Jacaltek is spelled many ways, but the most accepted way is Jacaltek. When I try to link to the Wiki Jacaltek article it won't work - but it will work if I change the spelling to Jacaltec (which is mentioned as a redirect). Shouldn't a link to the title of the article work in addition to the redirect spelling?

I'm very new, so I have a LOT to learn! I hope I signed this the correct way.

Thanks! Wikipedia talk:Jacaltek/ ArtProf (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)ArtProf]][reply]

Jacaltek isn't an article or redirect, however Jacaltec is a redirect as you say. You can create a redirect at Jacaltek to point to the article, but should it point to Jakaltek language or Jakaltek people ? - Happysailor ^(Talk) 00:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect now created. A412 (Talk • C) 00:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should point to Jacaltek people.

Thanks! ArtProf (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)ArtProf[reply]

Wait a minute! It should be Jacaltek, not Jakaltek! Some people spell it that way, but the most accepted way is Jacaltek.

Thanks again!

ArtProf (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Art Prof[reply]

Unfortunately, the article is currently located at Jakaltek language, so if you want to have it moved to Jacaltek language (which is currently a redirect, propose it at the talk page there. Remember to use a reliable source to show that it really is spelled that way. After a discussion there, see WP:MOVE. A412 (Talk • C) 02:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - you're right - it should be Jakaltek! ArtProf (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)ArtProf[reply]

nt I just finished using Reflinks to work on my references, and for some reason, all my links and boles have a # sign for some reason. I need some help with this. 75.2.135.140 (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Zappa[reply]

I'll see what I can do. --Bmusician 05:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've re-run Reflinks again, so there shouldn't be any more hash signs. --Bmusician 05:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don'r know what more to add. He's spoken of in Swedish media. (And sometiomes in foregin media as well.) This is alreday proven with the help of several links, including independant third part's. The English spekaing public shold have a chance to get an idea who he is. Nnhl 11:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)nnhlNnhl 11:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Markus_Andersson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnhl (talk • contribs) 11:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is a biography of a living person, everything must be well sourced. Thus, could you instead use in-line citations to show what supports what in the article? Otherwise it looks fine. A412 (Talk • C) 16:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look I wrote my first article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ustad Badar uz Zaman , and every reviewer asks to add or delete one thing or the other, I deleted one thing (awards) and the other reviewer asked to add, the second last reviewer commented that the article is almost ready just he guided some things, I did those and now a reviewer says that the article doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject, the reviewer is also i think a new one , who didnt i think read the article either, nor did he took the pain to write the declining of article on my talk page, i just opened the talk page and there was no addition, i thought the article is still to be reviewed, when i saw article it was declined, Disgusting. Now i am much discouraged writing a new article. The Biography is about a person who is Recipient of Pride of Performance(duely referred) . In our Country Pakistan it is an Award which is only given to Personalities who are fairly Notable Internationally, Please have a coordination amongst the reviewers so that they become on one tone, not that who so ever feels , rejects or accepts the article. Regards Umerali2204 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if your experience has not been good. I notice that the new reviewer has been reminded to inform authors when their articles are declined. I can see why your article has been confusing for some reviewers - Badar uz Zaman is possibly notable for a whole number of reasons but none of them are proved convincingly (in my opinion). Unfortunately our 'decline' templates do not easily cover complex articles.

The main criteria subjects need to pass is WP:GNG, basically that the subject has received in-depth news coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Alternative criteria for 'notability' of Badar uz Zaman may be WP:MUSICBIO, or possibly WP:ACADEMIC. If I get a chance later today I'll have a closer look myself. Otherwise, maybe an experienced editor can offer a second opinion. Sionk (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was tld that this article was not accepted for the subject is not notable.

The fact that he is the bassist for blood Sweat and tears for twenty years, and is the Bassist for Smokey Robinson. Does this help in making Gary Foote noteworthy?

In addition the Gary Foote bio that is on Wikipedia now is a hybrid of two different people and that should be removed. It combines a Gary Foote in Weybridge England and Gary Foote that I am trying to write about.Ydanese (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot accept claims like this unless they are verified by reliable sources. Verifiability is one of the key pillars of Wikipedia. If Foote has been part of several notable bands, he may well meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Unfortunately we cannot simply take your word for it, we need to have proof.

As for the other Gary Foote, it is interesting what you say. I notice someone else pointed out the problem on the article's Talk page. A agree, it needs resolving somehow!! Sionk (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the article about the other Gary Foote for deletion. Until a decision is made about it, your article will need to be called something different, like "Gary Foote (bassist)". Someone will probably sort that out when and if it is ready for moving to article space. Sionk (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs!

My article (MitOst) is a translation of a german one from german wiki. What kind of sources should i add if there is no any in the german one. I' ve put some changes. is my article now again submitted for review one not?

Thank you in advance, Best regards, --Bisazza99 (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it is an international not-for-profit organisation, you will either need references to show it meets the general notability criteria, or the alternative criteria for non-profit organisations. Sionk (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help Desk,

I am hopeful someone can give me some guidance on how to improve my submission for approval. Please provide me some objective feedback so that I can make necessary changes.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Grant Victor

Thanks,

Friendlyvoice 19:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyvoice (talk • contribs)

We need you to provide citations/references, firstly to show that the company has been reported in-depth in regional or national media, secondly so we can verify the information in your article is true. There is a link in the 'decline' message box to the detailed 'notability' criteria for companies. Sionk (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]