Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 May 4

= May 4 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bernardo Ibáñez Águila
I am curious as to why me translating a Spanish Language article from http://es.wikipedia.org, into English is not an adequate. This Spanish Language website can be accessed via http://www.wikipedia.org/, which is where http://en.wikipedia.org is located. Does http://es.wikipedia.org not share the same probity in its soucres as that of http://en.wikipedia.org? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.176.143 (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Spanish and English Wikipedia are two different projects with different standards. Anyways, the article needs references to prove notability. See referencing for beginners. A412  (Talk &bull; C) 13:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Safe Machine
Hello,

Could you please let me know why the actual references are not enough and let me know what you do expect me to do in order to have proper references? Thank you.

Best regards,

Cedric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedric71 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The references are not enough to prove notability- see the golden rule. To prove notability, the article needs sources that are independent- i.e. not from the company itself, and that discuss it in detail- i.e. not Alexa. While these can be used to reference material, they do not add up to notability. A412  (Talk &bull; C) 13:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

New article on Libertarian Paternalism 2
Hi,

I recently posted a question here but feel it was not answered. I optimistically give it another try! Here is the question:

"Hi, I recently created a new article/entry on Libertarian Paternalism. I have written a PhD thesis on related stuff and currently lead a research project on libertarian paternalism in particular financed by the EU commission. In brief, I am an expert on this. The review of my article said I should withdraw it and instead improve on the article on Soft Paternalism. However, though "soft paternalism" is sometimes used to refer to Libertarian Paternalism, this is very much a minority practice. Soft paternalism has two main uses, one of which has some overlap with Libertarian Paternalism. I have edited the entry on Paternalism to reflect this fact. Ideally, what should happen is for the article on Soft paternalism to be removed, as this concept is now treated in the entry on Paternalism. Also, the existing entry on Soft Paternalism as I said reflect a minority view. The definition cited at the beginning of the article refers to an article in The Economist, hardly a very authoritative source in this context."

I also added this piece of information for context:

"I explained all this to my reviewer (User:Tom Morris) on his talk page but it seems he choose to simply delete my questions and suggestions. In any case they are no longer on his talk page and there is nothing on my talk page to explain what may have happened.

Please advice. I am rather new to editing Wikipedia but believe I could do some good if I just get over these stumbling blocks. Thank you. Filofil (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)"

Below is the answer I got. It notes that part of the new entry on Libertarian Paternalism is more or less copied from the text in the Soft Paternalism entry. I don't see why this is a problem, and it is anyway not related to my question. I know there is an entry on Soft Paternalism that partly deals with Libertarian Paternalism. For example the copied section, that is why I copied it. However, the name of this entry is misleading, the entry is neither about Soft Paternalism as this phrase is most typically understood, nor on Libertarian Paternalism. I hope you can see the problem here? I'm just trying to provide a solution but feel a bit frustrated that it is being opposed for reasons I fail to see. (Psychologically speaking this tends to make me feel like an outsider having stumbled into a world of people rather protective of "their" bits of text and of "the way we usually do things around here". But I try to tell myself this is just my subjective impression caused by anxiety in the face of this system and community that I don't yet understand.)

The only thing DCS says in relation to my question is that since the two entries have one section of text in common they cannot be different enough to deal with two different things. This is obviously just a logical mistake (the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and the sequence 1, 2, 3, 5 contain many of the same elements but one is the start of the sequence of natural numbers, the other the start of the sequence of prime numbers (and these two things should have two separate entries, as they do)).

It would also be interesting to learn more about norms regarding the attribution of text sections to wiki authors when text is moved, in relation to DCS:s comment, but this is not my main concern.


 * "Filofil,
 * There are no secrets on the Wiki and there is a record of everything. I have reviewed the comments from User:Tom Morris and I have to agree with the him.  But I find even more of a problem, your example is almost a word for word duplicate of the example from Soft paternalism.

"Consider the default contribution rates on defined contribution tax-deferred retirement savings plans in the United States. Until recently, the default contribution rate for most plans was zero, and despite the enormous tax advantages, many people took years to start contributing if they ever did. Behavioral economists attribute this to the "status quo bias", the common human resistance to changing one's behavior, combined with another common problem: the tendency to procrastinate. Research by behavioral economists demonstrated, moreover, that firms which raised the default rate instantly and dramatically raised the contribution rates of their employees."

- Your article

"As an example, take the default contribution rates on defined contribution tax-deferred retirement savings plans in the United States. Until recently, the default contribution rate for most plans was zero, and despite the enormous tax advantages, many people took years to start contributing if they ever did. Behavioral economists attribute this to the "status quo bias", the common human resistance to changing one's behavior, combined with another common problem: the tendency to procrastinate. Research by behavioral economists demonstrated, moreover, that firms which raised the default rate instantly and dramatically raised the contribution rates of their employees."

- Soft paternalism


 * I'm not suggesting that you copied from that article, each article cites a different reference. But, if both articles cite exactly the same example, I can't see that there could be enough difference between the two that there needs to be a separate article.  I suggest talking with the people here, Portal:Libertarianism, before you resubmit your article.    :- ) DCS  05:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)"

I will try to follow up on the suggestion to talk to Portal:Libertarianism, though libertarians typically (and correctly) think that Libertarian Paternalism is not a form of libertarianism.

Filofil (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ismailkhanpet
i created a post "ISMAILKHANPET" in wikipedia few days ago and you people denied it, i don't know the reason why you did this. ISMAILKHANPET is a village which has Famous temple located — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.82.243.101 (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like the reason was clearly indicated by the reviewer and clarification was provided via the link provided. Independent and reliable sources that provide coverage of the village are required to establish its notability; the only source provided thus far is not independent and arguably provides no coverage. Dalisays (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)