Hi, I'm editing and AFC article I created and i'm tring to change the article title, how do I?

JoshBlitz

You can move the draft to a new name of your choice, the "move page" option is hidden in a drop-down menu to the left of the search bar.

The draft seems excessively long (for comparison, it's longer than our article on the history of Western civilization!), and major parts seem redundant to existing articles such as The Quarrymen, The Beatles itself and the articles on the individual band members. It may be better to improve those existing articles than to write a new one that tries to combine them all. Huon (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of the content is already in existing Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, as you might expect, a lot of work has gone into them over the years, in particular with The Beatles, John Lennon and Paul McCartney being featured articles (FAs), which represent the very best work on Wikipedia, and George Harrison currently being worked on to attain FA status. With that in mind, you might have some difficulty merging your content in, as edits to FAs tend to be watched over very closely to ensure the article's quality remains excellent. In particular, your article shows a US-centric bias, which violates our policy on a neutral point of view - to pick a handful of examples, we tend to use the term "children" rather than "kids", as a Brit I would consider the bands' first two albums to be Please Please Me and With The Beatles, and the claim to Bigger than Jesus quote turning the band into the "most hated band in the world" is entirely without substance, as it is flatly contradicted in that article (there was no controversy in the UK whatsoever) and backed up by a source - I have another source, Revolution in The Head, which confirms this was the case. I appreciate you've done a lot of work editing this, but unfortunately I can't see much of it being integrated into our main articles. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Huon 16 March: While I'm no expert on the subject matter, I'd expect a government shutting down an NGO or suppressing a major social movement should have made the news, and Sandinista opposition to the OW would make an interesting addition to the draft. That entire government programs didn't find their way into any reliable sources whatsoever seems unlikely. Huon (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A: Dear Huon: the 1980 United Nations (ILO)-sponsored Nicaragua OWs were run as a pilot program, and this being a pilot, the then government was quite entitled not to run the OW as a national program, on the Honduran model - (where the 1970’s OW still ‘continue’ in the form of, eg, the cooperative-owned Hondupalma and Coapalma African palm plantations and processing plants set up by OW participants in the 1970s natiional program there) - and to run them nationally, as the implicit intention in Nicaragua may originally also have been – they just chose to run an alternative, but not generically diffferent (ie Freirean) program. (You will read in my article that de Morais and Freire were lifelong friends and spent jail time together under the dictatorship in Brazil). So, it was not a ‘Government’ program, yet, that is, rather the Government picking a different item with a different flavor from the menu). It has also to be remembered that Nicaragua at that time was a country in turmoil (re: Contra war), and that the 1980’s were pre-internet. 'Hard' copies of local publications now date 33 years back However, a friend just sent me (copy of) a document dated 29 Dec 1980 Managua which is an evaluation of the Nicaragua OW pilot. The report ao says that quote: Con referencia a los Laboratorios Experimentales y al desarrollo de los mismos, hay varios puntos sobre los cuales queremos llamar la atención. 1) Han tenido buena aceptación en países capitalistas y social-demócratas donde ha formado grupos de pequeños productores con mentalidad empresarial, fortaleciendo su mentalidad y expectativas pequeño-burgués. 2) El espíritu colectivo que se forma en el grupo es en función únicamente de los intereses de su colectivo y por ejemplo, la elevación de la producción puede ser considerada como un medio para aumentar sus excedentes y no en función de un plan nacional en beneficio de toda la sociedad. In summary: the OWs (then called Experimental Workshops) may be a success in capitalist and social democratic countries but they turn the participants in petty bourgeois and do not fit in our (Sandinista) market stall. I could also try to chase United Nations (FAO/ILO) reports on the experience of the OW with the MST (Movimento Sem Terra) in Brazil. Question is: will this amount to sufficient data to fill a special “Controversies” segment in the article? Many thanks again – (Rafaelcarmen 13:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelcarmen (talk • contribs)

Your reply is full of interesting facts that probably can be verified from reliable sources and might make good additions to the draft. For example, the draft currently doesn't even mention that OW events were sponsored by the ILO. That leftist countries spurned OW because of the "petty bourgeois" mentality it fostered also seems worth mentioning, though a newspaper would probably a better source than the original Sandinista report.

There's no formal need to have a "controversies" section, but the draft should give a well-rounded account of OW. I'd say right now the draft focuses very heavily on the theoretical underpinnings and comparatively little on how OW does in the real world. For example, even the "outcomes" section discusses what OW aims to do, but hardly discusses the programs' effectiveness. We also have only the vaguest information on the programs' scope - the total number of programs run simultaneously or the total number of persons enrolled in the programs would be nice, though such numbers are probably hard to come by. Still, the only thing in that direction we have is an incomplete list of countries in which OW programs were run - surely we can do better. Huon (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Center of the American West.

I believe I submitted it properly, but I am confused because it still shows up in my sandbox.

How do I know I have submitted it successfully, and when will I know if it has been reviewed?

Thanks,

Hh5680a (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it successfully; it is waiting to be reviewed, and will probably be declined. This process can take between one and three weeks because there are so many article submissions waiting to be reviewed. You will be notified on your talk page when it is accepted or declined. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling with finding enough of what Wikipedia considers 'reliable sources', so that my submission is considered adequate for acceptance with my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Powys Media. Powys Media is a licensed publisher of Space: 1999 science fiction media books, essentially the same as Telos Publishing, which is already on Wikipedia, and their publishing of Dr Who books. However, Telos Publishing which does not have a single reference is found acceptable, whereas I supplied seven references to various different online database sources for Powys Media, but was deemed insufficient. thanks for any pointers or help. Watcher from Andromeda (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles need references that show significant coverage in reliable sources; online databases generally don't provide this. I've proposed that the Telos Publishing article be deleted. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]