User talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2013/August

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A History of Belfast Underground Clubs

Many thanks for your helpful comments of 27 June 2013. Most of the sources and reference documents I have provided are from non-digitised publications. However I have accessed hard copies of all the archived material, would it be acceptable to scan/upload all the reference documents to a website (specifically for the Wikipedia article) and then make the links accordingly? Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wokmonkey (talk • contribs) 16:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no requirement that sources be available online. Scanning and uploading could run afoul of copyright law as well so I'd avoid that. The concern is that there be sufficient information about these sources for a reviewer to verify these sources. If you think there is sufficient information about the sources there now, resubmit the article for review.--RadioFan (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

citations

I've never fought with anyone over citation style, but the citation style of using numbers in the text and a list at the bottom is equally acceptable; it makes it more difficult to make changes, but that doesn;t make it wrong. There is no preference for using the cite templates, or the <ref> </ref> syntax. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No one said it was wrong. It has been explained to the editor that it is acceptable. I see no harm in sharing use of the citation templates with this editor. AFC is a place for new editors to learn. --RadioFan (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Rx Laughter Articles for Creation

Hi, I'm wondering if you can provide me some comments that delineate exactly how the article I wrote "reads more like an advertisement". I've rewritten the article many, many times, only to hear this phrase come back again and again. The comment that acceptable sources should be from "third party" journals and the like keeps coming up as well. I have 50 citations on there, most of which are scholarly journals.

82.67.177.45 (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look again and post some suggestions on your talk page. In the meantime, what did the other 3 editors who declined the article for the same reason suggest when you posted this question on their talk pages?--RadioFan (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Self-lubricating chain article

Dear Radio Fan,

I appreciate your review of my article on self-lubricating chains.

I have removed references in the article I submitted that I hope will make the article more neutral in tone. Specifically, I eliminated most of the references to Tsubakimoto Chain Co, as well as the photos referencing them. As they invented the first roller chain to utilize self-lubricating sintered bushes, I felt the first reference to them was important. I hope you agree.

This is actually my first submission for Wikipedia, so your comments have been most welcome. I'd appreciate it if you could take another look at the article and let me know if it looks ready to resubmit again or whether further edits would be required. Through this experience and through advice like yours I hope to be a more productive member of the Wikipedia community. Thank you again for your time!

Kind regards,

Papazaru (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

One thing I see that reviewers are going to be concerned about immediately is that your sources need to be clarified. Where do they come from? Make sure that someone who isn't as familiar with these sources has enough information about them to locate them on their own. This is a big part of verifiability requirements--RadioFan (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions

Hello: just a note that in your declination of the submission at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Octane Fitness, your comment there regarding inline citations is outdated. Please see the project's Reviewing instructions page, section General standards and invalid reasons for declining a submission page, where this is documented. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

At time of review the article lacked sufficient references where the subject of the article was the subject of the reference. The article was refused because more 3rd party reliable sources were needed, not any issues with inline citations as you mention above.--RadioFan (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Radiofan, , there is no need for the subject to be the topic of an article, or even for the article to be primarily about the subject: just for the subject to be substantially discussed in the reference. So if that's the criterion you've been using, you need to update that also. Quoting WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article "

If you have actually been using the criterion you just state, every one of your declines will need to be reviewed. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

DGG and Northamerica1000, the criteria being used here is straight from WP:GNG's definition of "'significant coverage"' which asks that sources address the subject directly in detail. Sources which do little more than mention the subject of the article in passing or not at all do little to establish notability. You both know that. Please dont turn this into something it isn't. It's not a measure of quantity of coverage like column inches in a newspaper article, its what the subject of the reference is and what it has to do with the subject of the wikipedia article in question. A source which is written about widgets which mentions the subject of the wikipedia article as a manufacturer of those widgets isn't a great reference for showing notability. You both also need to keep in mind that the AFC process is also about helping new editors, guiding them to create great articles. --RadioFan (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about the WITS article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Industry_Telemetry_Standard

Hi, I'm the author of the article on WITS ( and am on the committee what developed it ) and I wanted to ask why you've removed my latest edit ? Where I am confused is that in the technical section of the DNP3 article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNP3#Technical_details -( DNP3 is the 'mother' of WITS ) they have similar content to that which I've been trying to include. Without this tech content the article is basically useless because it simply says something called WITS exists without saying what it is  ?!?

I've checked the stripped down tech section that you've just removed and to be honest, apart from needing a reference to the WITS document that describes it in detail, the level of content is what I would expect to see in an article of this type - can you please help ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vtgav (talk • contribs) 09:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to find a way to explain what WITS is in a less technical way. Wikipedia is not a manual. Having only a single manual to reference here make me wonder if this subject meets wikipedia's notability guidelines at all. Now that you mention DNP3 I'm thinking WITS may belong in there as a section. What do you think?--RadioFan (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it should appear as a DNP3 section really - WITS extends DNP3 in a way that is not only a simple protocol extension ( as in, more messages for example ) but provides a distinct connectivity lifecycle which uses DNP3 for aspects of its messaging capability, but is much more complex. The 'technical details' section does provide an overview of the functionality over and above that within DNP3, and I would expect that someone interested in WITS ( and hence familiar with DNP3 ) would understand the capabilities from the description I provided Vtgav (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Your audience needs to be more than "someone interested in WITS" otherwise they can just read the WITS manual. This is an encyclopedia and needs to be written in an encyclopedic tone that is accessible to more than just experts on the subject.--RadioFan (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks for the feedback, I'll attempt a rewrite of the proposed tech sections along the lines you've requested Vtgav (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You dont need to completely dumb it down but someone who is not familiar with this field should be able to read the article and have a good idea of what this is. They should definitely leave with an understanding of why it is important. If that last part isn't achieved, the article is likely to be a target for deletion in the future. Dont go over the top trying to sell it but make it clear why this is notable.--RadioFan (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Pearmund Cellars Outcome

Thanks for the review and support of my first attempt at a Wikipedia article. Wow, didn't realize the process would get so personal!

I am trying to establish more content on Virginia wine in Wikipedia and chose to start with Pearmund Cellars because they are close to me, have had an impact on the industry and I thought that they had a good amount of credible references. I'd certainly appreciate any feedback on how I can better approach adding content. One person suggested writing about the owner. It seems that one thing I need to do is add more content and build my credibility, but want to make sure the work I put into that doesn't end in the same way.

I appreciate your review and backing, and any additional guidance would also be appreciated.

Thanks--Jlgorman24 (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

As you probably noticed in that AFD, some editors can take things quite personal. Also once they have their minds made up, very little will change it. Even after the subject was shown to have coverage in several books covering both Virginia wine and even NC wine, they wouldn't budge. That's just the way Wikipedia works. If you add more wine articles, focus on sources outside of the immediate area. Local coverage is seen by many editors, at least with winery articles, as a sign of non-notability.--RadioFan (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Good feedback, thanks.--Jlgorman24 (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Eyes on the Solar System

Hi! You reverted my edit on Eyes on the Solar System. You say it is free software, got a reference? Palosirkka (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. While Wikipedia's policy of verifiability is very important, please dont forget to apply common sense. It's clearly free. Anyone can visit the official website in the external links section and download the software. That download nor any requisite plugs on other software require any payment.--RadioFan (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I notice you didn't read the free software article I linked to you above. The term free in free software is not about price but about freedom. Please undo your revert. Palosirkka (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a very narrow definition of "free software" that many will find confusing. You are correct that EotSS does not meet that definition. I would suggest you rename the category to avoid further confusion.--RadioFan (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the undo. The category is one of many similar categories and they've been here for a long time. Palosirkka (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Longevity aside, it's confusing.--RadioFan (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess it pretty much boils down to the ambiguity of the English language which really can't be fixed. Palosirkka (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Murphy Rocks AfC

I am puzzled that you declined the AfC for Murphy Rocks, Australian Antarctic Territory (at this edit., giving the reason "This doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. It lacks an opening sentence succinctly describing what it is. Also it's not clear how this is notable. The article gives lots of facts and figures but no indication of why its listed in the Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica." Surely you know that all named and verifiable geographic features are considered notable, and it seems rather obvious its listed in the source because it's part of what Australia claims as its territory. it did need the opening sentence inserted in normalized form instead of just the heading, , but you could more easily have done that than declined the article. If you disagree about this one I look forward to discussing it with you at AfD or elsewhere DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't notable, I said it wasn't clear how it was notable. I hope you can see the difference.

I will not take this to AFD because it is notable. Of course I know geographic locations are inherently notable.

The article needs work and the new editor who submitted it would have benefited greatly by improving the article before moving it into main article space. But that time is passed now that the article has been moved out of AfC. I worry that this article is less likely to be improved and especially that this new editor is less likely to become a better editor. They've been taught that a stream of facts is the kind of article that Wikipedia is looking for. Please dont forget that AfC is a tool for making new editors into good ones.

AfC isn't the opposite of AfD. We dont push articles into production because of the notability of the subject.--RadioFan (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:WLHS logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:WLHS logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)