Help desk
< February 7	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 9 >

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 8

03:21:14, 8 February 2018 review of submission by Bcsimon15

Bcsimon15 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Old Nichols Library (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bcsimon15 (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am in the process of creating a new article and pressed the "Publish" button. A screen came up and said "Draft article not currently submitted for review." Several citations have a message, highlighted in red, that says "Check date values in: |access-date=." These messages are all by citations referring to documents on government websites that I had to enter manually, including manually entering the access date. Do I need to do anything with these, or can I just submit the article?

I don't want the article to be rejected. I'd rather make an needed corrections up front. Any advice would be appreciated so that I can submit an article successfully!

Thank you!!

Bcsimon15 (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Bcsimon15[reply]

Hello Bcsimon15. You rendered your access dates as "2/7/18" which is not a supported date format. How would the software know whether you are referring to 2018 or 1918 or 1418? There are several acceptable formats, but as an American, I would use "February 7, 2018" but "7 February 2018" would be fine for European topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bcsimon15. I fixed the problem for you by converting the offending access dates to the international format yyyy-mm-dd, a format you were already using for two of the other references. Cullen328's advice is also sound. If you switch to that format, just be sure to be consistent throughout the article. I also consolidated the multiple citations of the same references. Go ahead and submit. It's an iterative process. If a reviewer identifies any problem, then when you're confident you've fixed it, resubmit. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everyone!! It's great to have such a community of people willing to help.Bcsimon15 (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Bcsimon15[reply]

18:16:52, 8 February 2018 review of submission by 5.48.175.202

5.48.175.202 (talk · contribs)

Hello! I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and got asked to write a Wikipedia Article for the game we publish : Tree of Life (steam game) My article got declined, as i'm new, i'm not sure what i did wrong in it. Would be nice to tell me what needs to get changed :) Thank you ! 5.48.175.202 (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5.48.175.202, Zxcvbnm - As has been remarked, video games are not my area of expertise, but I am sending a message to an editor who does specialise in this area who may well be able to give you advice. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5.48.175.202 Hi, I can definitely tell you what is wrong. Simply being released is not enough to have an article, it must be notable. Otherwise anyone could just use Wikipedia as an advertising tool and not an encyclopedia. Notability means that major outlets of the gaming press must have several reviews of a decent length about the game, or similar articles. They must also be original content and not just press releases. Right now based on your Metacritic I don't think that's the case. It might just be WP:TOOSOON as notability is often proven long after the fact. Don't expect to be able to count on Wikipedia for advertising views as it works differently._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For further reference, here is a listing of websites that are considered (or not considered) proof of notability. If you can find several of those with original articles on your game then it might be notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:56:27, 8 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Gregory Norris at MLKDay365

Gregory Norris at MLKDay365 (talk · contribs)
- User:Gregory Norris at MLKDay365/sandbox/Section 3 (HUD Economic Opportunities) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not sure about anything I doing. Just trying to be bold. QUESTIONS: 1. Is every statement required citation? 2. Can Government online document be a ref? 3. If required to sign article how do I sign? 4. I am trying to create an Article. What Is differrence between an Article and Talk Page. 5. Is their a way to save material online without publishing it? 6. What is the Watch this Page Checkbox?

Thanks Gregory Norris Gregory Norris at MLKDay365 (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gregory Norris at MLKDay365.

No, but editors routinely use more than the minimum required citations. See WP:V, WP:CS, and WP:IC.
Yes, there are situations in which a government document (online or offline) can be a ref. There will be other situations in which a government document is not a reliable source or is reliable, but not an arms-length source. See WP:RS and WP:IS.
Don't sign articles. Your authorship is recorded in the page history. Do sign talk pages. See WP:SIGN.
See WP:TALK.
To save material within Wikipedia one must click the "Publish changes" button. One can save (publish) material to many spaces within Wikipedia other than the main article space, however. See Help:Sandbox tutorial and WP:DRAFT.
If you select "Watch this page", then you can click "Watchlist" at the top, near the right side, to see the most recent change to that page. Not especially useful if you're watching just one page, but many editors watch hundreds. See WP:WATCH.

For future reference, general questions about using Wikipedia (rather than questions specifically about the Articles for creation process) are best directed to a different help desk, the Wikipedia:Help desk. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:24:00, 8 February 2018 review of submission by 41.100.107.5

41.100.107.5 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Stanley, the Ugly Duckling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Okay, I've updated two of the source links with more clarity, but I've only put a lot of detail in the synopsis because I've watched the special, so do you think you watch it on YouTube and then trim the synopsis for me? 41.100.107.5 (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't link to copyright violations on other websites, such as YouTube. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:37:03, 8 February 2018 review of draft by TX.Gun-Runner

TX.Gun-Runner (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Washington F Street Mess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

TX.Gun-Runner (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC) I am trying to figure out what, exactly, I am missing for my article to be reviewed / posted. I have tried to follow all the guidelines, but - obviously - something is missing? FURTHERMORE . . . . I can find NO "Save Page" at the bottom of this, or ANY, page. Help?[reply]

TX.Gun-Runner - If I've done it right, it's now up for Review. If I haven't, somebody more competent will be along shortly. I should add that the, almost complete, absence of sources is likely to be a problem. KJP1 (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TX.Gun-Runner - With apologies, I obviously haven't done it quite right, as I've just received the decline message. Sorry. I'll copy it over to you. If there's something else I've got wrong, advice would be appreciated.KJP1 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TX.Gun-Runner: subject is totally notable, the page just needs proper citations (easily found all over GoogleBooks). Then some minor formatting tweaks and scaling back the dramatic language. But definitely a very valid and interesting topic, will pass easily once those items are fixed and you click Resubmit. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]