Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 March 11
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < March 10 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 12 > |
| 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. |
March 11
editA discussion about this article, in which one editor who opposed its creation started an RfC about the issue, has been prematurely archived to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013_March 4#Teacher Quality. At the time of archiving there were three experienced editors who were in favour of creating this article under a different title "Teacher quality assessment". Can we please take this out of the archive and get some resolution here one way or another? This is most unfair to the new editor who created this article. Voceditenore (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- As I have expressed a strong opinion about it, agreeing with Voceditnore, and suggesting the first step is simply to accept it and move as suggested, leaving further improvement for later, I prefer not to actually close it. Maybe some admins would not be so particular about things like this, but I ask that comebody else do what I think is obvious. DGG (talk ) 15:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Let's just move it to article space as 'Teacher quality assessment' and throw it to the wolves. There's already an article about Educational assessment (more relevant to student progress), for example. Sionk (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously I'm in favour of that. The problem is, after DGG said that he was going to move it into article space, Kinkreet started a formal RfC. After he did that, only I, DGG, and you (Sionk) formally commented. We all said that it should be moved under the new title. No one else ever returned to the RfC to formally comment, including the editor who initiated it, and it was archived. Since it was a formal RfC, doesn't it have to be formally closed? It seems an RfC can also be closed by a consensus of the participants without a formal admin closure. Perhaps we can wait 48 hours and if no one objects, we take it as a consensus to close. But, if so, how can that be done if it's archived? At the moment, it's still listed here as open RfC. The whole thing is pretty silly, frankly. Voceditenore (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Adding another time stamp to keep this from being archived. Voceditenore (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'll timestamp it too. Just so folks know I'm still here.Douglarkin (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Douglarkin
- Can we formally close the RfC now, as it appears no one else has commented beyond those who have already weighed in?Douglarkin (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Douglarkin
- I'll timestamp it too. Just so folks know I'm still here.Douglarkin (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Douglarkin
- Adding another time stamp to keep this from being archived. Voceditenore (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously I'm in favour of that. The problem is, after DGG said that he was going to move it into article space, Kinkreet started a formal RfC. After he did that, only I, DGG, and you (Sionk) formally commented. We all said that it should be moved under the new title. No one else ever returned to the RfC to formally comment, including the editor who initiated it, and it was archived. Since it was a formal RfC, doesn't it have to be formally closed? It seems an RfC can also be closed by a consensus of the participants without a formal admin closure. Perhaps we can wait 48 hours and if no one objects, we take it as a consensus to close. But, if so, how can that be done if it's archived? At the moment, it's still listed here as open RfC. The whole thing is pretty silly, frankly. Voceditenore (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Let's just move it to article space as 'Teacher quality assessment' and throw it to the wolves. There's already an article about Educational assessment (more relevant to student progress), for example. Sionk (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Confusion about resubmitting revised article
editHello,
I can't find any obvious way to tell if the article - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Join In Local Sport - has been resubmitted for approval following additional edits.
Would appreciate any help/advice!
Many thanks.
JoinInUK (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- In the bottommost "submission declined" box, there is a link saying "When you are ready to resubmit, click here". Click on that and the article will be requeued. By the way, your username implies you are editing on behalf of an organisation, which is unacceptable, and may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. I would recommend you get your username changed ASAP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Review of User:Krisbenz/sandbox
editWhy is there a warning in my article titled 'Nakabahee (a locality at Patan in Nepal) for editing saying 'there is a similar title already in use' but when I checked the search in wikipedia, I could not find any article related to the titleKrisbenz (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Because the script that produces the warning is bad at guessing what drafts should be named. It guessed that your draft should be named "sandbox" and complained because we already have a "sandbox" article. I've resolved the issue by moving your draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nakabahee, the preferred location for drafts awaiting review.
- On an unrelated note, your draft doesn't cite any reliable sources such as news coverage or census data. Its content is not verifiable. Without such sources the submission will be declined. Huon (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I've added some links to establish the notability of the SCA. Would someone be able to tell me if I'm on the right track?
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Society_for_Cultural_Anthropology Otsuki3c (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- The Chronicle of Higher Education is a very good source: Reliable, independent, an entire article about the SCA and its journal. Reuters is also reliable and independent, but it's just a list entry that doesn't even mention the SCA and thus cannot help establish its notability. So you're on the right track, but the Chronicle on its own is still too little to establish notability. Huon (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
blue box
editwhat are the blue boxes when you are writing a page and how do you get rid of them? Custardpieboy (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what "blue boxes" you mean; could you describe them in a little more detail? Do they appear when you preview a page? Do they have any content? If you mean the "Article not currently submitted for review." message boxes, those are meant to inform you that your draft isn't live yet; you can submit it for review by following the instructions in those message boxes, and once the draft has been accepted, they will be removed. However, your draft currently doesn't cite any sources and does not establish that its subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards; thus in its current form the submission would be declined. Huon (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Fantastic.
Yes they are on the Preview page. I
I wasn't sure but now I seem to recall that they go when you submit it. Thanks for your help! Custardpieboy (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)