Wikipedia talk:Your first article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is not the page to ask for help.
Emblem-important.svg This page is for discussion of the Your first article page itself, and its subpages. You may be looking for one of the following pages:

See also:

the Wikipedia Help Project (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the help menu or help directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
B-Class article B  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Merge with Wikipedia:Starting an article[edit]

I fully support this merge. Too many help pages trying to do the same thing are confusing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. They're way too similar. Benny White (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge. One article was probably built off the other one, anyway. There's no point in keeping articles with just barely notable differences. — Carnivorous Bunny (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support merge I came to suggest it and noticed Piotrus already had. I fully support a merge as both pages are centered on the same goal and just act as more things to read for your average newcomers who are most likely already overwhelmed by Wikipedia's policies and procedures. This merge would allow for us to create one succinct, easy to access page, where a user doesn't have to go to multiple sources to find what is almost the same information. MJ94 (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - a large number of other help pages are duplicating each other and making things harder for new users, they could also do with merging. Jr8825Talk 15:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It's nice that the opposes think that the two articles are aimed significantly differently, a view which ... is not borne out when one actually reads them. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

So, anyone bold enough to merge the contents? Diego (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose. Just judging from the titles, one article speaks to the newbie, the other to someone more experienced. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

usefull pag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.107.4 (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Agree with Mr. Guye. If someone just wants a refresher on making an article, etc., they shouldn't have to dig through all the stuff designed for someone just starting out. They should stay seperate. Moonchïld9 (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
That would largely require a rewrite of Wikipedia:Starting an article, though. As they stand now, both articles contain mostly the same content. Diego (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
If some experienced, but lazy, editor needs a "refresher" it should be by some means other than the useless proliferation of redundant articles, there is already a Super simple guide.Atani (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support We should definitely merge these articles. All these help pages are just wasting valuble editing time! EMachine03 (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Better merge to keep things at hand and not dispersed.Solatido 12:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solatido (talkcontribs)
  • Support: As has been stated above, the contents of the articles are largely the same. Further, I see no reason a single article can't be aimed at all editors, regardless of varying levels of experience. —zziccardi (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Can we get serious for a moment?
Neither this article nor the Wikipedia:Starting an article page is an excellent article yet, but the aim and the content is virtually identical, there is nothing really to merge. One of these articles should be deleted, NOW. Continuing this discussion isn't doing The Project any good, it's only showing that we can't make a decision about the obvious. The other article is at this point at a slightly lesser state of development, therefore delete that one NOW. Even if my assessment on that is wrong, neither article is getting the development it needs to become excellent; once that one is gone editorial energy will flow in the correct direction, development can continue. As it stands two poor articles linger. This topic is actually one of the most important in the entire Project, it is supposed to tell newcomers how to do what we do. This has been a lingering issue for more than a year, or maybe years, which is a waste of everyone's time. Once that other page is gone no one will miss it, then we can focus on developing this article into an excellent and useful article, which at this point neither one is.

Atani (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2014[edit]

<<<draft article removed>>>

39.41.37.245 (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is not the place to write a new article. To do so, go to WP:AFC. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Replacing WP:N/N[edit]

So, after "Welcome to Wikipedia", the first advice given to new users, about creating new articles, in the do's and don'ts, when they are trying to understand if they can even have an article on another subject, takes them to the Notability Noticeboard.

Which has been closed since last year or longer.

So, we have thousands of new editors constantly confused about our notability guidelines, we point them often at this article to help them get some clue, and this article needs to tell them where they can go to get help regarding the complex minefield of Wikipedia notability.

Where should we send them?

I have marked that suggestion, which is the only assistance we provide there, with strikeout text, but we should add back an alternative. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, for now, I'm sending them to the Teahouse. Suggestions and bold implementations of better ideas is strongly welcomed. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2014[edit]

<<<draft article removed>>>

Joey Fatts (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:AfC to request an article for creation. - Camyoung54 talk 02:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing the Kluge at the top[edit]

This is supposed to be a page where we teach new editors how its supposed to be done, instead this page has become almost an anti-Wikipedia page, the header section is full of so much kludge the article itself has been shoved completely off the bottom of the screen - not good. It's all going to go except for the Merge tag. I've created a dynamite little header section and introduction where things line up more or less and all of the boxes don't interfere too much with the text. If you want to turn dynamite into Amatol or RDX feel free to do so. Please restrain yourselves, though, from putting all of the kludge back in order to accommodate the ADHD generation - there is already a simplified version of this page. If you want to tell the story of the entire Universe told in a single word, then a sentence, then a page, then a chapter, then a whole book then read Finnegans Wake, I'm on about year eight of that project myself.Atani (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Take strong issue with representation of first entry of references[edit]

Though editing here for years, this is the first time I have come across this training page, and I have to take strong issue with the way in which the following presents initial entry of sources:

Entering references

The very first thing you should write in your article is a list of the source(s) for your information. For now, just enter them like this (and they will automatically turn into links):

The issues I take this this content is as follows. First, this presumes and so supports the notion that typically adequate sources of information to start articles are web-based sources, an assertion which is often untrue—though the two sources chosen here may indeed be good sources, the vast majority of web sources are unsuitable as sources at wikipedia. Second, this initial presentation of sourcing offers it as contentless text strings that are only functional as links (that cannot be traced to the actual textual content, apart from the function of the link), rather than deriving from the web sources the usual important components of a true encyclopedic citation that cannot become meaningless when the bare URL dies as a link. Third, this absolute dearth of details suggest—quite contrary to best practices of referencing—that details are unimportant, when in fact the opposite is true; it is through the details that one arrives at whether one should be using the source in the first place. (No author at the website? No date of publication? Publishing house that one cannot google to find the city it's located in? Evidences of too near a relationships between the webpage and the article subject, i.e., evidence of non-independence? These are only the beginning of the hints, available through sourcing details, of possible poor sources.) In short, this initial presentation falls far short of the way we should suggest students, editors, or any others in training, to record their first references when writing encyclopedic content.

Here are a set of six alternatives to the above, which make clear, A., that printed (formally published) sources are the best sources for wikipedia, B., that a critical first step in choosing a citation is making sure they are good sources (which can further be assessed, web page-derived or not, based on by whether, for instance, that the information being drawn upon has an author, title, date of publication, etc.), C., that a further immediately important step is to extract from the web-location easily traced bibliographic information, to ensure the information extracted for the article remains verifiable after the URL and link become nonfunctional, D., that more is better—that it is better to cut and paste in too much information about the source, for others to properly format and edit down, than it is to pull minimal material—and that the details regarding sources are critically important, rather than unimportant, E., that good, high value, classic or recent sources are key to good editor contributions, and F., that varieties of source types are generally needed for good sourcing of articles. (After perusing the appended bullets, ask a scientist you know if they are good sources. Note some are print, other are web, and those from web from their onset appearing here have date accessed attached. If teaching, teach quality.)

Here are examples of good sorts of starting citation entries, that can then be edited into a consistent format, used to put into templates to standardize appearance, etc. Note, I am away that are monotonically scientific. Feel free to substitute non-scientific examples of books, journals, book chapters, etc., for these:

  • R.E. Gawley & J. Aube. 1996, Principles of Asymmetric Synthesis (Tetrahedron Organic Chemistry Series, Vol. 14), New York:Pergamon Press, pp. 121-130, esp. p. 127, ISBN 0080418759.
  • E.S. Radisky & D.E. Koshland, 2002, A clogged gutter mechanism for protease inhibitors, Proceedings of the National Academy of Scences U.S.A., Vol. 99, No. 16, pp. 10316-10321.
  • A.M.P. Koskinen, 2012, Asymmetric Synthesis of Natural Products, Chichester, UK:John Wiley and Sons, pp. 3-7.
  • H. B. Bürgi, J. D. Dunitz, J. M. Lehn, G. Wipff, 1974, Stereochemistry of reaction paths at carbonyl centers, Tetrahedron, Vol. 30, Issue 12, pages 1563–1572, DOI 10.1016/S0040-4020(01)90678-7.

Bottom line, with training such as this, it is not in the least surprising that many articles appear, and remain, only with the worst sorts of sourcing, and many remain with URL-only sets of sources that eventually succumb to link rot—and become and remain poorly or completely unsourced, and therefore unverifiable, and non-encyclopedic content. This training document needs desperately to be improved, to reflect best practices of scholarship, rather than "just enough to get by". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.87.100 (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)