Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 October 21

=October 21=

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Soccer For Peace-- declined
Hello, I would like to inquire why the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Soccer For Peace was declined. If you can advise me on what types of revisions to make, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you very much. Gtn107 (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Greetings, the reason it was declined is that your article is only sourced to SoP itself. What we need to see is evidence that uninvolved, neutral parties have said "this organisation is worth writing about." Is it mentioned in any news articles, academic journals, books about conflict issues? The basic guidelines are laid out at Notability (organizations and companies), where it shows the evidence we need to agree that an article is worth having. Do note that Wikipedia "Notability" does not literally mean your organisation is good or bad, just that we need evidence that uninvolved parties found it significant. Sometimes notability takes a while to develop, but it is a fundamental requirement. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

How to change a subject's title
Hello ~ my article was just approved (and I am so grateful) ... but in submitting my article, I placed a title after the subject's name to differentiate it from any conflicts with another subject of the same name: Aaron Robinson. One is a baseball player, the other is a composer. How can I change my article to simply read "Aaron Robinson" ~ so that when one Googles the name, they do not need to have the accompanying (composer) to find it? I see on other articles that a link to another subject is sometimes at the top of articles with the same name, stating: if you are searching for <...> click here ... how is this achieved? Do I need to resubmit my article with a different title? or can some reviewer reading this go in and do this for me? or at least show me ... any help and I would really appreciate it. Thank you all in advance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Robinson_%28composer%29 Impromp2Music (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added a hatnote to the baseball player article that provides a link to Aaron Robinson (composer). That hatnote was created by the for2 template. One might argue that we should move Aaron Robinson the baseball player to some other title (such as "Aaron Robinson (baseball player)") and turn Aaron Robinson into a full-blown disambiguation page that only lists the various Aaron Robinsons, but I'd say that's too much effort for the gain, and the baseball player dominated a Google News Archive search for "Aaron Robinson". He thus seems to have the greater claim to being considered the primary topic. Huon (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Huon. I really appreciate it ~ and agree about keeping things the way they are ... I was just worried that people searching Google would not have the opportunity to see both entries on Wikipedia, as one must type in "Aaron Robinson (composer)" in the search engine to find the link. But still, thanks for what you did! Impromp2Music (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * An interesting point. Google will definitely see both articles.  But I'm not sure how it handles them.  I'm going do some WP:OR.  --  :- ) Don  15:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a few quick tests on Wikipedia names and Google appears to works as it says it does. One of their criteria is, the more links there are to a page the higher in the list it is returned.  If more pages link to Aaron Robinson (composer) than to Aaron Robinson and more people visit Aaron Robinson (composer) than Aaron Robinson, your page should be returned higher in the list. IMHO --  :- ) Don  15:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/fuhshniZZle
Hi!

I am a new User and have created an entry for fuhshniZZle music service. At the top of the page I have created it says "This is a draft Articles for Creation submission. It is not currently pending review." Then at the bottom of the page it says: "Review pending. This submission is waiting to be reviewed. This might take several days. There are currently 979 submissions waiting for review at this page."

I am not sure whether or not I have done everything I need to do because top of the page says the article is not currently pending review and the bottom of the page say Review Pending. Can you clarify this for me? I would like to submit the article. Do I need to do anything further to submit the article?

Thank for your help.

Gary

GSKraft (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Gary,
 * Not to worrry. Your page has been submitted. We have some bugs in the system which are gradually being addressed.  Ignore the gray draft template and give it a few days, we have a very large backlog. Thanks.  --  :- ) Don  07:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

internet device
what are internet devices ? and also tell me some of internet devices an categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.94.142 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

'''This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Reference desk'''. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps.

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gunars Salins
Why are there more submissions waiting to be reviewed ahead of me than when I first submitted this article a week ago? Thanks, Laila--Lailasalins (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We are in trouble now. Huon should take this one.  His diplomatic skills are without question.
 * The short answer is, articles at AfC are not always and very often not reviewed in the order received. It is more efficient for a review with limited time to review many short or bad articles than work on a complex or long article.  Therefore, the more involved and complicated an article is, the longer it takes to go through the process.  I know this is a back-handed compliment, but usually the worse an article is, the quicker it is declined and out of here.  So keep the faith, your article is not a slam-dunk bad one, and will be reviewed. --  :- )   Don  20:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Laila, one thing you'll want to fix: right now you list a bunch of books by Salins as "References". That is not what "References" is, that's his bibliography, things that he wrote that are worth knowing about. "References" are things others have written about him which prove the asserted facts about his life. Ideally, every fact stated in his biography should be clearly referenced to a book or article about his life by a recognised writer (not a blog, not a forum). You seem to have some good sources at the end, though not footnoted into the body, and on GoogleBooks there appear to be a lot of books discussing Salins, so that part is good. What I'd suggest is that you read WP:Referencing for beginners to make sure you understand the basics, and in the days it takes your article to get reviewed, you can use that time to polish up the referencing to make sure it gets approved on the first viewing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, I believe the solution to the growing number of submissions is even simpler than Don suggests: That number is not the number waiting to be reviewed ahead of your draft, but the grand total. The backlog is growing while your submission is slowly making its way to the front of the queue.
 * Secondly, MatthewVanitas and I just did some copyediting and fixed the "bibliography" issue he mentioned, among other minor improvements.
 * Some verifiability issues remain: For example, the source cited for the Order of the Three Stars didn't even mention Salins and therefore could not be used to back up the statement about Salins receiving the award (I used another source instead). The source given for the "Academic and family life" section confirms only small parts of that section: It doesn't say where he received his BA and MA, it doesn't say anything about his wife's work in the US, it doesn't mention his children's or grandchildren's names, it doesn't mention his place of death and is less precise about the place of birth than your draft. We either need a better source that actually confirms those details, or we have to remove what the source doesn't confirm. On the other hand, the draft mentions good sources discussing Salins' literary work that we currently don't use at all (listed at very end). We could probably write something on the critical reception of Salins' works based on those sources.
 * You may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest - if I'm not mistaken, you are Salins' daughter. Writing about close relatives is discouraged, and if you do so, you should make doubly sure that your draft is indeed backed up by reliable sources and not your personal memories - those would be considered original research and are not acceptable for Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Corey D. Taylor
I'm trying to get this page up. If you could send me any practicle help (like telling me exactly what I'm doing wrong) this would be appreciated. Corey D. Taylor is an Emmy Award winning movie producer, so I don't know how he would be disqualified as being a notable biography. Please help! --Ksaraa (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Ksaraa, the problem is not Taylor's being an Emmy Award winner, the problem is that you need to show that he's an important, award-winning movie producer. Right now your souring is things like Amazon, YouTube, and Taylor's own site. The ref to the Emmys site is good, but you need additional cites. What we want is not Taylor's own site saying "I'm important", or squinting at the credits at a DVD for sale on Amazon, what we want is WP:Reliable sources, such as a major newspaper saying "Taylor has had a great career, and here's why" or a book about film history that says "Another important was Corey Taylor, who did [important things here]." Those cites would provide evidence that Taylor's fame is an established fact. Your KSBITV links could be decent cites, but they appear to lead to non-existent articles, and in general your references have a lot of coding errors that make them hard to understand.


 * I would strongly advise you read WP:Notability (people) and Referencing for beginners to understand the basic checklist your article needs to meet. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)