Help desk
< May 18	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 20 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

May 19[edit]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Transport (Conduct) Regulations 2005[edit]

Resubmitted article[edit]

Hi - I'd be really grateful if the article i've written on the Transport (Conduct) Regulations could be assessed and passed this time please. The subject matter is clearly notable. Conduct on public transport is a major issue in Victoria and the regulations are one of the prime control measures over misbehaviours. They are notable on that ground alone let alone that thousands of people are fined under them every day and would appreciate a lay explanation of the mater. I've added some general references, including extracts from newspaper articles, which support these points. As a general observation, can I say that it is really deflating when you have your article rejected with minimal feedback. You spend hours sometimes days writing the things and adding all sorts of text, formatting and links and you get what seems to be a cursory examination and a rejection of a line or two. It seems entirely contrary to the purpose of the Wikipedia project. No doubt many would be contributors have simply given up after this new editorial policy came into play. Anyway, please reconsider... Thanks Manticore83 (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A topic's notability is established when there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The article has some secondary sources that do not mention the Transport (Conduct) Regulations 2005 (the Herald Sun articles [1][2]), and the only sources mentioning the article's topic are the regulations themselves and the regulatory impact statement, both of which are primary sources. Therefore the topic does not appear to be notable. Huon (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised this article again. This time it includes a heading with the title "Notability of the regulations" and references to recent newspaper articles (from Melbourne's only two daily newspapers I might add) and extracts from those articles which specifically mention the regulations. I could add hundreds more references but this is entirely unnecessary in my view. I ask that the article be reviewed again please. A review of the current editorial policy though is more in order though. Manticore83 (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me that looks like passing mentions, not significant coverage; the Herald Sun does not discuss the regulations at all beyond citing a website for what they supposedly say on a single subject, and The Age is little better. These sources are not detailed enough to allow us to write an article on the regulations, and articles (or even just major sections) should not be based on primary sources per WP:PRIMARY. As an aside, lengthy paragraphs of quotes raise issues of copyright violation; we'd have to reword that. If you want to change editorial policy on notability, WT:N would probably be the place for such a discussion, but I doubt you'd be successful. Huon (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I won't take up the offer. You clearly don't want the article. You asked for secondary sources which I provided. Those secondary sources are from the two daily newspapers here with circulations of over 500,000 . Not sure how much more public you can get than that. You seem to think this is hicksville down here. It's actually a State of 5 million people with a major city (Melbourne) of nearly 4 million, larger of course than most US cities. The city itself has been voted as the world's most liveable on many occasions. I could spend more hours gathering other material (if you do a google search, there are thousands of references to this document) about something that affects millions of people each day and under which thousands of people are fined. But, frankly, why would I waste my time any further actually trying to inform people about this subject when the editors here are as they are. You have to hope that somebody sets up an online encyclopaedia project someday. One that actually believes in people giving their time freely with an encouraging editorial staff to contribute to the sum of human knowledge... Manticore83 (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Saint John Labatt Trojans Rugby Football Club[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Saint John Labatt Trojans Rugby Football Club

Hello,

Within the past couple weeks I submitted our Trojans RFC History to put on Wikipedia. Wikipedia did not accept my submission because it was copied from the trojansrfc.com History section. I am the president of the Trojans RFC and we authorize you to use this submission. It's our best document of our history that we have. Is there any possible way this submission can be used?? Please advise. Thank you.

Peter Fitzgerald President Saint John Labatt Trojans RFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.53.190 (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be used on Wikipedia, the text would have to be released under a license compatible to Wikipedia's own CC-BY-SA license. If you want to do so, you would have to send a mail confirming the licensing information to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". For details see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. But since the tone of that copyrighted text is rather unencyclopedic (talking about "our club", for example), rewriting it would probably necessary anyway. Huon (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Regional Airline Association[edit]

I don't think I'm adding my redirect correctly. Nor are the instructions on the Wikipedia:Redirect page clear enough for my peanut mind. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you really want to add a redirect. If you want to turn your article into a redirect, the line of code

#REDIRECT [[RAA]]

would have to be put at the very top of the article (before the {{AFC submission}} template), but then the article's text would no longer be readable; instead everybody trying to look at it would automatically be pointed to the RAA page. A redirect page itself looks like this: Redirect page to RAA. But since the RAA page contains no information about the Regional Airline Association, redirecting the latter to the former would not be of any help to our readers. If you really want to request a redirect and not an article, you can do so here. Huon (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks Huon. So many little hidden wikipedia: pages. First new article for me, so I appreciate the help. I submitted the redirect, so I guess it's time to submit the new article as well. Best, --XB70Valyrie (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chuckleton Williams[edit]

Chuckleton Williams was born on september 1, 1939. he was born in an African villiage just outside the country of Rwanda. Both of his parents were leaders in the tribe. In 1945, his tribe was attacked by an unknown tribe. Both Chuckleton's parennts were killed. Cuckleton was one of the lone survivors of his tribe. He decided to leave and start a new life. He travled by foot to South Africa. While on his journey, to make some money, he began work as a giggolo. Once he reached South Africa, he traveled to the USA by flight. Now he serves as director for local plays around the area of Albequerqe, New Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.53.164 (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of help do you require? Huon (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/This Day Will Tell[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/This_Day_Will_Tell is the article draft in question. Is there a certain number of inline citations I need? Also, if I have links in the "References" section, do I need to use info from those references in my article? I'm thinking that could be what's holding me up. --Whoisscott (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Whoisscott[reply]

You need inline citations for anything controversial/likely to be challenged and any direct quotes. However, your sources are generally a problem at the moment. Sources are used for verifying the information in the article. They are also used to prove the notability of the subject, as per the 'golden rule'. See WP:CITEHOW to see what sort of information your need to tell us about your sources. Sionk (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]