draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Garden of Martyrs where you can continue working on it while waiting for it to be reviewed. BTW the "(opera)" disambiguation is not needed because there is currently no other article named "The Garden of Martyrs" on the English Wikipedia. If someone were to write an article about the book or something entirely different with the same name, we would need to add a disambiguator, but not until then. (I have also edited the section heading here to link the correct page.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Breaking Point

Good Morning! Last evening I offered my first article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Breaking Point, a brief history of Breaking Point, a 1970s Central Texas rock band. The article was not accepted and I'd like some additional feedback. Thank you in advance, Fficombat (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Morgan Montalvo[reply]

Sad to say, this band seem very unlikely to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:BAND, and thus your article is extremely unlikely ever to be accepted. If you do want to continue improving the article (perhaps just for practice before working on something else?), then the "golden rule" link in the decline notice will give a clear idea of what should be added to make the article closer to being accepted. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Garden of Martyrs

I want to put copyrighted material in the article. I have obtained permissions in for the synopsis for The Garden of Martyrs. How can I tell if this has been accepted?

Heron10 (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)heron10[reply]

I believe you would need to wait for the reply email you receive after sending the permissions through to the email address at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted material. If the material in question is to go in mainspace (article space) then the person dealing with the email would also add a confirmation note on the talk page of the article, but presumably this will not be possible until after the AfC submission is accepted.

If, instead, you provided permissions by altering the website where the material is already hosted, then I believe you don't need to do anything else.. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis is correct. There is quite a backlog at OTRS where permissions are reviewed so it may take some time.--ukexpat (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Eliscu 1912 - 1996

on sept. 27 i submitted a biography but there was a problem saving. I am not sure if it got saved and I cannot find it. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Eliscu 1912 - 1996.NBELQ (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you click this link Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Eliscu 1912 - 1996 it should take you to it. It is currently awaiting review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conviva Page [[1]]

Hello. I recently submitted a page for [[2]]

Previously i submitted the same content on september 25th but the page was deleted - I am not sure why. Please let me know if you have any edits for my submission. Thanks DianaDmariepaschal (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Diana Dmariepaschal (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, that page has never been submitted for review (I am not able to see deleted pages or revisions). You can submit it by putting {{subst:submit}} at the top of it.

The most common reasons for immediate deletion of pages, are copyright violations (material copied from the company's website, for example), or blatantly promotional material in the article space. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Promoting Early Access to Counselling and Help for Youth

Hi. This is my first time doing this. My submission was a page called P.E.A.C.H.Y. for a charity of the same name. My username is eubankr (just in case). The submission was rejected. Please tell me what I need to correct in order for the submission to succeed.

Thanks for any information.

Eubankr (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add references to independent sources that discuss the organisation in detail. Newspapers (whether online or offline) would be ideal as sources for this. Some more information about how to add sources, and what sort of sources to add, can be found in the links at the top of your submitted page User:Eubankr/sandbox. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]