Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 March 26

= March 26 =

00:10:34, 26 March 2022 review of submission by Marjoram48
What Wikiproject classification tags should I put in? Marjoram48 (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . You are not required to add any WikiProject tags to a draft. If User:Marjoram48/sandbox will be a biography of a historical figure, a woman in Australia, then WikiProjects Biography, Women's History, and Australia might be appropriate. There's little point in adding WikiProjects, however, until you've made a solid start on the draft. You may find Help:Your first article useful. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

05:11:04, 26 March 2022 review of submission by Phoebae
Hello there, I'm a newbie here. So, could someone review my draft and point out mistakes?

Phoebae (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The lists in the article need to be removed, especially the investors list. Refer to the top table here:
 * We can't use https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/eloelo-crosses-50-million-gameplays-on-its-creator-driven-gaming-app/articleshow/82048454.cms (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this?
 * https://inc42.com/features/30-startups-to-watch-the-30-startups-that-caught-our-eye-in-2021/ is just on the right side of usable; listicles are usually too sparse to use but this one goes into some detail.
 * https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/funding/eloelo-raises-2-1-million-to-strengthen-creator-tie-ups-fuel-expansion/articleshow/84785826.cms is useless for notability (routine coverage). Fundraising is routinely reported on as a matter of course; the only way this would help for notability is if there was something remarkable about it, and this article isn't suggesting anything of the sort.
 * https://inc42.com/buzz/meet-the-16-indian-startups-selected-for-class-5-of-googles-accelerator-program/ is useless for notability (too sparse). One-line entry in a list article. Not significant coverage.
 * https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/technology/2021/07/04/how-indias-online-gaming-industry-is-emerging-as-a-winner-amid-covid-19-lockdowns/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Quote from a company principal, no significant discussion of the company specifically.
 * https://inc42.com/buzz/waterbridge-and-lumikai-fund-back-live-social-gaming-platform-eloelo/ is useless for notability (routine coverage). Funding coverage.
 * https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/web3-a-blockchain-based-next-era-of-internet-is-set-to-break-cover/articleshow/88655869.cms is useless for notability and indicates this article potentially falls under general sanctions for blockchain-/cryptocurrency-/NFT-related articles. Barely any discussion of the company or its plans.
 * https://www.livemint.com/companies/start-ups/live-social-gaming-platform-eloelo-raises-2-1-million-in-pre-series-a-funding-11627365071437.html is useless for notability (routine coverage). Yet more funding coverage.
 * https://venturebeat.com/2021/07/26/eloelo-raises-2-1m-for-creator-led-social-gaming-platform-in-india/ " " " " (" "). " " " ".
 * We can't use https://www.apnnews.com/eloelo-apps-live-event-with-sapna-choudhary-sees-record-breaking-engagement-on-the-platform/ (unknown provenance). Byline is absent; who actually wrote this?
 * As this article potentially falls into a topic area under sanctions, this is all I will say on this matter, beyond dropping a sanctions alert on your talkpage. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 07:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

05:16:23, 26 March 2022 review of submission by 張民耀
張民耀 (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)I mean, some people love Roblox games and they want information about the game. Why not post some information about the games in Wikipedia?


 * No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 06:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok… 張民耀 (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If there are zero reliable sources online about the game, I doubt many people actually do want information about the game. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 17:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessarily harsh reactions, including the phrases "zero reliable sources online", and particularly "no debate". I agree that there's insufficient notability, but in the Roblox metaverse this is a big deal. With a little bit of effort, you reactors could have found Roblox, and from there List of Roblox games, and then suggested to the editor to improve the latter section instead. At the Bloxy Awards, it has been nominated for both "Game of the Year" and "Best New Game" (source at Billboard), in the context of the metaverse has been on many best game lists (e.g. at VG247,  at Screen Rant,  at Rock Paper Shotgun), been described as "one of the best scary horror games" (source at Radio Times). It is extremely popular: "one of the most popular games" ( at New York Post), one of the "popular games" ( at The Daily Telegraph), "now has over 5 billion plays" ( at TechCrunch), "played more than 6.5 billion times" ( at The Irish Times). --77.162.8.57 (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

12:39:04, 26 March 2022 review of submission by Reayl name
Reayl name (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but two words that have no sources will never be accepted as a Wikipedia article. Please read more about what Wikipedia is, as well as Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This would be a slam-dunk no-content or no-context speedy deletion if it were in article space. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 19:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

19:08:25, 26 March 2022 review of draft by Shayaccount
Shayaccount (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Can online store selling a book related to the article be accepted as reference links? I am writing about a author of a book.

Also! How do I insert picture (s) of the author, in visual editing mode?
 * In order:


 * No. Online storefronts are only useful insofar as they provide a release date; the publisher is going to be a far more reliable source for this nine times out of ten.
 * Images don't help a draft what-so-ever, and we would need a freely-licensed image, not one you pulled off of Google Image Search.
 * —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 19:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As to your actual sources, refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:


 * We can't use https://www.olgschool.org/ (website homepage). You need to link to specific pages on that domain if you want to use the website as a source.
 * https://music.washington.edu/events/2018-04-21/washington-day-percussion is a non-sequitur.
 * We can't use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYfWpUvtJhs&list=PLmg39pjrttFbtjcg2I4MFM2S3Nxp2Vm57 (Unknown provenance). As a rule, we can only cite YouTube or other video sites if the content (1) was originally created by an outlet we would consider to be a reliable source and (2) it's uploaded to that outlet's verified channel.
 * https://rockandrollroadmap.com/places/where-they-played/other-rock-music-venues/the-ballard-firehouse/ is a non-sequitur.
 * We can't use https://aliceinchainsrip.tumblr.com/ (no editorial oversight). Tumblr - and all other social media - is useless as a cite in general, save for attributing comments made by the subject on the platform.
 * We can't use https://allpoetry.com/Eric_L.Michaels (either connexion to subject or, more likely, copyright violation). I note that the site appears to host poems from poets whose work is still under copyright, such as Ted Hughes (whose work is under copyright 'til 2068). We cannot link to, let alone cite, websites that engage in copyright infringement.
 * We can't use https://www.amazon.com/dp/151515579X?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2_dt_b_product_details (online storefront).
 * We can't use https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/poems-from-the-dark-eric-l-michaels/1122413098?ean=9781515155799 (online storefront).
 * Absolutely none of the sources you cite are usable. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 19:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

How do I insert an author's photo for a biography? YouTube videos show a simple search made in Template. However all videos predate an obvious setup change. There is no search bar in template, only already used private templates. Please help!
 * As I said above, images do not help a draft what-so-ever, and we don't accept fair-use images of living people. Please reply in this existing section instead of making a new one. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 20:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

21:07:52, 26 March 2022 review of submission by TomahF
I have spent a considerable amount of time preparing this timeline and believe it will be of interest to mechanical engineers. Drafts have been reviewed several times and I have addressed the various issues. The current version is much improved as a result.

The latest response that "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia," does not seem valid. Wikipedia currently costs numerous timelines, some of which are quite similar to the one I am proposing. For example, see the numerous examples available at List_of_timelines (List of timelines).

I serve on the history and heritage committee of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and I know that committee is very interested in seeing this effort go forward. We wish to use the Wikipedia space to allow others to add to the listing, as well as for the listing to be available for research and other uses.

Please let me know how we can move this effort forward.

Sincerely, TomahF (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Tom Fehring, P.E. Member, ASME History and Heritage Committee

TomahF (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Rejection means that resubmission is not possible, at least in the short term. I apologize greatly for being frank, but Wikipedia has no interest in the goals of other organizations like your society(please review conflict of interest) with regards to Wikipedia content. Much of the draft appears to be a copyright violation, which is an instant fail. Something being an "innovation" is an opinion and not an appropriate title for an encyclopedia article which should have a neutral point of view. Who views it as innovative?(rhetorical question) We're interested in what independent reliable sources say, not just the opinion of one organization. Please see other stuff exists; other poor articles existing does not mean that more can be added. We just haven't gotten around to addressing them yet. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * First: I do not believe any of the items in the draft represent a copyright violation. Of the over 1,000 items cited in the timeline, an earlier draft had included two or three items that used language directly from other sources. I found those errors and cleaned them up.
 * Second: There are numerous references that reveal that these items reflect true innovation, if you will look through the draft--all from independent reliable sources.
 * Third: This effort in no way reflects a conflict of interest. It is not meant to reflect only the interest of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Rather it is directed at anyone interested in the history of technology. TomahF (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)