Wikipedia talk:Starting an article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice This is the talk page for the article Wikipedia:Your first article. It is not a place to write articles, or experiment. For information on creating & writing articles, see Wikipedia:Your first article. For experimenting, use the Wikipedia:Sandbox.
Notice Questions about editing or using Wikipedia? You may get a faster response at Wikipedia:Help desk.

Contents

[edit] May I edit this article?

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)

Hi,

I am Shams, You have requested to delete Pakhnari from the map, stating that "Pakhnari is blatant advertising for a company" Pakhnari is a village and not to mention how rural it is because it was there in the tag. if you are taking about the gas station that was an information for those who are traveling on NH2 having no idea of the rout. You might have suggested that the name of gas station should be removed that would have been a wise suggestion. But to request and act deletion of the mark is nothing but a brutal act.

[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).

AGREED! I find no information here on how to actually create a new artical! I have done edits of others but after dilligently searching for the topic I wish to write about and finding none, I cannot find any info on actually starting a new artical. Am I blind or is it just not here? This reminds me of searching for instructions on a can of spray paint and finding only the myriad of warnings on what not to do! Midwestman78 19:05, 25 September 2007 (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) what ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by The dudet (talk • contribs) 22:16, 25 October 2007 (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)

[edit] Can someone PLEASE Provide an Easy Way for Non-Elite users to suggest a stub ?

I've spent 20 minutes trying to find out where to suggest an article, and get nothing but guidlines and more guidelines. Why not a link on the main page "Suggest An Article" OR "Suggest a stub" ? Something simple.

Anyway, the article I propose is "Alternative-A (Alt-A) Mortgages." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.86.173 (talk • contribs)

See: WP:REQUEST. The place to search for things like this is on:
You could also ask questions on the Help desk. Lots of experienced volunteers monitor the Help desk and try to answer questions quickly, unlike the typical talk page which might not get many views. There are so many talk pages like this one that there aren't enough experienced editors to monitor all of them. --Teratornis 19:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From what I read, this help page doesn't actually tell you HOW to create a new page...

Shadow)OS 16:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

...It for the most part just tells you what are the do's and don'ts. It manages to help out the unregistered users, but it offers no guidance on how to create new pages for registered users.

Unless I'm justing missing it over and over again.

How to create a new page, no matter what you're planning to include in it, is relatively simple. Type the name of the article you're searching for / wish to create in the search box. Then it'll say something along the lines of This article does not exist. There'll be a link somewhere in red saying that click here to create this article. Proceed with caution... ;-) Lradrama 17:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


User - Willedsmithmo - ^ Yep, this guy speaks the truth! It really seems like i shouldn't be doing my head in looking for how to create an article. And yes I remember that "create this article" message coming up previously, however it's not happening right now whether I'm logged in or not! It simply gives me further search options and the nearest matches. To confirm, this article does not mention how to create an article for registered users, how bizzare! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willedsmithmo (talk • contribs) 16:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User - Morels - Indeed the instructions given on CREATING A NEW PAGE DO NOT WORK. When I click on "create this article" a PHP file gets downloaded to my Mac (is that the problem, someone created a routine that assumes no one uses Macs) with the file name of Index.php. No instructions on where to go from here. From what I've been able to make out clicking on "Create this article" is the EXCLUSIVE way to create new pages — AND IT DOESN'T WORK. Here's the contents of the file: [Process] Type=Edit text Engine=MediaWiki Script=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php Server=http://en.wikipedia.org Path=/w Special namespace=Special

[File] Extension=wiki URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yevgenia_Krasnova&action=edit&internaledit=true —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morels (talk • contribs) 04:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... This sounds like a user-end problem. I am about as technically knowledgable as a garden snail, but the process described works fine for me, and apparently hundreds of other people. Perhaps this is a techinal problem with your own computer? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely a user-end problem. I also use a mac, and I'm using the Safari browser, and I have no problem at all. I just went to 'create' and article (I didn't save it, but it sounds like the problem occured before that point anyway) and nothing of the sort happened. Morels, are you using an out-of-date OS or browser? Or perhaps some unusual web browser? If so, that might be your problem. --Icarus (Hi!) 17:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could someone revert this article back to its original form?

This article has no valuable information in regards to creating your first article. Instead, it contains the ramblings about someone named Michael Campbell. Could someone please revert this article back to its original form since the page is protected?. Thank you! —Evaglow 22:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "best damn burgers"

Is it really necessary to include a swearword in the examples? Of course Wikipedia is not censored, but I don't think the idea of that policy is to condone using swearwords unnecessarily. ssepp(talk) 21:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

At some point in the past, it said "darn." I don't know which one of these was the original version, but in this case I honestly don't think it matters. If you want to change it back to "darn," I for one won't care. I agree that while censorship should be avoided, there's no need to use profanity in cases where it adds nothing. --Icarus (Hi!) 22:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Might it not be better to just avoid the whole "darn (censored)/damn(cussword)" problem by rephrasing to something like, I don't know, "Louis' Lunch makes truly amazing hamburgers in New Haven."? ssepp(talk) 23:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creating an article

how do I solicit volunteers to help with a cultural project?


Claraparks 23:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family Tree

I was hoping on putting my family tree on here to encourage "long-lost" family memebers to add themselves in. This would probably mean that I create an additional page for each person (?). As I understand it, I am not allowed to create pages with only a few names, places & links. If each member of my family had their own page with subsequent links to their family memebers, there would be quite a few pages. Is this allowed/feasible?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjconnel (talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The type of project you're describing here is not within the scope of what would be permitted on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, meant to contain informative articles. Biographical articles are permitted for people who are notable in some way (historical figures, prominent politicians, famous actors and musicians, industry leaders, etc.) but the geneological articles you're proposing don't sound like they'd fall within that category.
There are a number of other websites designed to allow users to create family trees. You can find several by googling "family tree" or "genealogy". I'm not familiar with any, so I can't recommend any, but I've at least heard of ancestry.com and genealogy.com. Good luck! It's never fun to have to delete content that would be great on other websites, but doesn't belong here, so thanks for asking first!--Icarus (Hi!) 20:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


Ok thanks I will look into it. I for one am glad there are some rouge-admin out there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjconnel (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "How to" not just "what not to do"

I added two sections:

  • How to create a new page
  • Before you start

As others have noted, we should give positive guidance about HOW to create an article, and WHAT should go into it. I've emphasized that articles must have references to verifiable sources, because that is the single most important way to avoid having an article speedily deleted (and it might cause users to think twice before submitting useless articles).

I added a recommendation that users read the Tutorial, and I removed Be Bold because that applies more to editing existing articles than to creating new articles. Sbowers3 16:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sound fine to me. I wonder, though, if it might be better to have the actual "how" put as the last section. At the top, I'm afraid that more people would stop reading there, having gotten what they came for. People would probably just skip down to it at the bottom, but at least someone MIGHT go on to read the dos and don'ts before creating the millionth article about their non-notable band or their dog. --Icarus (Hi!) 01:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I did suggest that they read the rest of the article before actually creating an article - but you're right that some people won't read the rest of it. I didn't want to put it out of sight at the bottom because first-time readers might think that the article talks only about what to include and what not to include and quit reading before they get to the bottom. What might work is a lead section to summarize the article. I'll be working on that and some other things. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I just move it to the third section, the first two are for before starting then how then examples. Gnangarra 00:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thought maybe instead of saying used the create page option from seacr, why not suggest inclusion in as greater article.
If you want to write a about a band member then consider first if the band is of more interest. Instead of writing an article about Bon Scott write about AC/DC. Then create a link to Bon Scott from there.
If you want to write an article about your street, write about your town first.
If you want to write about your favorite teacher, or principle. write about your school.
This encourages higher level articles and increases the likely hood that the article will be notable and/or already exist. Gnangarra 01:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I like the first example, as those are clearly notable. I don't support using streets/towns and people/schools as examples, however, as there are already too many articles created about entirely non-notable subjects in these categories and we shouldn't encourage it. --Icarus (Hi!) 03:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major reorg

I've just done a major reorg, incorporating ideas from here and elsewhere. I added to the lead section, emphasized adding references to reliable sources, moved a paragraph about searching to a new section, and added a very visible searchbox. I removed some examples of writing style. They were good but were sprinkled among other things and didn't fit into this article. I think I have seen those examples in some other essay article. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kailashj (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of page?

Shouldn't this be called 'Wikipedia:Creating a new article' or something like that? Not every article created is someone's 'first page' (in fact, the vast majority certainly are not). Richard001 (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. –Pomte 01:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've long thought the name should be changed but it's had this name for a long time. One problem is that there are a LOT of links to this page. They should be edited to link to the new name not to the redirect. Oh, and "Creating a new article" is a bit redundant - you don't create an old article. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Why do the incoming links have to be updated? It should be pretty clear, if people notice, that the two names refer to the same thing. –Pomte 02:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this a bit more. I don't see any problem with Moving this page to "Creating an article" (e.g.). Renaming this page would not cause any problems but there's only a little benefit to renaming this page; the big benefit (and big work) is to change the wording of all those other pages. If you want to Move this page, go ahead. ("Creating an article" is a redirect to here, but it's okay to Move this article on top of that redirect.) Sbowers3 (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I am going to proceed with moving to "Starting an article" (I want to make a point that "creation" of articles is an onging process, not a onetime event). I will also start moving the links (help appreciated). I think there is still a case for a separate, more beginner-user oriented "Your first article" page, which I will start working on as well. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Informality

I suggest removal of the following text as it indeed is mentioned earlier and is unnecessary to repeat:

Gather references to reliable published sources. (Did we mention this one already?)

I also suggest removal of the following as it suggests that other things in this guide aren't meant just as much, and is generally too informal:

(We really mean it.)

Instead the importance of references could for instance be emphasized like this:

  1. Gather references to the source(s) of your information. Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted.

--Harald Khan Ճ 17:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership

This page don't violate WP:ownership?--MCP9999 (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. Do you mean because "Your first article" might be interpreted as the article belonging to "You" = the creator? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, isn't exactly a problem, is more a contradiction.--MCP9999 (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth renaming the page over this. The text of the page also says "your" many times. Maybe the page should mention that others can edit the article freely and the creator has no special rights. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any substituteable words for this article, And mention WP:OWN will be good.--MCP9999 (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added a note about ownership to the end.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicts with WP:OWN

The article has some potential conflicts with the WP:OWN policy with language such as "your first article". While some can be fixed in the article, can we move the title to make it like "To create an article" or "Creating an article for the first time" or "How to create an effective article"? What does everyone else think? Green caterpillar (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As said in the above section, I don't think it should be moved. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree a move would remove the ambiguous nature of ownership. No amount of wavers in the article is going to remove that, only a rename/redirect will remove it. SunCreator (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Creating an article for the first time' has multiple meanings as does 'To create an article'. SunCreator (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
'Start a new article' as used by Help:Starting_a_new_page, 'How to start a new article' or 'Starting a new article' would seem appropriate titles. SunCreator (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I support a name change for this page and a total rewrite to get rid of "your". This page shouldn't be titled "Your first article" because it is not the editor's article, and because it might not be their first article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My teacher is Famous Korean language lecturer.

Cross-posted text removed

--Stylescene (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Stylescene

This same comment (or very similar comment) has been cross-posted across several pages in the last week and has appeared on the help desk 4 times. I don't think we need it here too. Astronaut (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

Article keeps being overwritten by new editors trying to create there first article. Not useful for other new editors trying to read what they are suppose to be doing. Suggest that semi-protection is added. SunCreator (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Checking the history shows semi-protected has been enabled since 8 August 2007 but registered users are still causing the problem. SunCreator (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Would this be notable?

I wish to write an article about colnect.com

The site has the world's biggest catalog for collectible phone cards. It is available online, for free and without the need for registration.

telecards.colnect.com/browse.php

Would this be considered notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiawe (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fails our External links policy and would certainly fail WP:WEB. Additionaly, Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". --Hu12 (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)