Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 August 1

= August 1 =

Question about plus/minus on contribution list
I have a question about the plus/minus on the contribution list; as I am drafting a new article, I mainly have plus a few thousand (which I assume is some kind of credit); however, once in awhile I have a red minus of 40 or so, related to a new part of the entry. Could you tell me what that is about?

Also, with the family support draft entry (on talk), a couple of the headings will not enter properly on the pages (family support and aging, and parents with intellectual disabilities), and content, including references were missing (not on the editing page, but on the final page). Article still in process, and may need to be moved around and reheaded as soon as I am finished with the main body of the text.

You assistance would be appreciated. Thank you. JARacino (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)JARacino


 * That plus/minus is not credit but the net change in file size. While that's not too important for a draft, it allows users to quickly detect massive removal of content from articles (several KB of text removed without an explanatory edit summary might be vandalism) or major additions that might profit from a proofreading. It's a feature that's more useful on watchlists than on contributions pages, in my opinion.
 * The problems with the draft's missing section headings were due to references without a closing tag. Then content gets interpreted as "part of the reference" and isn't displayed properly. I fixed that. If some references are still missing, that's probably due to the same reason; you'll have to look at the reference immediately preceding the absent one and check whether it has the closing tag.
 * One unrelated comment: That draft seemed very US-specific. It acknowledges that family support is an international issue in one rather short paragraph, but the remainder deals exclusively with the US. Would the article profit from a more global perspective, or should it be renamed "Family support in the United States"? Huon (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tommy Hittz
The last submission is the one we wish to be submitted, so what needs to be done?

Wishrightnow (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You can get the others deleted by adding db-user to the top of those no longer needed. I'd do so myself, but honestly I cannot tell which of them is supposed to be the "last" submission: The one you linked to here, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tommy Hittz, the one created last, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Editing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tommy Hittz, or the last one to which you made a major edit, which would be Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tommy Hittz. (The fourth version, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Articles for creation/Tommy Hittz, does not seem to be the last; I nominated that one for deletion myself with a slightly longer explanation for the admin that will take care of the deletion.) You should also re-submit the version you want to have reviewed, preferably with a short comment to the reviewer that the issue of duplicates has been resolved and that that version is the real one. Right now all but Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tommy Hittz (which has the canonical title; if it's not too much of an effort, we should turn that one into the sole remaining draft and get those with more redundant titles deleted) have been declined as duplicates; that one has been declined for insufficient references. At a quick glance, all versions' references seem to be identical; you should probably work on them before resubmitting the draft. Huon (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

I made a biography about a Notable person, Mark Nowacki. You asked me to add some references, what I did. However, I can't ask for a new review.

Thanks fo your help,

Best regards,

Thibaut

Thinkinggood (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have resubmitted your article for review. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright - I have broken copyright on my own work???
I have broken copyright on setting up a new page for my company but it wont be published as I have copied it from the website I work for! — Preceding unsigned comment added by APCCs (talk • contribs) 10:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would not necessarily assume "your own work" is actually something you hold the copyright to. In general, if you work for a company, the company holds the copyright for your work, not you. Even if you produced the work as an independent contractor for the APCC and your contract explicitly stipulated you held all copyrights on your work in writing, you certainly would not be able to publish the content under Wikipedia's licence for anyone to freely share and change it. I would be frankly amazed if you had something in writing that asserted this. Instead of copying directly off the website, you should write about the organisation in your own words. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * To provide some more details: Wikipedia requires all content (with the exception of some fair use images) to be available under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license which allows the content to be redistributed, changed and so on. If the page you copied your article from is copyrighted, the article will be considered a copyright violation unless the original has been released under a compatible license, no matter whether you wrote the original or not. The copyright holder, whether it's you or your company, can release it under a free license and send a confirmation to Wikipedia under "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". The details are explained at Requesting copyright permission, especially the section on when permission is confirmed. A sample release letter is provided at Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Once permission has been received, the draft will be undeleted and a permission notice will be attached.
 * However, since the APCC website is not an independent source, it might be easier to write a new draft based on truly independent, reliable sources such as newspaper coverage of the APCC. You might also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest; writing about your own company is discouraged.
 * Finally you might want to have a look at our username policy, especially the section on promotional names; your username skirts the boundaries of what's acceptable, and since you do not yet have made many edits, it might be easiest to abandon this account and create a new one with another username. Huon (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Caligola
Hello!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Caligola&action=edit

I´m rewriting my article now (Articles for creation/Caligola), and i would like to change the name from "Caligola" to "Caligola (music project)" for the content is mainly the music. thank you very much! Andrea Schweinberger (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My suggestion would be to add a note at the very top, something along the lines of "Article title should be Caligola (music project)".
 * On an unrelated note, I saw that many of the draft's sources are primary sources or otherwise not reliable; for example, foreign-language Wikipedias are not acceptable sources, and Weingut Häfner hardly has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy necessary to be considered reliable (it's also a primary source). We should get rid of those sources and emphasize the truly idependent reliable sources such as the Kurier piece. Huon (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I´ve added the note, thank you. I´m trying to find other sources - the problems i have are a)there is almost only german material for this is where the project is mostly known and b) because it´s so new there isn´t any secondary literature yet. and I try to find a newpaper article about the wine :-) thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrea Schweinberger (talk • contribs) 18:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * While English sources are obviously preferable, German ones are acceptable as well; WP:NONENG gives some advice on how to use them. Huon (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't get approved... Help!
In reference to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/deep ella I am having a hard time getting my submission accepted. I have added numerous links to interviews, CD reviews and articles. I keep getting the response that I need to add more reliable sources. The sources I have included are our local newspaper and independent newspapers as well as online blogs. What am I not understanding here?

Jessaitch (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. I declined this, so I'll explain the problems with the article. Firstly, it looks written from a fan's point of view rather than a neutral point of view. If writing the article myself, I would probably write the first sentence simply as "Deep Ella is a rock band from Houston, Texas, that formed in 2002." As a basic rule of thumb, I would look at each adjective and adverb in the article and ask myself "does it help the reader understand the article?" If in doubt, take it out!


 * Moving on to the question of references, I'll run through each one in turn and explain them:
 * The first reference is the band's website. This is a primary source and unsuitable for describing a neutral point of view. Some information, such as basic biographical details, can come from a primary source, but that source on its own cannot assert notability of an article's subject.
 * Twitter, Facebook, Last.fm, Reverb Nation and ITunes are generally (but not always) unreliable sources as they don't have enough strict editorial control and peer review to the level we require.
 * Pretty Riot looks like a self-published source. This is generally considered unreliable as, again, anyone can pay to have a website set up and start adding articles to it.
 * 29-95 describes the band, but it doesn't go into significant detail about them. It also looks like a website where anyone can add entries (the label "user rating" on the article is a red flag), so again would be unreliable.
 * Houston Press is a blog, which is often (but not always) a unreliable source. Also the article is about Canned Acoustica II and only gives a cursory mention of the band, which is not significant enough.
 * Silver Dragon records looks like a reliable source. Unfortunately, the general musician guidelines tend not to consider bands signed to purely local lables to be particularly notable. You generally need a chart hit, or some sort of equivalent.


 * Sorry if it sounds like I'm picking apart your favourite band, but there are many many other bands that have been declined for the same reasons. I hope that's been of some use. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chandrika Balan
My article has been declined. What you mean sources? I have listed the sources such as the printers name, name of books etc. And also the names of people who can be contacted for verification.

Kindly guide.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panank (talk • contribs) 17:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The books are books by Balan, not by others about Balan. At best they are primary sources. The people who can be contacted aren't really helpful either; you cannot expect our readers to mail strangers for confirmation. Wikipedia relies on published sources. That leaves us with Balan's own website and her publisher's, both of which are primary sources too. But to establish Balan's notability we require significant coverage in reliable (published) sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper coverage or published reviews of Balan's works. Huon (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rick Tomaska
Hello,

My name is Mike and I am attempting to make a page for a well known Numismatist and author of numismatic books. I submitted my article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rick Tomaska and as you can see was denied because of failure to meet the standards of adequate notability and sources for Wikipedia. I have found a few more sources that verify what I have said in the article but do not want to resubmit before I am certain that the article has adequate references. Part of the problem is that Tomaska while important for his role in numismatics is a relatively unknown outside of numismatics. Any suggestions in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Also I have many print articles that are from Coin World, Numismatist (magazine), and COINage but none of them have online archives so I cannot link to them. Any thoughts on this? Thanks again.

Mike atRI (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Mike atRI


 * Many of the sources currently in the draft are primary sources such as books written by Tomaska. The others do little more than mention his name. To establish Tomaska's notability by Wikipedia's standards, we need sigificant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I don't think the current sources suffice. If those print articles are by Tomaska, not about him, neither will they. Otherwise you can add them just like any other reference; the cite journal template would probably be the best way; just leave out the "url=" parameter. Sources are not required to be available online, though of course it is easier on our readers if they are. Huon (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)