Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 April 25

= April 25 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ernest So
Dear sirs

I have already used footnote in the article as reference for the citation, how come it is still not meeting your requirement. Can you help to specifically point out the problem in my file.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clientwiki (talk • contribs) 03:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the websites you are using for sources really aren't that good. All articles need to be supported by multiple reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in detail. I'm sorry, but I don't see that here.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  22:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles Christopher Hill
Wouldn't it make sense to know where one is in the line for review rather than the sum total to date of those in line? Just wondering if this has come up before. Yes, I'm new and am working on patience. Marilyn Nix (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)marilyn nix
 * Technically there is such a way. The queue is located at Category:Pending AfC submissions and submissions are listed in chronological order. Column one, top to bottom. Then Column two, three, and then the next page. Right now Charles Christopher Hill is in the first column, meaning it is pretty close to the front of the queue.
 * And that was before I just accepted it. Good job! I've seen you create/submit a number of good articles lately, and I must congratulate you :)  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  22:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

........................... Thanks Nolelover for the encouraging words and for helping get the article on Charles Christopher Hill posted. Much appreciated! Marilyn Nix (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)marilyn ...........................

New WORDS
I write stories and songs, scripts for ads etc Often words and names chosen for subjects, titels or items, even thinking it does not exist actually are later confirmed as already in use by a writer, director etc.

One such example is Yucky Doodles (I created my own concept around this)it was spelled Yucky Doodle, which I used for a script  Before publishing it I discovered it was also a name for a Donald Duck character (Didn't know - some people in line of their work obviously think alike ) Now I have a word that I gave meaning to according to my own description & discretion which obviously could be used by others but I need it to be exclusively assigned for public use in stories etc as the creator thereof to myself. If I give the details and content to WIKIPEDIA will this be a safe avenue and be recorded as that obviously excepting that it must sound and be acceptable to other, but this I will be able to use in my own way for educational, advertising & other communication purposes. Ria-Marlize du Toit (SA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.0.143 (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless this term you have created has been widely covered per the general notability guideline, then no, it will not be accepted per the policy on neologisms. Also note that Wikipedia is not a forum for original research, nor a space hosting provider, nor a place to advertise. A412  (Talk &bull; C) 22:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

So I do have a few new words What would be the avenue to follow ? I have described it in full but will only let it out when I have the rights protected before I release it. Is there a publisher beside Wikipedia you can recommend ?

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/quaternary importance
(Dandyli (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Symbol question.svg Question: Are you trying to ask something?  A412  (Talk &bull; C) 22:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Manuel Sáez
Hello, I've just had my article rejected Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Manuel Sáez and have been told that it needs to be written in a more neutral, encyclopedic manner. My problem is that it's a translation from the Spanish original. Should I ignore this and view the English entry as something separate and make the changes accordingly? Thank you. GreenMutant (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should view them separately, as English Wikipedia is not the same thing as Spanish Wikipedia- different standards across the board. See the policy on neutrality. A412  (Talk &bull; C) 22:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nada (The novel by Carmen LaForet)
I don't understand what footnotes this article lacks. It is a short article and does have three footnotes to separate authoritative sources. Please let me know what further footnotes it needs.

Springfieldohio (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My article "Nada (The novel by Carmen LaForet)" was declined for some reason pertaining to footnotes that I do not understand. It is a short article and it has footnotes to authoritative sources that support ever point in the article that is more than descriptive. I think it might be that it did not have a separate footnote section for them at the bottom. So, I added that and tried to resubmit it, but I am not sure I succeeded. This novel is already listed as one of the uses of the word "nada" and it the most famous book of an author who already has an article about her, that mentions this book.

What am I doing wrong?

Springfieldohio (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is certainly not a short article. Some reviewers here get a bit jittery when there are no online sources cited; they make a judgement on whether they believe the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia. The ratio of sources to text is quite low in your article: Wikipedian editors normally like articles to be short, concise, encyclopedic summaries. It may help if you add some more general information about the book (date of publication, critical reception, etc.), rather than launch into a lengthy plot summary. I've added some online sources to the Carmen Laforet article, which you might like to use. Sionk (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Darrell S. Freeman
My recent submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/DarrellSFreeman was rejected on 4/20 with the following comments:  "This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any tests in the future. Thank you."

I am not sure what this means, or what I should/can do to edit this article. Mr. Freeman's accomplishments are extremely noteworthy, so these comments are very surprising. And, I have seen several accepted entries that are very light on accomplishments and citations. I posed these questions to the reviewer, but have not heard back yet. Perhaps you can help me.

Audradavis (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Audra
 * The decline reason is indeed incorrect- the reviewer responded on my talk page- quoting from him:

Hi, Please do the following modifications to your article. Correct the reference syntax. Divide the article in to sections thereby wikifying the existing article.

Thanks, tausif 10:15 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7) A412 (Talk &bull; C) 22:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Henry Sherman
Hello,

I'm confused as to why this article has been rejected. Mark Sherman is a notable Canadian business man and a pioneer in the Canadian media industry. Can you please help point out where it may sound like an advertisement? All claims in the article are backed up by 3rd party news sources which have been included in the article. I'd love to see Mark Sherman included in Wikipedia and have no problem editing this article to ensure that it conforms to Wikipedia's standards.

Many thanks in advance, Rachmedia (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - congratulations!  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  23:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

shafirali muhemmed
he is a one of the brilliant man.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.51.180.97 (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Perhaps you would like to create an article about him?  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  22:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)