Wikipedia talk:Starting an article
|This is the talk page of a project page that has been merged and now redirects to:
• Wikipedia:Your first article
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions should take place at:
• Wikipedia talk:Your first article
Merged page is maintained in order to preserve attributions.
|Questions about editing or using Wikipedia? You may get a faster response at Wikipedia:Help desk.|
|the Wikipedia Help Project||(Rated Redirect-class)|
- 1 Edit notice
- 2 Creating a page in Vector
- 3 Iron Maiden Greatest Hits
- 4 Help with starting a new wikipedia article
- 5 Create an article redirects here
- 6 Edit request on 20 March 2013
- 7 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award
- 8 WP:FOUR RFC
- 9 Pages on relatives
- 10 Naeem Liles
- 11 Chennadukkam
- 12 Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2014
- 13 Dr.V. Gengusamy Naidu
- 14 Prostitution in Africa
- 15 FC donton
- 16 Evolution(Rapper)
- 17 Suggestions
- 18 Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2014
- 19 Delete this page - don't bother with merge
- 20 Contested deletion
I've created an edit notice for this page, which is at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Starting an article. If there should be no consensus for it, I'll G8 it. But it seems like it might help not only prevent off-topic edits, but also give those who are about to make them an idea where they might go instead. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Creating a page in Vector
The current instructions on how to create a page are:
In the search box near the top right of a page, type the title of the new article, then click Go. If the Search page reports "You may create the page" followed by the article name in red, then you can click the red article name to start editing the article.
This is no longer true. Since the switch to Vector, (1) there is no "Go", only a magnifying glass icon, and (2) there is no "You may create the page" or article name in red on the search results page. How should we instruct people to create a page now? Make a redlink and follow it? -kotra (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Iron Maiden Greatest Hits
For some reason, when I search for the article I want to create (which doesn't exist already), it doesn't come up with a red link to start the page. Why is this? Mollymoon 22:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphius (talk • contribs)
Whatever is stopping you from creating such an article is what I would call a blessing in disguise as there has been no confirmation for such an album and it would save me the trouble of having to have the article deleted--Nerdtrap (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Help with starting a new wikipedia article
I was hoping that an experienced editor could help me with getting my first wikipedia article started off correctly - I have done the research and work to get content and citations to support to where it is now although I know that it still needs ongoing work to get it assessed as a good article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dsouthwe/Sandbox
one thing that concerns me is that Paul Thomas is a common name and I would like that when people search the name in wikipedia it comes up Paul Thomas (Founding Vice-Chancellor of University of the Sunshine Coast) and not Paul Thomas (pornographic actor) (born 1947), American pornographic actor and director.
Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.
Create an article redirects here
I am one of those anti-cross-namespace redirect Wikipedians and this is a sure sign of a cross namespace redirect. All I want to do is represent what one Wikipedian named Cyde once said:
- This seems like a solution that there's more trouble than just not doing the bad thing in the first place. Namespaces were created for a reason, so that the
uencyclopedic content would be separate. Changing the search makes the search results different, but the content is not fundamentally separate as it is in namespaces. Also I seriously question whether it is a good idea for each page in a Wikipedia: have a corresponding redirect in article space (but without the "Wikipedia:"). It seems really silly to me. I've deleted cross namespace redirects to various WikiProjects, personal essays, and other stuff. If you're going to say that is all fine because we could theoretically ask the developers to move cross-namespace redirects from the search results...what's to stop a really notable user to have a redirect in the article space? I'm a lot more notable than some random Wikipedia essay! Why can't I have Cyde redirect to User:Cyde? And ditto for lots of other users? I just don't think we should go down the road of letting thousands of cross-namespace redirects for every little Wikipedia: page and possibly lots of other stuff. The namespaces exist, use them. If something is namespace zero then it should be encyclopedic content, period.
- Also, cross namespace redirects tend to squat on pages and prevent valid encyclopedic content from being written. Until very recently Watchlist was a cross-namespace redirect because no one thought they could overwrite a cross-namespace redirect with valid encyclopedic content. A cross namespace redirect to Wikipedia policy just looks too "official" and most users arriving there accidentally expecting an article aren't gonna realize they could write that article. I have a feeling that if our policy on cross namespace redirects had been a lot stricter get-go, Watchlist would've been created as an article a long time ago and would be much better article by now. That's just one example, but I've ran across a few other examples of cross-namespace redirects squatting on encyclopedic article names. The risk of losing material valuable to the encyclopedia is not worth the dubious editor benefit it provides.
--Cyde, a well-established Wikipedian.
Now, reading over that quote, there are a few things I want to say. First up, I can never locate my own Watchlist so I can link to it, but I might've saw where you were going with the whole "squatting on encyclopedic content" thing. Next, that's what Wikipedia's all about! It's about contributing to what other people write, not having a person make a well-established article in a few days! So I also want to say, thank you, Cyde. I would've never been great enough to say something like that. So you really help me with this comment, and you should be thanked that I used yours.
Edit request on 20 March 2013
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award
There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Pages on relatives
I've seen pages added about a brother, that may have been a notable academic (both). Does that fall under friends? Might not. Might still be notable, should relatives/(siblings only?) be mentioned under things to avoid, just in case? Or is it allowed (how distant?)? comp.arch (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't a good place to submit content for the encyclopedia. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2014
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
Dr.V. Gengusamy Naidu
Prostitution in Africa
- @Dejen transport: This question is misplaced. If the Prostitution in Africa article doesn't answer the question sufficiently, I suggest you try asking at the reference desk. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a good place to submit content for the encyclopedia. I suggest you go back to Wikipedia:Starting an article and read the instructions again. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- And this relates to how you start a new article in Wikipedia how exactly? noq (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2014
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
dibya 01:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete this page - don't bother with merge
- Delete this page.: Can we get serious for a moment?
- The Merge tag at the top of this page and at the top of its twin sister page has been lingering for a long time. Neither this article nor the Wikipedia:Your first 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 better state of development, therefore delete this one NOW. Even if my assessment on that is wrong, neither article is getting the development it needs to become excellent; once this 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 this page is gone no one will miss it, then we can focus on developing the remaining article into an excellent and useful article, which at this point neither one is.
- This page will not be here on Christmas - just so you know.Atani (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Jakesilb (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC) This article provides statistics about football players which are beneficial to fans.