Help desk
< October 27	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 29 >

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.

October 28[edit]

Vert Skating - Articles for creation[edit]

Hello, I got a comment saying that (Vert Skating) should be merged with existing one, I just wanted to let you know that (ver skateboarding) its with a skateboarding, usually a piece of wood with 4 wheels. and (vert skating) is with skates usually 4 wheels per skate, two totally different sports. please let me know. thanks.

>> Comment: Consider merging with the existing article as necessary. Mephistophelian (contact) 01:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Vert_Skating

XK8ER (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the existing article wasn't meant to be Vert skateboarding but Aggressive inline skating which has a section "Vert".

The draft's main problem seems to be its dearth of reliable sources. The current references either aren't reliable (such as the photo blog) or they say very little on vert skating beyond a dictionary definition. Huon (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I have edited the Aggressive inline skating page for the vert section because people think its part of it but its not. Skateparks usually have Vert Ramps and people think that its the same sport as park or street skating. Since there is a section for Vert Skateboarding there should be also a section for Vert Skating and also one for bikes Vert BMX all tree sports are similar, but riding a vert ramp with a bike is totally different than with skates. If you need me to fax documentation on this I will, online sources are very hard because this sport is very rare and you usually see Vert ramps with skateboards and not with skates. XK8ER (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need not be available online; you can just as well use the print editions of newspapers or skating magazines as refereces as long as you provide sufficient bibliographical information to allow the readers to identify the source. However, if vert skating is so rare that it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources, then it isn't considered notable enough by Wikipedia's standards to be the subject of a stand-alone article, and we should instead improve the section within the larger aggressive inline skating article.

As an aside, the vert skateboarding article is not a shining example of what a Wikipedia article should be. Its only reference is a Wikipedia article (and Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source), and it provides mostly vague generalities and a lengthy list of "see also" links. Huon (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the information, I have many different online sources but they seem to be broken links. for example athletes winning x-games medals and its results, http://www.lgactionsports.com/2008/events/asc/res_inlvertf.html as you can see its broken so as a reference can we include "archive.org" urls for verification purposes? http://web.archive.org/web/20081209090451/http://www.lgactionsports.com/2008/events/asc/res_inlvertf.html XK8ER (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Archive is considered to reliably reproduce what the website originally said. In fact the {{cite web}} template that's used to nicely format web sources even has "archiveurl=" and "archivedate=" parameters for this very purpose. But I don't think the original website you provided is all that helpful: It's a primary source, the competition's organizers reporting on their own competition. Has that competition received some secondary coverage, such as newspaper articles? That would be much better. Huon (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hilda the Wicked Witch[edit]

Hello,

I wonder about references and citations for the book series Hilda the Wicked Witch. Would links to places like Librarything, Goodreads and e.g. Amazon.com be considered valid?

Thank you

Paulkater (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon definitely is not a reliable source because they have an obvious conflict of interest and no editorial oversight or fact-checking. I believe reviews at Goodreads and Librarything are user-submitted content, which means they aren't reliable by Wikipedia's standards either. Good sources would be reviews published by reputable publishers (and not self-published), such as in newspapers or literary magazines. Kirkus Reviews may be worth a look. Huon (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/INTEGRATION(festival)[edit]

How can i move a article to article for creation if it has been declined once and i need the reviewers to review it once more?? The page i am asking about is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/INTEGRATION(festival). I have added the inline citations they asked for. So if u can review it, pleas review it and move it to article space. Thanks Integrationrocks (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted the draft for you; you can do so yourself by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. However, the sources are rather insufficient. I believe out of the first six only one so much as mentioned the article's subject. Furthermore, there's no need to cite multiple copies of the same article - one will suffice, and the others don't count as independent anyway. One reference is a blog, which is not considered reliable. I don't think many (if any) write about the festival in appreciable detail. For example, which source is supposed to confirm the "introduction" section's very first sentence? I didn't find confirmation for that in any of the sources. The "events" section doesn't cite any sources at all. I don't think that's enough coverage to establish Integration's notability, and even if it were the unsourced parts of the draft would have to be removed. Huon (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Architecturemps

I am confused about images. I have uploaded a number to the gallery but during the edits I don't know how to access the image already uploaded. I cannot find the gallery. Also, two images have been deleted by th editor. One of these is my own photograph, the other is on an open-access source and in addition, I also have copyright permission from the creator. I have tried uploading both these images using a number of the upload criteria but am I just getting more confused. Can you please advise particularly regarding the copyright issue as in this case it should not be a problem. Many thanks.John'Jack'Welsh (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the images currently in the articles; there was a duplicate "File:" and a line break that might also have been problematic. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "gallery"; there is a "File:" namespace that holds all images uploaded to Wikipedia, such as File:ArchitectureMPS Image-type.jpg, File:Interior Photograph of Gallery, Margate, UK.jpg and File:Turner Contemporary Gallery photograph by Manuel Shvartzberg.jpg. It's not quite easy to find a given image in that namespace, but if you uploaded them yourself, it's easiest to check your contributions (that's how I found those images).

I believe up to now the only deleted images were ones of which other identical copies still exist - File:AMPS logo. Designed by AMPS 2012.jpg, for example, probably was a duplicate of the logo.

File:Turner Contemporary Gallery photograph by Manuel Shvartzberg.jpg is tagged for copyright problems because it's not enough to say that evidence of permission will be provided on request - such information must be provided immediately when the photo is uploaded. Since that image is apparently a duplicate of File:Interior Photograph of Gallery, Margate, UK.jpg, its deletion wouldn't be a great loss anyway (and when people realize it's a duplicate, one of the images will probably be deleted as such).

The licensing information on File:Interior Photograph of Gallery, Margate, UK.jpg is a little dubious, too - it says that the image is in the public domain and that it was released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 License - I'm no lawyer, but I doubt both can be correct at the same time. Apparently not all content on the journal's website is in the public domain; its submission page states: "Copyright of images is the responsibility of individual authors and you will be asked to sign a copyright declaration. Copyright of the article remains with the author." There's no indication that content is released for re-use under any license. Thus the photo is still copyrighted by the author (or by someone else whose permission the author had), and it may or may not have been released under a free license - I can't tell.

For the procedure on requesting copyright permission, see WP:Requesting copyright permission; for an example declaration of consent, see WP:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. You have apparently released all of your own images under a free license and noted that on the relevant file page; I don't think any of those are threatened by deletion.

However, the draft's main problem is not with the images but with the references. The journal apparently is brand-new and has been released only this year. Yet the article's sources are all older, with the newest three dating from 2011. I doubt any of those sources have much to say about a journal that wasn't even published when they were written. In particular, I doubt the journal is notable (yet). It might be best to wait until the journal itself (and not just the topics it publishes on) has been subject to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Huon (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]