Help desk
< March 23	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 25 >

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 24

14:08:05, 24 March 2017 review of submission by Andrewfwilson

Andrewfwilson (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Jez Bond (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I submitted the above page for review 14 days ago (10th March). The subject was turned into a redirect in 2010, and with the updated information in the draft I think it is now sufficiently notable for a wikipedia page. My question is this: are you waiting for further information from me? I ask because there is a note in REVIEW WAITING box at the bottom of the draft, which says "Warning: The page Jez Bond redirects to Park Theatre (London). Please verify that it is not a copy of this submission and that this page does not need to be moved to a different title." Is that an instruction to me or to the reviewers? If it is to me, I don't understand the sentence, or what I should do about it. The title of the page would be "Jez Bond", but would cease being a redirect. Looking forward to hearing from you. Andrew

Andrew (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andrew. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Right now, there are about 450 submissions in the queue ahead of yours, so I expect that it will be another two weeks or so until a reviewer has a chance to look at it. Thank you for your patience. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The existence of a re-direct at the intended page name is something that will be addressed by the reviewer who accepts your draft for publication. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:31, 24 March 2017 review of submission by Adsiah

Adsiah (talk · contribs)

I received a reviewer's comment that my page, which is now live, should be moved to draft space until it is ready to be uploaded onto mainspace. How do I move a live page to draft space? Adsiah (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adsiah. Your article has been moved to Draft:V-Key. When you are ready to submit it for review, click the button that appears near the bottom of the box at the top of the draft. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:40:24, 24 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Stevedr83

Stevedr83 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Historic Carousel and Museum, Albany Oregon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Trying to start our page for our carousel so we can link to it from the other wiki pages. Here is our website, www.albanycarousel.com, any help would be appreciated. Stevedr83 (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stevedr83 (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To have an article accepted, you will need to establish that its subject is notable by including several references to reliable published independent sources. That draft has only one reference, to a source that is not independent of the subject. (It is also misformatted, but that could easily be fixed.) Maproom (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:27:53, 24 March 2017 review of submission by Maxieds

Maxieds (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Generating function transformation (Mathematics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft article has been waiting for a review for over a month now. I think it's because the article is somewhat long and the topics are mathematically oriented. How do I find an appropriate reviewer to approve the article without waiting for an eternity for some other mathematician to notice that it exists and needs review? (n.b. I have already included a link to the article on the Generating_function main article where it belongs with a note that it needs review)

Maxieds (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maxieds. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Right now, there are about 70 submissions in the queue ahead of yours, so I expect that it will be another two or three days until a reviewer has a chance to look at it. Thank you for your patience. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:01:55, 24 March 2017 review of submission by Silver Water

Silver Water (talk · contribs)
- User:Silver Water/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1) Did I miss any links that need to be included in this re-written history of the city of Eugene, Oregon? 2) Cullen thought that the second paragraph under the subsection, Indigenous Presence, was too detailed. I am thinking of simply deleting it. What do you think? 3) Do you have any other suggestions before I submit it for review? 4) Is submitting it for review by using the button at the top of the Sandbox page the appropriate next step? Thank you for your help.

Silver Water (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Silver Water, welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk. Submitting for review would be the thing to do for entirely new articles. But submitting is not designed for adding new content to existing articles. So long as you're the only substantive contributor to the draft in your sandbox (it's more complicated if you aren't, in which case the draft's history must be preserved), you have two options:

You can be bold, copy your drafted text, edit Eugene, Oregon and paste your text into the appropriate section(s).
Or if you think your changes are controversial, you can start a new section at Talk:Eugene, Oregon saying "Hey, I've drafted a proposed change to the history section over at User:Silver Water/sandbox. Let me know what you think. If I don't hear anything, I'll make the change in seven days." Optionally, you can ping active editors who've made significant contributions to the article. If after a week no one objects, then go ahead with option #1.

Asking for feedback here may get a response if someone here is particularly interested in Eugene, but because we have our hands full with new articles, you're more likely to get comments at the article's talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: Very helpful comments. Thank you for the direction. It is just what I needed. Though I don't think my proposed changes are controversial, I am new so I took the conservative route and asked for feedback at Talk:Eugene,Oregon, just as you suggested. After I posted, I saw other comments, none relevant to my topic and the most recent from last fall. Thank you again for your help. I'm excited to soon be able to post. Silver Water (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: One final question: Do the footnotes automatically interlace with the ones already present? How does adding footnotes actually work? Thanks again for your help. Silver Water (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver Water: Automatically interlace is a pretty good description. Conceptually, when you click "save", the file is re-parsed. Ref tags are turned into superscripts in numerical order that link to the full, formatted citation, which is placed wherever the {{reflist}} template is. Inserting your new text in Eugene will behave the same way as if you inserted a new ref in the middle of your draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: I am lost! I didn't understand your explanation. So, here's my question: If I paste in the text that I have created, will the footnotes automatically populate and renumber? If they do, they will save me a ton of work! Thank you for trying to explain this to me again. Silver Water (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver Water: Yes, they will automatically populate and renumber. All will become clear when you do it. You could see it now by doing the copying, but only clicking "Show preview" instead of "Save changes". --Worldbruce (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: Thank you! Hadn't thought of trying "Show Preview," another good idea!Silver Water (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]