Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Killarnee were:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Loves Farm and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, FeistyRooster!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Killarnee (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Loves Farm advice
Hi - writing a new article is hard, because there are all sorts of policies and guidelines that you can fall foul of concerning notability, sourcing and so on. There is some guidance at WP:FIRST, which might help you.
One thing that you're going to need is independent sources - that is to say, reliably published sources that are independent of the subject. The community website isn't independent, but I did find this BBC news article about the construction of the development which might help.
Another thing to consider is whether we need a page about Loves Farm, or whether it ought to be described in our existing article on St Neots (I see there's already some stuff in there concerning the development, which could be expanded). I don't have a view on that - it would come down to editorial judgment, and whether there is enough reliably published material about it. Hope that helps. GirthSummit (blether)12:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
It's always great to see a new face around here. I have good hopes from your good vibes from the one time I've interacted with you so far. I hope I'll see you at WP:RFP/R one day getting rollbacker permissions. Anyways, make sure you have a good time here. Cya!
Hi there. Would you be willing to consider renaming your account to use normal characters like "Feistyrooster" or similar? Given that your username is a mix of CJK and Bopomofo characters, but appears to be aimed at English readers, it seems like it will mostly be impossible to type for most English readers while simultaneously being confusing for Chinese and Japanese readers. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The characters are not Latin letters. There are CJK ideographs, mostly used in Chinese and Japanese, and Bopomofo letters, used primarily in Taiwan. Some of the letters do not even look particularly similar to the letters intended (assuming you intended it to be your previous username, "FeistyRooster"). This is going to be persistently confusing to people so I have asked if this can be undone on meta. If there's another normal username you'd prefer, you might make a global rename request now. I'll leave the links below. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "千乇丨丂ㄒㄚ尺ㄖㄖ丂ㄒ乇尺", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because your username is a mix of CJK and Bopomofo characters, but appears to be aimed at English readers, it seems like it will be impossible to type for most users (including most Chinese and Japanese users outside of perhaps Taiwan where Bopomofo is used) and is simultaneously confusing for everyone, particularly Chinese and Japanese readers. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific, the username violates the policy because:
It uses phonetic symbols (i.e., Bopomofo) (see WP:NONSCRIPT).
Hello 千乇丨丂ㄒㄚ尺ㄖㄖ丂ㄒ乇尺, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you have made a category error. Milton Keynes City Council is certainly a unitary authority. The City of Milton Keynes is indeed a borough with city status, which is administered by that UA. It is not itself a UA.
The confusing aspect is that there articles such as Peterborough, which try to do too much at once. Peterborough is not a UA, but Peterborough City Council is. Trying to make that nice distinction in a single article is just too difficult. But when we can distinguish, as with MK, we absolutely must do so. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the City of Milton Keynes is just a borough with city status. So it is a non-metropolitan district with borough status (going by my recent reading of that page) administered by its seemingly joint non-metropolitan district and unitary authority district council? I do not get this. I will give you for example, North Yorkshire (district). In that article, it says that it is a unitary authority, but the council for the unitary authority also is. So I am guessing districts can have unitary authority councils, but unitary authorities themselves also can? FeistyRooster (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of your last paragraph, you will find that sometimes the city and the unitary authority are seperate maybe because the UA covers more then the city. Peterborough City Council administrates the UA, and the city. Because the city is inside the UA, and the city council administrates the UA. FeistyRooster (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your first two sentences are correct. Your conundrum arises only when an article tries to (or has to, for reasons of notability) do two things at once. And I suspect that it is about to get worse, given HMG intention to amalgamate many smaller district councils into larger UAs. North Yorkshire is a district, full stop. It is administered by a Unitary Authority, North Yorkshire District Council. The clue is in the word "authority": a human agency, a council and its officers. A geographical area just is, it can't do anything.
City of Peterborough (like City of Milton Keynes and City of Carlisle), the geographic area => not a UA, is bigger than the primary settlement. Peterborough City Council is the Authority, that is the legal basis that allows it to administer its Borough.
Sorry to jump in with a little trivia after I stumbled across your discussion about this. But weirdly, ISO 3166-2:GB does indeed define the area itself as a unitary authority.[1] Probably as a mistake that someone didn't quite think through!
A second-level subdivision can be a two-tier county, a London borough, a metropolitan district, a district (NI), a council area (Scotland), or a unitary authority (England and Wales). Dgp4004 (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are not the only ones to struggle with the semantics of this, unsurprisingly. For a while, we had City of Milton Keynes down as "a Unitary Authority area", which was horribly prolix. Legally, CoMK is a Borough with city status [both are cited in the article] but it is not an authority. Simple question: how is authority exercised? Who or what has agency?
As I said above, this is not remotely unique to MK, it just happens to be one of the few that has separate articles for the physical geography v the administration, making life so much easier. Take it to UKGeo, it won't get resolved here. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I don't understand your point about Scotland.
I don't like the practice of naming areas as 'unitary authorities' any more than you do. But however much we may not like it, quite a number of sources do, including ISO 3166-2:GB, the ONS and Encyclopaedia Britannica. In practice, it has become the term used for both an area and its council — just not on Wikipedia.[2][3]Dgp4004 (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point about Scotland is that the country and its government are distinct and noone argues about it.
For many places, the opposite applies: there is no need to distinguish between the area and its administration. The EB has made an editorial decision to compress these elements, but then it had no details of ward-by-ward electoral history and political control. So, for the North Yorkshire article, if we are to be strictly correct, we should (IMO) write North Yorkshire is a non-metropolitan county, administered by North Yorkshire Council (a Unitary Authority)., especially as the NYC article correctly says Since 2023 the council has been a unitary authority. Emphasis on 'the council', not the county. (The Isle of Wight probably presents a more clear-cut example but it's getting late now.)
As I said before, your talk page is not where such matters are resolved. You need to decide whether it needs to be escalated to UK Geo. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^"Milton Keynes". Encyclopaedia Britannica. 30 December 2024. Retrieved 1 January 2025. Milton Keynes, town and unitary authority, geographic and historic county of Buckinghamshire, south-central England.
Welcome FeistyRooster!
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
