Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 February 4

= February 4 =

Article has been cut
Hi,

I submitted an article recently, which was accepted and published. Since then, the majority of the article has been removed and only the introductory sentence remains. Does anyone know the reason for this or where I can find more information? The article is on the Recretaional Craft Directive and orginally included sections on the history of the directive and its content.

Thanks, EuroBoatingInd ____ — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroBoatingInd (talk • contribs) 11:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * An IP user, removed most of the content. Since they did not specify a reason for doing so, either on the edit summary or the talk page, I have restored the content.  Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! EuroBoatingInd EuroBoatingInd (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Life! Camera Action... (film)
Can someone help me to understand why would this File:Life! Camera Action... Movie Poster.jpg & Another Day Another Life.jpg was was deleted from commons?Lcarg2012 (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The file was deleted because the original movie poster is copyright, and you cannot put files on Wikimedia Commons that are not subject to a suitable CC-BY-SA licence, which means anyone can copy, modify and sell the image. So it has had to be deleted as a copyright violation. Sorry. You can use non-free files on Wikipedia via a suitable fair use criteria, but you need to understand Wikipedia copyrights well to do this successfully. Persistent uploading of non-free material can result in you being blocked from doing so. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   14:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciate you taking the time to share the insights Ritchie. I own the copyright for these images so not sure where is the issue. Can I reload these images with correct information? It would be very helpful if you could please guide me in entering correct info to avoid any further discrepancies. Please let me know Lcarg2012 (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If you own the copyright, then the simplest thing to do is to use the File Upload Wizard and add it again. Under Step 3, check "This is a free work" followed by "This file is entirely my own work". You then need to specify a suitable licence compatible with Wikipedia, which proves you are a happy with people taking your poster, modifying it, and selling derived copies. (For example, somebody can make a parody picture involving components of your poster and publish it here, not violating the licence). Once that's done, the file will be uploaded. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   14:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again Ritche. When I try to re-upload these images, I get an error message: There was another file already on the site with the same content, but it was deleted. Please advise. Lcarg2012 (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, in that case you need to go to Undeletion requests on Commons. You'll need to state that you are the copyright holder, and probably give a convincing reason why. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Since I am new to Wiki, would you be able to provide any suggestions about the convincing reasons? Lcarg2012 (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid not, since I knew about Wikipedia's copyright policies for some time before I tried uploading a file, so I've never had to do this myself :-/ ... you might have some more success asking on the Media Copyright Questions board. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/White Ladye - Steam Yacht
Couple of items. 1) I am currently working on article HMS Waterwitch (1892) that was put on by others some time ago. First question is can we change the title as the 1892 bit is a mystery. She became part of Her Majesty's navy in 1894 and was sunk in 1912 so either or both of these dates would be better. 2) Someone in the past wrote in the article that HMS Waterwitch was formally Lillie Langtry's yacht White Lady(e)and this is an old myth that is totally incorrect and I have disputed this. I have written an article named "White Ladye - Steam Yacht" and submitted this for approval, at which time I can edit HMS Waterwitch article to remove the details, perhaps leaving a sentence referring to the myth and directing readers to the White Ladye article. However, I am not sure that the article White Ladye-Steam Yacht has been submitted correctly by me. Would it be possible for you to check that I have done this correctly please?

Many thanks

Ted

Sidpickle (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/White Ladye - Steam Yacht has been submitted for review. There is, however, a substantial backlog of over 1,000 articles to review, so it may take up to a week, or possibly more. Two New York Times references suggest that the ship is notable and should pass a review, but as this isn't my area of expertise, I'd prefer to defer to someone else. WikiProject Ships might be able to offer more assistance. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   14:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ritcie333

Sidpickle (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Parsons Paris
This concern is in reference to my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Parsons Paris which was declined because the editor claimed that there was an already existing article with the same name (Parsons Paris School of Art and Design). However, that article specifically notes that that school is not affiliated with The New School anymore. In the multiple sources I use to cite my article the authors always use Parson Paris as the name of the school and not the Paris College of Art. At the very least my article seems to require a disambiguation link. Could you offer me advice to improve my article when I resubmit it? Mickeyallen (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is not just the same name, but that the topic is identical for most of its history. Only in 2010 did the current Paris College of Art and Parsons New School sever their last formal ties, and your draft details the history of what is now the Paris College (and it does a better job than our current article, by the way). My suggestion would be to have your article focus on the college opening in 2013 (which wasn't established in 1921, for example) and just mention the previous incarnation of Parsons Paris shortly (with a link), while the College article should be improved with content from your history section while it should mention the new Parsons Paris only in passing, if at all. Disambiguation hatnotes will probably also be in order once your draft is accepted. Huon (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand. I will continue to improve my draft for resubmission. However, since the two schools are not affiliated, should the name of the current article be changed to just "Paris School of Art" as it is depicted on their website (http://www.paris.edu/)? Mickeyallen (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Science for Peace and Progress: Life and Work of Abdus Salam
hi there, im quite new to this. Abdus Salam won a nobel prize for physics, i dont understand why this isnt notable enough for you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugstar (talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Abdus Salam clearly is notable. But notability is not inherited, and a book about a notable person is not automatically notable itself. Has the book been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, such as news reports discussing the book or reviews published in reputable literary magazines? Huon (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

reponse: i find this a very bizzare logic of denial. Is the burden of proof on the writer to hit the right notes in the reviewers cognitive landscape? Prof Dil's book is an excellent resource which a cursory google search would have revealed. It was reviewed in a prominent english daily in pakistan in 2008 http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C09%5C14%5Cstory_14-9-2008_pg3_4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugstar (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The burden of evidence is indeed on the editor who wants content included in Wikipedia. You need not "hit the right notes in the reviewers cognitive landscape", but you should provide evidence that the book is indeed notable by Wikipedia's standards. You cannot expect the reviewer to look for sources and basically write the entire article for you. For example you should cite that review in the draft and base the draft on what the review has to say about the book. A lone source is probably not enough to establish the book's notability; we require "significant coverage", and that's usually interpreted as "multiple sources of at least a paragraph each about the book". See also WP:NBOOK for more specific notability criteria. Huon (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ralph Silva
Can I get some help on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ralph Silva

I'm trying to get an article published but its been refused twice. It's part of an assignment for a class and I got a chance to interview the subject when he came to our class to lecture. I asked his permission and he said OK and gave me the links to all his reports. Can I get some guidance as to what I have to do to get through the editing?

I see him on TV almost every day, he's mentioned in the paper a couple of times a week, he's written many articles and his reports are in our library. My professor says he was a good candidate for this project but I'm struggling to understand what I'm doing wrong.

Please help, it's my first article and I'm lost? Ian Perry IPerryLondon (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The main problem is with the draft's sources. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles about Silva. But the draft's first few sections don't cite any sources whatsoever (and thus are not verifiable), and the "Written research" section is based exclusively on Silva's own writings - clearly not independent sources. I haven't checked all sources in between, but those I looked at cited Silva on some topic and didn't really cover Silva himself. In short, apparently hardly anybody writes about Silva, and thus he may not himself be notable despite being widely quoted by news organizations.
 * On a closely related note, the sources often don't actually support the claim they're cited for. His stances are called "controversial" - without a source for any controversy. The source for the "most controversial view" doesn't actually mention the view that's ascribed to Silva, but instead reports that he endorsed an unrelated government plan. I couldn't find anything about his views on the Tube in either of the two sources for that paragraph. So we have a legthy draft whose "sources" aren't connected to the content and barely mention Silva's name. This is not acceptable for a Wikipedia article.
 * There are also some less important style issues. For example, we should refer to him by his last name, not his given name. The draft also employs "weasel words": Silva "has often been criticised" - by whom? He "was also often accused of being too soft on the banks" - by whom? Huon (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)