Wikipedia talk:Your first article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Comment Questions about editing or using Wikipedia? You may get a faster response at Wikipedia:Help desk.

This is a good idea. I have some suggestions for minor wording changes, but I hesitate to edit the article itself since it's in your user space. May I? Elf | Talk 00:40, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The answer to this is yes, yes, yes! And the more the merrier. I've moved it out of my user space now. It's still a draft, and I want to be sure that there's consensus that this is actually better for a newcomer than Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (which is very good).
The goal for this article is to address the commonest sources of VfD nominations, and make sure that newcomers who venture into iffy territory understand that submitting an article does not guarantee that it stays. Dpbsmith 14:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

More formally:

This is the proposed guide I mentioned earlier. Please do edit it and discuss it at Wikipedia_talk:Your first article. The intent is that a link to this article will replace the current link to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in the new article text. That is,

Please do not create an encyclopedia article about yourself, or an article whose main purpose is to promote a product or business. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for more guidance. Articles in serious violation of Wikipedia's policies may be removed without notice.

will become

Please do not create an encyclopedia article about yourself, or an article whose main purpose is to promote a product or business. See Wikipedia:Your first article for more guidance. Articles in serious violation of Wikipedia's policies may be removed without notice.

The goal of the article is to deflect newcomers from innocently creating the commonest kinds of articles that end up on VfD. I will only link to it if there is consensus that it is actually for that specific purpose than Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

P. S. I know, I know, the stuff on local interest articles is probably too long and, uh, controversial... I put it there because I think it belongs there but I won't be too surprised if it comes out in the wash. Dpbsmith 14:52, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This seems like a much better introduction for newbies than Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. It's worth a shot to try to reduce the number of vanity and advertising articles that show up on VfD. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:42, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent contribution. Well done. It should probably be linked to from a couple of other places, such as the Wikipedia:tutorial. Andrewa 09:04, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Shortening the section on "local interest"

I'm thinking of shortening the section on local interest articles by cutting out the examples, and rewriting the text to read simply:

  • Local-interest articles. These are articles about places like schools, or streets that are of interest to a relatively small number of people such as alumni or people who live nearby. Try to show how the place is special, and different from tens of thousands of similar places. Consider waiting until you have something significant to say about the place before starting an article about it.

I'm suggesting this mostly because I think the article is too long now.

Thoughts? Dpbsmith 23:00, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 66.81.194.66: Here's why I removed your expansion of "closeup"

66.81.194.66 expanded the section on extremely short articles. The expanded version was:

Questionable Better
A close-up is a shot in a movie taken with the camera close to the actors. A close-up is a shot in a movie taken with the camera close to the actors. Video and film cameras as well as still photo cameras and digital still photo cameras can all be used to perform a "close-up" shot. Subjects can also be shot as Close-ups, such as a Close-up shot of a hand holding a pencil writing. Close-ups can also be shots shot "up-close" either by zooming in with the lens of the camera, or by simply placing the lens of the camera close to the actor or subject. Close-ups are typically brief, and are used to draw attention to the actor's expression. Closeups are an important part of film grammar. D. W. Griffith invented the close-up as we know it. A good closeup shot requires skillful camera work and careful choreography.
This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

I reverted it back to an earlier and shorter version:

Questionable Better
A close-up is a shot in a movie taken with the camera close to the actors. A close-up is a shot in a movie taken with the camera close to the actors. Close-ups are typically brief, and are used to draw attention to the actor's expression. Closeups are an important part of film grammar. D. W. Griffith invented the close-up as we know it.
This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

The reason is that the purpose of this illustration is to show the difference between a bad stub—one so lacking in information that it is not a good way to start an article—and a good one, one that does convey some information and does set the stage for further expansion.

Now, there's no doubt that the longer version is an improvement. In fact it is a good example of how people add to stubs and create more complete articles. But the purpose of the illustration is to show an example of a good short stub.

To whomever expanded the example: by all means, feel free to improve the actual article on the Closeup.

Ah, I see what happened—People are interpreting the "stub" notice as an invitation to expand the text there. I wonder whether I should "nowiki" it or remove it? I'll try nowiki with an explanation. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted article due to apparent vandalism

10/8/05

Reverted change of section title from "Things to avoid" to "Things not to avoid" by Phonymaronypony. GRBerry 20:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Local interest" articles: should this be deleted?

I pretty much wrote this section, but I'm thinking that the article is way too long, and that the advice in that section, while sound, probably isn't influencing contributors much. Maybe it's not serving any purpose. Should it be removed? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


I was just reading the artical on local area interests and found it quite interesting. No I think you should leave it. Tenchi Muyo 16:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Tenchi Muyo

[edit] most important fact

this article does not deal with the most basic question of a newbie trying to make his first article : how?

it explains what you can't do, what it should be about, but how do you simply technically get started?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evilbu (talk • contribs) 16:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] No vanity pages is a bogus exclusion

I can understand why you initiated this "strong suggestion", but I believe it may punish a lot of creative and well-intentioned efforts just for the sake of putting the kaibosh on tacky, self-aggrandizing boobs. Furthermore, any artificial division between subject and object which might be used to justify this policy is philosophically untenable, not to mention opposed to the spirit of "being bold". For these reasons and others, my first Wikipedia article is going to be about myself. I dare you to take it down. Graham

Before you create that article, I strongly suggest you read the guidelines on biographies, the guideline on Wikipedia:Autobiography, and the policy on deletion. You may not agree with these guidelines but I assure you that most Wikipedians who participate in deletion discussions do. As a matter of fact, under some circumstances vanity pages can be removed immediately, without debate; see Candidates for speedy deletion, A7. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear dpbsmith. Grudgingly, I accept this bogus convention. For future reference, however, might I suggest you suggest to persons such as me that they divert their energies into working on their User pages? I had no idea I could do that. Thanks

[edit] Merge from Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes?

  • Oppose merge; Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes is broader in scope. Melchoir 06:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge; Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes Is an invaluble guide for new and experienced users alike merging it would remove it's unique charchter. PiAndWhippedCream 10:32, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
  • Oppose per above. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This page covers creating new articles. That page covers common mistakes in editing articles. These are quite clearly two different topics. Because it's been over two months and no one has case a "support" vote, I will remove the suggested merge template. --Icarus 06:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose per Icarus3. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change "best darn hamburgers"?

For me, it's really easy to read the "darn" in "Louis' Lunch makes the best darn hamburgers in New Haven" as "dam", so I was wondering if it would be a good idea to change it, but I don't know what to. "Dang" doesn't seem right, and ommiting it completely seems to make it less meaningful. Any ideas?

Sam Van Kooten 00:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Increase your font size? ;-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
"Darn" is already a euphemism for "damn". Changing it to avoid offending the sensibilities of people who don't know the difference between a divine condemnation and a beaver's home would be ridiculous. Wikipedia is not censored for people who don't know how to spell. --Icarus 06:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Include more info in YFA.

YFA currently lists several warnings about common mistakes.

I think that we should take a more positive approach. There are newcomers who want to contribute but also want to know how to contribute.

For me, I joined Wikipedia to contribute information to articles (both existing and new) about websites and Singapore TV shows. These are my interests. New editors are best off contributing information about their interests or specialist subjects. Therefore, we should direct them bearing this in mind. For example, you could include a paragraph about how WikiProjects help editors find other editors of similar interests and collaborate on articles of a particular topic, then link to the WikiProjects list so the new editors can find a WikiProject that suits them.

In addition, new editors will probably wish to get feedback on their edits/articles. Wikipedia:Peer Review "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". Therefore, I created Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, where new editors can post their articles/edits to get feedback that they can use to improve the article and their skills as an editor. I think we should include a link to RFF in YFA.

After their first article, what does an editor do next? Perhaps you could make a Wikipedia:Your second article page that goes beyond the basics.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mood of this page...

This page seems relatively harsh-sounding. For first time users who have never written a page, all this page says is "Don't do this" and "Avoid this", and never mentions any real positive things, except maybe in the beginning. I suggest the "Don'ts" list be made smaller and put at the end, and a "Do's" list should be made for the top. This way, we assume good faith in the new users who are eager to write new pages. Really, if I saw this page when I first started, I'd probably not be here right now. → J@red  19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanity

I feel that vanity page rule should be changed so that pages about an ordinary, little known or other thing of that ctaegory can be made but must be written by a neutral party. --Ralroc 03:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be more productive to leave this comment on the talk page of WP:VANITY or similar. That would probably generate more discussion from people interested in the vanity guidelines, and avoid getting this talkpage off-topic. ----Icarus (Hi!) 04:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I Have a question

How do you make colored words when creating an article or editing a page??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Angel Editor (talk • contribs) .

  • Replied on user talk. - 152.91.9.144 03:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PCI cards

Can a PCI card function properly on a PCIe slot? I currently have a new intel motherboard but without any IDE connection so i an planning to buy an IDE card which requires a PCI slot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Me4yuu (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions like this should be asked at the reference desk. And please sign your posts with ~~~~, and don't overwrite other people's posts. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../y/o/u/Wikipedia_talk%7EYour_first_article_7538.html"