Talk:2015 Swiss referendums

The basic income referendum[edit]

I wrote a separare article on the forthcoming referendum on basic income. I suggest its moved back to a separate article with all the text included. That would be much better than trying to include all of it here. It has already been covered by US, UK, Swiss, Nordic, Chinese, Arabic and some other press and media. Is it possible to withdraw the change to make it a separate article again? --95.195.210.182 (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The usual format is to have a single article covering all the referendums in the year. Prior to the cut-down, the article was written in a way that made it look like a press release for the referendum (e.g. highlighting all the international coverage you mention), which was inappropriate for Wikipedia. Number 5 7 14:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, coverage in press and media is usually something that is argued FOR articles, not AGAINST. So...--95.195.194.165 (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point. We still have an article (this one) – it's not like the entire topic has been deleted from Wikipedia. Number 5 7 16:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The media coverage mentioned was mainly because of the gold release, 8 million coins that was put outside the Parliament. That is a very spectacular thing to do, and that in itself would qualify for an article (as I see it). But if we do such an article, which we should, it seems quite likely that we should call the article "The basic income referendum in Switzerland", and also include the history behind etc. --Mats33 (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a set formula for referendum article titles, which is laid out at WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums, and it will have to follow that. A separate article on the coin release would be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. You are more than welcome to add more (sourced) information to this article, but please be more careful in the way you write content. As I said in an earlier comment, I was quite concerned about the way the article was originally written - it looked like a press release on behalf of the pro-Basic Income campaign. This opinion was shared by another editor who tagged as being written in a non-neutral manner. Cheers, Number 5 7 21:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for curiosity. Exactly what in the article was "press release"ish? --Mats33 (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few things:

Having an entire section which copied the press release for the coin stunt verbatim
Having an entire section solely dedicated to media attention, which was written in the style of a press release boasting about how much media coverage it had received (mentioning the media firms by name)
Going on about media coverage in the introduction ("The news about the forthcoming referendum has attracted international attention, including the BBC News, BusinessWeek, Reuters and the New York Times.")

Basically the article was written in a style that I would expect from the campaign's website. Do you mind if I ask whether this is something you are involved in, directly or indirectly? Number 5 7 10:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]