Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 July 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 18 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 20 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


July 19[edit]

2019 NCAA Division I Baseball season[edit]

On A Draft page I made can you put 2018 NCAA Division I Baseball season that is now a past season can you put it on for me please. 169.55.19.146 (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:28:30, 19 July 2018 review of submission by Kb2nel[edit]


Thank you for reviewing this entry. I would like to inquire what is the difference of this entry with approvedentry of other bootcamp companies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev_Bootcamp Most of the source of citations from the above entry are the same as the source from the current entry. I am new to editing Wikipedia articles and it would be great if you could provide me with objective tips.

Also, a similar field company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DevMountain) has warnings but was still published in wikipedia. Kb2nel (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kb2nel. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean they have been in any way "approved". It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. They are not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.
Neither of the examples you gave went through the Articles for creation process. Both were created in a more permissive, more free-wheeling period of Wikipedia's history. One of your reviewers offered WP:THREE as a path forward. My advice to any new editor is not to create a new article until they've gained extensive experience editing existing articles, and not to choose an extant company or living person as the subject of their first article. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:53:15, 19 July 2018 review of submission by Aarthivsg[edit]

Hi,

I would like to create a wiki page for my Dance guru. I copied few lines about his early life from his website, so the wiki page got rejected due to copy right reasons. What changes should I make so that my wiki page is accepted? Should I just change the language and present the same content?

Thanks, Aarthi.

Aarthivsg (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aarthivsg - The first thing to do is to denote your Conflict of interest. Once you have done this, the review will be looked at on a better level. Wikipedia is VERY strict on copyright. You cannot copy and paste any information unless it is in the free domain (and even then, it's usually best not too!) I've made a few super basic changes to the article to meet Manual of Style guidelines, but the big issue, is promoting that the subject is notable. Does the subject meet the general notability guidelines? Read them, and find the references that prove that they do. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10:12:10, 19 July 2018 review of submission by Saranyasarawiki[edit]

sir i want to create a wiki page for our actress..but when i cmplt my edition also its nt appearng in google..so pls snd 1 guidance to publish my page Saranyasarawiki (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saranyasarawiki. When an article is patrolled (the timing of which you have no control over) it is released for indexing by search engines. Whether and when search engines actually index it is beyond the control of Wikipedia. If you are asking about Sowmya Rao Nadig, its sourcing is so weak that it may be deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:41:14, 19 July 2018 review of submission by Tfnalp[edit]


Is the new draft now good enough? Tfnalp (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Tfnalp (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:25:34, 19 July 2018 review of submission by Patrick.Loera[edit]


Patrick.Loera (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Hello, I have updated the sources and edited the text as requested to make it general statements about the person. Yes, this is the first time that I have created a page on Wikipedia, so I'm still learning the process. I do not know the person personally, but I was commissioned to help create his page. Is there anything else I can do to improve my current submission and get it published. I have others articles that I would like to submit as well, but I want to nail down the process first. Any links to tips would be greatly appreciated.[reply]

Also, I would like to add a photo and a summary bar with statistics on the side bar like some other pages. Can you direct me how to do that?

Thank you, Patrick.Loera (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Patrick.Loera#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Patrick.Loera, for your user page declaration. I tweaked the syntax slightly. For now, repeat that {{paid}} template for each additional person or business that hires you to write about them on Wikipedia. I've also added a {{connected contributor (paid)}} to the talk page of the draft, Draft talk:Jason Khalipa. One of those should go on the talk page of each page you edit with a conflict of interest. More broadly, Wikipedia:User pages explains what you may use your user page for.
By a "summary bar" you probably mean what is called an infobox. The documentation for how to use the most fundamental biographical one is at Template:Infobox person/doc. You can edit existing articles to see how they are coded.
You write that you are not "attempting to over-promote any athlete or business". That's good, but the encyclopedia is explicitly not to be used for promotion - of any kind and in any amount, so I don't see how you think you can possibly be successful at your goals on Wikipedia. Marketing and advertising companies should instead create or manage their client's website and social media presence.
Contributing images is one of the few things that editors with a conflict of interest are encouraged to do. Unless you took the photography yourself, start with Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. To further understand what the copyright holder has to give up, you may find it useful to read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials as well. Once you have the correct permission, adding an image is a two-step process: upload it, then use it in on a page.
Go to Commons:First steps and carefully step through the tutorial. When you get to "First steps/Uploading files", don't dive in too hastily. First follow the link on that page to learn about the different licensing options. Other useful advance reading includes Wikipedia:File names and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, which will prepare you to answer important questions the upload wizard will ask you. If after that you have any questions or doubts, Commons has its own help desk.
Once you've uploaded an image, the picture tutorial explains how to use it on a page, but as an editor with a conflict of interest, you are strongly discouraged from editing the article yourself. Better to leave a note on the article's talk page letting other editors know that you've uploaded an image that they may use in the article if they see fit. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Worldbruce, thank you for your response. This is very helpful information. For future revisions, I will certainly use the draft talk area so editors can consider any future edits I plan to submit. However, I noticed that my draft is dropping down on the list, and the number of reviews before mine is growing. Can you provide any feedback on why this is happening? As for the promotion response, the clients that I am writing for are only interested in being documented as athletes for encyclopedia purposes. My clients and I understand that Wikipedia is not for promotional or marketing efforts. There are several other athletes in the same genre of sports who are just as successful in their athletic careers and also have Wikipedia pages. Essentially, my sole purpose is to help these people document their careers as professional athletes by providing just the facts on Wikipedia. Regarding the images, do I still need to get copyright permission if I'm uploading a picture that is owned by the client? It looks like I do. Thank you once again for all your help. Patrick.Loera (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick.Loera - "my sole purpose is to help these people document their careers" - you seem to have omitted "and get paid" from this sentence. KJP1 (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Patrick.Loera: I don't know what you mean by "draft is dropping down on the list..." The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed for 12 days. The longest a submission has been in the pool is currently 6 weeks (42 days). Some reviewers work the pool as if it were a queue, so there's a good chance that Draft:Jason Khalipa will be reviewed within 30 days, but reviewers may work in any order they like, or not at all, we're all volunteers.
Copyright law is complex. Generally it is the photographer who holds the copyright. Someone else may own a physical copy or own a license to reproduce the photo under certain conditions, but that doesn't give them the right to donate the photographer's work to Wikipedia. There are exceptions, but they are unlikely to apply in your circumstances. So yes, you need to go through the steps of Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18:46:16, 19 July 2018 review of submission by Lettucecup[edit]


The article for Marc Olivier Strauss-Kahn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marc-Olivier_Strauss-Kahn ... has been entirely rewritten from scratch, with the assistance of several editors yesterday. Major contentions/critique were to fix the "promotional" tone, which was largely a problem of the academic nature of the subject as the Chief Economist of the central Bank of France. The publications have been shortened, book list removed; the piece has been referenced throughout, and any unverifiable references omitted. The overall structure is completely different. The editor last night remarked that it looks much better and now in good shape for submission. Many thanks.

Lettucecup (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

Lettucecup (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


19:21:57, 19 July 2018 review of submission by Srajprosadm[edit]


Hi... I tried to publish a page on an upcoming movie and the request was denied indicating that the publication looked more like an advertisement. I am not sure what I can change. Please help!!! Srajprosadm (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srajprosadm. In such cases the wisest thing to do is to wait until a month or two after the movie has been released. By then there may be additional reliable sources that you can draw upon to rewrite the draft. If there aren't, then the topic may not be suitable for Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:18:15, 19 July 2018 review of submission by Nosebagbear[edit]


Hello,

I have just concluded an AfC review of yet another draft for Igorrr which was salted back in 2015 and has been frequently added to AfC.

The article has significantly improved since its last review in AfC (about a month ago), and presumably more so since 2015.

It has significantly more sources as well as being no more advertising than its counterparts. Alas, it is in fact oversourced, with a heavy array of unsuited sources (running the range from primary/unreliable/non-independent etc etc)

I've dug up a quintet of sources that I think do satisfy the criteria (I freely concede a couple could be challenged)

Regarding WP:NMUSIC I would say that as well as criterion 1, it also satisfies criteria 4 & 7

Le Monde – primarily a review at bottom half, All Music short bio, Chicago Reader - something between a review and a genre analysis, Another All Music piece, but this time a review, French review of a film, with the majority about Igorrr’s music in it,

I dropped a message on the salting admin, but they've not posted in a month or so, so before I went via AIV, I thought I would get an expanded range of helpful views. Courtesy ping to the last decliners @Shadowowl and Chrissymad:

I've currently left the review running, I will close it in about an hour or so before I clock off, unless advice given to the contrary. Apologies if incorrect choice.

Nosebagbear (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding additional info that it also meets criteria 2 (Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.) with his last album charting at 173 in Belgium. Points could be argued for criteria 5, 8 and 10 as well. RF23 (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article currently has 2 Allmusic and 1 Facebook source, which are unreliable sources. These need to be removed. Allmusic explicitly allows user-generated content to be sent, as stated in the FAQ. -- » Shadowowl | talk 21:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The allmusic articles are a biography and a review by two of the site's authors. As far as I know they aren't user-generated content (that's an entirely separate section listed under user reviews). from the Music Wikiproject regarding Allmusic: "biography/reviews prose are reliable, but do not use genre sidebar, as it is generated from a separate source from the prose." Allmusic reviews and bios are used in almost every other musician article on wiki, and is considered a reliable source for what it's being used for in this article. The Facebook source is from the group themselves, which is allowed under WP:Selfpub. RF23 (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(SIDE NOTE: I am the primary contributor to the draft article and have previously posted on this help desk.) RF23 (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ringerfan23: Ok. I did not know that, and I assumed that everything was user generated by reading the FAQ. -- » Shadowowl | talk 22:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concluded - After some comments here and agreement from the salting admin I have passed this an article, beyond my own considerations I feel it satisfies the 90% AfD pass chance criterion.

My thanks to those above and congrats to the draft content creators. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2018_July_19&oldid=851863508"