Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 February 6
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 5 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 7 > |
| 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. |
February 6
[edit]00:03:38, 6 February 2015 review of submission by Cryptodd
[edit]
I need to delete the Porticor article submission. It was announced today that Porticor is being acquired by another company (Intuit), so the article will no longer be relevant.
Cryptodd (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you!! --Cryptodd (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to get more information of what I'm doing wrong while writing about DIAKRIT International Ltd. If you could please help me with specifying the specific problem, I don't really know what to change, some parts of all of it? I understand that its the sources that needs to be adjusted, but nothing more really. Archiehwc (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Archiehwc: I think the key problem for me as a reader is I can't tell what Diakrit really is. The opening sentence says "digital marketing solutions for the housing industry" - does that mean you're a company that takes photographs of houses for real estate brokers? Company articles are a hard sell on Wikipedia, I'm afraid - you generally need to have lots of prominent national newspaper or magazine coverage, and it must be completely independent - no press releases, no promotional writing, it must have all come from somebody deciding to write about the company with no prompting from you whatsoever. Contrary to what it says on your draft, the position of the sources is not so important, as provided the sources are given, other editors can edit the article to align them with the text. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- IMNSHO the word "solution(s)" should be forbidden in all company articles unless the company deals in literal solutions, as in chemicals. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
17:00:05, 6 February 2015 review of submission by GarrettSutton75
[edit]
I need to figure out how to add references when I enter a superscript. I also need to figure out how to add an image to the article. Please advise. I tried and it said that because I was not an administrator I was not able to do so.
GarrettSutton75 (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- @GarrettSutton75: To add references as a superscript, put the reference in between
<ref>and</ref>tags. Everything between those tags will be replaced with a superscript that links to the references section. For an easy way to do this, see the instructions at WP:REFBEGIN. - To add images, you will need to upload them using the Wikipedia File Upload Wizard or the Wikimedia Commons Upload Wizard. If you cannot use either of those because you are not yet auto-confirmed yet, you can wait until your article is approved to add the images. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC) - @GarrettSutton75: - You use the <ref> template, putting the source in between tags. For example, if you were to cite the front page of BBC News, you could write
<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk]</ref>. (There are more advanced citation templates, but start with the easier stuff first). However, before we go any further, there are a number of problems - the most obvious being you shouldn't write an article about yourself, especially if you're new to Wikipedia. Have a look at the plain and simple conflict of interest guide to see what pitfalls you can encounter. Additionally, you don't seem to have any obvious news or magazine coverage; I can see lots of links for your "How to get rich in business" books, but that in itself isn't really enough to have a Wikipedia article. I think your best bet is to give the draft a miss, and simply wait until somebody else decides you should have a Wikipedia article and writes about it independently. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
18:32:46, 6 February 2015 review of submission by Lbehrens
[edit]
To DGG: Thanks for your Feb 3 comments on my submission about "Virtual Walks." Over this coming weekend I will use Lexis/Nexis to search for the kind of sources you suggest. (ProQuest and other databases have yielded little of value on this subject,admittedly a niche area at this point in time. In the meantime, the most readily accessible form of verification for my article(besides the catalogs and the actual videos of those offering this kind of material) are the non-professional comments of the kind provided on reviews posted on Amazon and YouTube. For example, one reviewer, commenting on a virtual walk of Calcutta, wrote: "Ohhhh, this life, this is just real, real life, mannnn. You, the cameraman gave the vision to the viewer. You made the viewer of the video think he's the one walking along and being there. The noises, sights are awesome. I'm walking right in the street, the roadway. People overtaking the cameraman make this film so dynamic and attractive and interesting to watch. Everyone is going about their business, and what things we see them doing. Everything is here, mannn. Like a feature film." There are numerous such comments testifying to the effect and power of virtual walks, though few have yet found their way into newspapers or magazines.
Lbehrens (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Lbehrens, that's just the thing if "few have yet found their way into newspapers or magazines", then we don't really have a lot to go off of. The entire concept of an encyclopedia is that it's a WP:Tertiary source: it takes information that's already collected by news, books, etc. (WP:Secondary sources) and compiles, streamlines, organizes them. It does not take WP:Primary sources like personal observation, interviews, archival research, and publish them. If virtual tours aren't getting the recognition they merit, then that's the fault of journalists and academics who are overlooking a great thing, not of Wikipedia.
- Also, can you double-check Virtual tour and make sure that your article idea is not redundant to that one? If it's largely the same topic, we can't publish a new article on it, but would instead advise you build and improve the exiting article with neutral, cited material. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
20:33:12, 6 February 2015 review of submission by Rloporto
[edit]
Rloporto (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
What do we have to do to get our article approved? Where did we go wrong? Tell us in detail what we have to do.
- @Rloporto: As the pink box at the top of Draft:St. Angela Merici Parish School says, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines for requirements for school articles. Articles on elementary and middle schools are generally not accepted on Wikipedia. Instead, the article name is redirected to the article for the school district or location of the school. As such, I have replaced the article with a redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange#Education and approved the page as such. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
My entry "Miguel Rolando Covian" written in Brazilian Portuguese was denied.
I would like to know the reasons for that.
Thank you,
Rodrigo
Rlmiranda (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Rlmiranda: Please read the pink box at the top of Draft:Miguel Rolando Covian. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and therefore we can only accept articles written in English. If you wish to submit articles in Brazilian Portuguese you should do so at the Portuguese Wikipedia. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)