User talk:Trevor Saline
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
[edit] Articles
Please stop creating very short articles. Any subject on which you can't write at least a full paragraph with references to reliable sources is probably a bad idea. Guy 22:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, here's where I think you are going wrong:
- Wikipedia now has over a million articles, and what is really needed is to improve the quality of those articles, so if there is a subject like E von Wolf which has relevance to spinach, you might start by working up the information in spinach until you get to the point where there is more detail than will fit in that article.
- Wikipedia has a manual of style which covers article names, doctoral titles and such are not used in article titles. Negligible content plus wrong title makes a delete, I'm afraid.
- The chances of us not having an article on flat-panel display are pretty remote, and in fact we have one at flat panel display. Use the Search feature (and Google, our index sucks) to avoid wasting your efforts creating duplicate articles. I know how frustrating that t, I've been there myself more than once before I learned this one.
- Redirects are cheap but not free. You might think that portal gun will be a widely used term when the game is published, but until it is, we don't know. We can't formally verify a fair bit about that game in advance of publication, actually.
- A flower is more beautiful than a collection of petals. When you have a single subject, such as 144 Piccadilly and the London Street Commune, cover it in one article until it gets too b ig and need ssplitting. 144 Piccadilly should be a redirect, London Street Commune should be the article, and before you create it you need to establish the iportance of the group from reliable secondary sources. I included a source in 144 Piccadilly.
- Any article which does not cite sources is a problem. All content must be verifiable and neutral, and by common consent significant (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). Please take the time to include sources in your articles.
If you read through the links in the welcome message above I'm sure you will find out a lot more that will help you. Don't be discouraged, and remember, I'm just the janitor :-) Guy 08:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] London Street Commune
You recreated the article verbatim. It contains almost exactly the same information as 144 Piccadilly. You didn't redirect 144 Piccadilly. Please stop creating one-sentence stubs with information which is wholly reduntant per other articles - including oin this case article sof your own creation. Guy 21:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stubs
This is what a proper stub looks like: Grayston Ives. Guy 10:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Xenon Green
I disagree with you. I believe it did fall under the criteria it was tagged with, specificallt A1: "Very short articles providing little or no context". I also believe it falls under A7: "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] E. von Wolf
...was speedy deleted for lack of context and sources. Heck, you don't even provide the subject's first name, much less where you can find his paper on spinach, or any sources that find his paper notable. NawlinWiki 11:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
