August 3 Information

• Matthew Tailor ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Fifty Vinc ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi all, I created a draft for "Fifty Vinc" some time ago. I have also submitted the draft 2 times for review. Unfortunately, the draft was declined both times because it lacked reliable sources. In the meantime I have revised the draft, found new reliable sources and submitted the draft again. I was wondering if anyone could help me with the pronunciation of the stage name? I have already looked at the tutorials on this, but unfortunately do not quite get it. Thank you in advance. Matthew Tailor ( talk) 09:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Matthew Tailor: never mind the pronunciation, for now at least; it has no bearing on whether this draft will be accepted. We mainly need to see that the subject is notable, and that there aren't any copvios etc. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 09:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ DoubleGrazing: Alright, I understand. Thanks for the quick reply! I know this helpdesk is for editing and submission questions, but I would appreciate any feedback or tips on how I can improve this draft. Thank you. Matthew Tailor ( talk) 09:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi @ DoubleGrazing, I do have a question in regards to the Wikipedia:Notability (music). In the section "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" at point 11. it says: "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network". I found, that the single "Runnin'" by Fifty Vinc is being played on MDR Sputnik. I added this information (cited) into the Note(s) field next to the song Runnin' in the Singles section. I've also archived the cited websites and added the archive links. I just wanted to ask if these airplays are meant by "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network". Matthew Tailor ( talk) 13:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Matthew Tailor: I don't know, to be honest. Sputnik doesn't seem to be a national station as it only covers three Länder, therefore my guess is it wouldn't satisfy the #11 requirement. But I could well be wrong. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ DoubleGrazing: Oh, alright. I understand. I'll just leave the information in there, it probably can't hurt the draft. Thank you. Matthew Tailor ( talk) 22:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Fanoflionking ( talk · contribs)
  • Vikingskool ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I found the article draft:Vikingskool but it was declined could anyone come and help with the page to get it turn into a article P+T Fan Of Lion King 🦁 ( talk) 20:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

This is not the place to request for others to help you. You're welcome to ask for feedback on why the article was declined by asking a question about the previous decline instead. Thank you! — Karnataka ^talk 20:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• LDPUK ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Hero of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there—forgive me if I'm missing something, but I'm new here.

Wikipedia asks people with the right language skills to translate pages, voluntarily. I have just done this. In so doing I tidied up the article and the referencing, adding and Wikilinking missing bits of relevant detail to aid understanding. This subject deploys quite a niche lexicon. I was quite proud of myself, really.

But at the end of the day, I was just the translator for a published Wikipedia page. Not its author. It's somebody else's drafting, in the language of the page's subject.

So I was surprised to receive a message registering on a scale from terse to rude to traffic-warden-on-a-bad-day demanding that I reference it properly, else it won't be published (even though it is already published, albeit in German), and my labours may even may even be deleted should I not try harder to engage with somebody else's referencing issues in future.

Is this meant to encourage me to translate more articles?

Or is it meant to encourage me not to bother again, as apparently I have to conduct a full academic audit of somebody else's work as I'm translating it, and reverse engineer references in the process, despite the work already being published on the site, and others having the opportunity to improve the piece?

Translators translate. Editors pick up errors. Somebody else gets to correct them—preferably the author or another enthusiast with the time.

Grateful for your advice, because if that's the sort of response I'm going to receive every time I respond to Wikipedia's call for a translator, I shall change my standard response to opening a beer and watching the telly instead. And I shan't reference that.

Be nice to translators. Especially free, specialist translators who are (a) new to Wikipedia, and (b) take pride in their work. 🥰 LDPUK ( talk) 22:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ ldpuk:

every wikipedia is a separate project with different rules, guidelines, and cultures.

the german wikipedia and english wikipedia have very different standards in regards to referencing. here, we are very strict, and require that every statement that might be challenged is backed up with reliable sources. the german wikipedia, on the other hand, is quite relaxed on sourcing.

your draft has much uncited content; normal on german wikipedia, but shunned here. that's why your draft has been declined.

just because an article is on one wikipedia does not mean that it should be on another.

p. s.

So I was surprised to receive a message registering on a scale from terse to rude to traffic-warden-on-a-bad-day

i don't see any messages of the sort. care to link to it?

ltbdl ( talk) 04:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi @ LDPUK, thank you for your efforts so far in translating this article.

Each language version of Wikipedia is a completely separate project with their own policies and requirements, and inclusion in one version does not, in and of itself, guarantee inclusion in another. For an article to be included in the English-language Wikipedia, it must meet the standards for inclusion applicable here, which are higher than in other versions (that I'm familiar with, at least). Case in point, this draft falls far short of our referencing requirements, being almost entirely unreferenced; for the same reason it may also fail our notability requirements, although that wasn't the reason it was declined at this time.

I get that you're not responsible for the inadequate referencing of the German original, and are frustrated that you're now being asked to make up for someone else's shortcomings, but I'm afraid there is no way around that: we simply cannot accept content that doesn't meet our requirements just because it was written by someone other than the person submitting it; that would make a mockery of our policies, and open the door to just about anything and everything being published.

I'm sure this is no consolation, but I occasionally translate from the Finnish and Swedish Wikipedias, and come across this very problem all the time. The first thing I do now, before even thinking of translating, is to check whether the sources are sufficient to enable publication here, and if they're not, carry out some research to see if I can find additional ones. If not, I move on.

I don't know if you're still willing to help translate articles, but if so, you may find the translation how-to guide at WP:HOWTRANS useful. Among other things it makes the general point (by implication, if not explicitly) that translating articles isn't really translating per se, as much as it is recreating them in another language, using the original as raw material but adapting it to comply with the policies and expectations of the target Wikipedia. This includes ensuring that verifiability and notability requirements are met. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 04:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi @ DoubleGrazing—thank you for that very helpful response.

Some (hopefully) equally helpful observations for feeding upwards:

If Wikipedia has a different definition of 'translator' to the rest of the world, they should probably make that clear at the outset in a big red box in the translation tool to:

• set people's expectations clearly;

• help them get the job done right first time;

• avoid ill-feeling, and

• retain a useful voluntary skillset.

Editors should also take the time to:

• be nicer to newcomers—as you have been;

• avoid dismissing translations curtly when there is nothing wrong with the translation, and

• explain Wikipedia’s idiosyncrasies as standard.

My experience of the article’s dismissal was something akin to an experienced plumber being criticised for his work in repairing a leaky pipe, because he hadn’t rewired the house at the same time and trimmed the hedges.

I even made clear on the ‘talk’ page of the draft that this was my first attempt, and asked for guidance, so the expectation-setting on my part was already there.

Finally—and this is crucial—the notion that Wikipedia in one language is somehow independent of Wikipedia in another, and that different academic standards apply purely based on language, is a complete anathema to the ordinary user, as well as academic and branding standards the world over.

If Wikipedia’s standards are not universal, that also needs making super clear—from the outset, and by exception—to any translator translating into English, otherwise you won’t get what you want.

Since Wikipedia (rightly) ditched machine-assisted translation, you’re asking skilled people to do skilled work, voluntarily.

The feedback above would, I think, assist you in recruiting and retaining more of them.

LDPUK ( talk) 10:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your thoughts, @ LDPUK; you make valid points. I don't know how to feed this "upwards", though, as there is no upwards as such; we're all volunteers like you. If I can think of a Wikiproject (possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki?), I'll post a link to this thread on their talk page. Or if you wish, you can join that and/or other Wikiprojects yourself, and raise the matter inside the tent, so to speak. Best, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks @ DoubleGrazing—good to be heard.

I take your point of course, but do feel free to link back to this whenever it comes up! Seems I'm not alone. ☺️🙏🏻

Though I do love the irony of having my work dismissed due to poor referencing, when improvement of referencing wasn't part of my function, and the terms of reference weren't referenced clearly—but even then the reference to the concept of human translation being redefined was only implied, not codified (and properly referenced back to a policy decision, as it ought to be if communicating in English).

If you can't laugh about such things... 😂

LDPUK ( talk) 18:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply