Draft talk:Corveta Ipiranga V17

Things to change and mistakes

Hello, I realized after submitting: I'd like to make the topic title in italics (I just saw how) as well I would like to inquire further about including a historical picture that I would run by with the experienced editors of copyright knowledge per the inclusion of pictures. I think it would add a lot to the article. As well in the source editing I'm just now noticing that the reference to the significance of Ipiranga isn't the URL citation I'd intended to include. I had intended on linking a different reference for that information. I'd copied the wrong URL from my tabs because I wasn't paying attention. If the article passes I'd like to make these changes, but in any case, I'm aware of them and what needs to / what I would like to change. WindowColorCenter (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I am withdrawing the article

I am withdrawing the article to fix some mistakes that I have made! WindowColorCenter (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Edited without withdrawing WindowColorCenter (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Note for Afc reviewers: based on this Tea house discussion, I'm pretty sure WCC means "withdrawing the submission" but they are still actively working on it in order to bring it to a point where it might pass review. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@WindowColorCenter:, can you confirm that you still intend to improve this Draft? I think the subject is definitely notable, and is worth developing. Mathglot (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Mathglot, I am hoping to still improve this article. I think that a lot of the article where I intended to correct has been corrected formatting and "Wiki"-styling wise. As much as I'd like to add more history I am afraid that most of the history of this specific ship has one page of historical information to pull from and I'm having a lot of trouble finding more. There is a page for it on the Portuguese Wikipedia however it is deficient in sources to an even lesser extent. What do you think? I've been inquiring about an image. If not on the right track here with how to improve, what else might you suggest? Thank you so much for engaging and helping me! WindowColorCenter (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

WindowColorCenter, glad to hear that. If you are having trouble finding more sources, then it might be one of those types of articles which have sufficient independent sources with significant coverage to establish notability, but with insufficient depth of coverage to ever develop into anything more than a stub article. In that case, WP:PAGEDECIDE applies, and it may be better to keep the content you wrote, but not in its own article as it is now; rather, you should find a related article (or create one) on a broader topic that can contain your content and content about similar topics at the same time.

For example, currently there is no article about Brazilian shipwrecks, but you could write one, including the Ipiranga, but also other wrecks as well. This would probably give you enough content for a standalone article. You could decide to create what is called a List article, or fold your material into an existing list article such as List of shipwrecks in the Atlantic Ocean. But if you look at that one, the topic is almost too broad, and each wreck gets only a sentence or so in the table, so most of your material would be lost. You could make a smaller list article with more limited scope so there would be fewer items, but each item could have a paragraph or so; so you could create List of Brazilian shipwrecks, somewhat on the model of List of Brazilian Highways or List of criminal gangs in Brazil.

Of course, with a broader topic like that, that means that when you finish the part about Ipiranga, you're not done with the whole article or list—just with that one part of it; you would need to expand it with content about other list items (or wait for someone else to). On the plus side, it would be a larger contribution to Wikipedia, and might induce other editors to take part, and expand the article or list with more stuff than you were aware of.

I would say at this point you have a choice between finding more sources about Ipiranga of the type you haven't been able to find so far and expanding the article under its current name, or broadening the article topic or making it into a list article, and expandiing it with related information about other shipwrecks. Does any of this give you some idea about how you would like to continue? Mathglot (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot Hey, thank you so much. I really like the idea of making a list article about shipwrecks in Brazil as well as the straightforwardness of the template of a list article as a way of ease to step into writing articles. That makes a lot of sense to me. Perhaps there quite aren't as many recorded Brazilian shipwrecks as there are shipwrecks in the Atlantic Ocean so I think a list article with a little glimpse into each would be appropriate all considering. When I started this article I'd really thought there'd be more information out there. I suppose it's something that I'll learn as I go along as a newer editor, to look first before crafting, but in any case this is the kind of appreciative optimism that's has a lot of community value. I really appreciate all of your help, and all especially in regards to such an absurdly specific topic. I'll go in the direction you've suggested.

What do you think, should I leave this article up for review and write this new article separately ? Or should I withdraw this article completely ? WindowColorCenter (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

WindowColorCenter, One approach, is that you could transform this Draft into the new one, along with a name change if you want. But if it were me, I would leave this one up, and start on a new Draft with the new name, using this one as a kind of "quarry" or "mine", from which you can dig out useful content, and copy it over to the new article. Note that while it is forbidden to copy into Wikipedia from external articles, books, websites (unless they are out of copyright), you are free to copy material from any Wikipedia page to any other (including translating stuff from other Wikipedias). However, whenever you do so, you are obligated to provide attribution in the edit summary: see WP:CWW and WP:TFOLWP. As long as you do that, you can copy or translate as much as you want, from one page to another. So, while mining this article to provide content nuggets for the new one, in principle you need to attribute it in the edit summary. (There is an exception: if what you copy is 100% your own words, you don't have to attribute it; but if anything you copy over has any words that weren't yours, then you have to attribute it; if this is confusing, ask me again when you get to that point.) It's not impossible, though unlikely, that someone else will pick up this Draft in the meanwhile, and try to develop it, perhaps from sources you didn't know about. If not, if you devote all your attention to the new one, copying stuff over from here without updating the Draft, eventually the Draft will get stale, and when it hits six months without an edit, it will get deleted by bot. But by then, presumably, your new article will have all the info you need. (You can stop the bot from acting for another six months, just by making a small edit to the Draft.) Does that help? Mathglot (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)