Wikipedia:Drawing board/Archives/2009/November

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.

Suhr Guitars

Pardon me if this is in the wrong spot, I seem to find conflicting guides on whether I should post here or on the Req. for Feedback page.

I've created a draft article about the American guitar manufacturer Suhr Guitars in my userspace (User:Nettrom/Suhr Guitars), because I'm fairly certain there ought to be one. Since I'm not an experienced Wikipedian, I'm looking for second (and third, and fourth...) opinion(s) on it, both whether it's a subject that's notable (maybe it should be about John Suhr himself?), particularly given that there's been two attempts at having this article in the main space already (one deleted for what I interpret as lack of notability, one for a copyright violation).

My only affiliation with the company is that I own a couple of guitars they built. Also, I have little attachment to my draft, so if it's not noteworthy of existing in the main article space, I'll have no problem with that.

Nettrom (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! I can see you made an effort to find 3rd party sources which is important. It's nicely written and doesn't sound like an advertisement. You should list your sources in a more complete format - like we used to do for school term papers. I have found that citation templates are very useful for accomplishing that. Also, before you move the article to mainspace, make sure you can add links to it from other articles so it won't be an orphan. Overall a good effort I would say! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 17:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the citation templates will make it much better, thanks! I've noticed there are some links to the old article floating around, but I'll do some searches and see if I can add some, and also look for some more other articles I can link to, as well as finding categories. Thanks for the positive response, and the very useful links! Nettrom (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1/2 (or Half) Prince manga

All right, thanks Wikipedia for being so confusing. After looking around I finally found this place to try and propose making a page for the manga 1/2 Prince. I had read about getting a group of people together who could work on the project, but it lead me to so many different places I got lost in it all.

Yes, I have searched Wikipedia to make sure there is no page for the 1/2 Prince manga or any other proposals/projects for it. I could not find any. if you have found any, it would be great if you could let me know so then I may go help.

I am pretty sure this is a suitable topic for a page on Wikipedia and does not break any of the rules Wikipedia has for pages/articles. As for reference links I have not checked for any yet. I will look for some when i have the time.

Please help me with making a page for the manga 1/2 Prince.

The Sapphire Dragon (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You youself should be able to make a start on the article. How are you going to write the title, is it Manga Half Prince or is the title Half Prince and it is a manga? The minimal article will say what it is, why it is important, and hopefully a reference to something that proves that it exists. There is probably a special unicode character for half like: ½ but if you put it in a title no one will ever be able to type it, so ½ Prince perhaps. If you are very uncertain start in User:The Sapphire Dragon/Half Prince and let us know when you would like someone else to take a look at it! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources:

Thank you for the advice. I will go and find out exactly what the title should be.

Heh, I feel like such a retard now. Just recently, I found the wikipedia page for 1/2 prince. How it alluded me I do not know.The Sapphire Dragon (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it? I think we need redirects if it is so hard to find , is it 1/2 Prince? I have made two redirects. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Ads Userfication

Hello, I had posted an entry for Future Ads, but it was moved to my userspace to be reworked. I have edited the page. May I make a request to have someone review it? Thanks so much. It can be found at User:Mwebbcom/Future Ads.

Thanks again! Mwebbcom (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page at User:Mwebbcom/Future Ads. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few notability claims now. And it is not too spammy. Can you explain what is a "dynamic bidding interface"? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fluther (a Q&A website)

This article has been added and subsequently deleted several times (the web address is http://www.fluther.com). I can understand why, but I'm not sure if anyone has made much of an argument for inclusion. It is similar in nature to Yahoo Answers, which was soundly rejected for deletion. I think it's fair to say that Fluther is not as popular or notable as YA; however, it has been mentioned in media enough times to at least put it on the threshold of notability. These include:

Brief mentions in the NYT [1] and the Huffington Post [2]

A post at Lifehacker [3]

Profiled at TechCrunch's Crunchbase website [4] [5], and Business Pundit [6]

Biz Stone (cofounder of Twitter) is one of their advisers. [7]

They haven't won any awards that I know of, but they have been nominated for some notable ones: [8]

8,214 separate users have asked at least one question on the site; 10,915 users have answered at least one question [9] (not sure if this page will be visible to non-registered users).

I understand that none of these points on its own is particularly impressive. But together they do seem to indicate that the site is on a trajectory to notability, if it is not already worth including. They also incorporate social networking, which differentiates them from Yahoo Answers.

(Full COI disclosure: I am (very sporadically) active on Fluther, but have no political/moderation powers or financial interest/stake in the company.)

Thanks! Dennis Boocho (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The refs prove it exists but since they are not a whole article written on the topic do not prove notability. It probably is less used than Wikipedia reference desk which also does not ahve an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tightly Constrained

A tightly constrained idea or theory is something that conforms with other proven ideas as well as being consistent with an experts view and acumen of a subject.Trumanhw (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you write an article on this topic, make sure that it is more than a definition, which would go on Wiktionary instead. But I agree there should be an article! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the speedy reply -- the problem I was running in to was that this is normally a phrase embedded in discussions, but not a topic specifically discussed, making citations few and far between, if available electronically at all. Its essentially technical jargon used amongst scientists to classify ideas as noteworthy and plausible. The idea of contributing to wikipedia is highly motivating, as well, I feel the process of creating a valid entry would be educational. Do you have any suggestions of references (even one) that might demonstrate what you'd personally (Graem Bartlett) would think adequate? Thank you kindly for your input. :) Trumanhw (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cradle to the grave (soundtrack)

it might not be important to some people... but I think cradle to the grave (soundtrack) should either be added as a subsection of the page for the movie or listed in the disambiguation page.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.64.106 (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough does Cradle to the Grave exist? Actually Cradle 2 the Grave (soundtrack) is the article. Instead of a see also, it would be better off included as a piece of text in the film article Cradle 2 the Grave. The sound-track could also be mentioned in the disambiguation page: Cradle to the Grave (disambiguation). However I find it hard to beleive that the sound track is notable in itself outside the film. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PT's Coffee Roasting Company

I have researched Wikipedia and found that there is not a page for PT's. I was curious if I made the page, if I have to use the hypertext language, meaning the brackets and asterisks.I have some information and links with the specialty coffee association of america, midwest regional barista competition, local media outlets, roast magazine, etc. I was wondering if it would be easier for me to request Wikipedia make the page, or do it on my own. I have hand-written the company description but haven't written anything about rewards and recognition as of yet. I understand that it is not recommended to make a page for a business, I am their marketing intern and thought they need a page on Wikipedia if someone wants an analysis of who the company really is. So if I did make the page I want to make sure the information is as accurate as possible. Do you think Wikipedia should make this on behalf of the company, or should I try and make the page? There would only be two categories, company description & history and a rewards & recognition category.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PT'sJava (talk • contribs)

Because of your conflict of interest, you are strongly advised not to create such an article. You can request that the article be created at WP:AFC or WP:RA, following the instructions there. Also, you should abandon your current account and create a new account with a different user name. Your current name is in breach of our user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, I will change the account and send the request. can I rename the account or delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.233.187 (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can request a change of user name at WP:CHU but it's not worth it as you only have a few edits. Just abandon the account and create a new one. And please don't delete discussions like this one from project pages. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that, I didn't want to be a hassle and make the company look bad. I have abandoned the account and have sent the request. Sorry for the trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.233.187 (talk) 04:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking about writing an article for my semantic web database platform.

I am thinking about writing an article for my semantic web database platform, Webepags. Is it okay for me to do this?

Jododerek (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it's your product, you have a conflict of interest and are cautioned against creating the article. Also, is the product notable per WP:PRODUCT? If not, then I am afraid it probably does not belong in Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]