Wikipedia talk:Article development

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconWikipedia Help C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
CThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
HighThis page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA spam[edit]

please note, consensus is required before making significant additions to this page (e.g. long paragraphs about "good articles"). please discuss on talkpage instead of edit-warring. Zzzzz 10:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created this page from a merge of two existing pages.[1] The GA section was part of the existing page.[2] You removed the section, starting the edit war. You are the one who needs consensus to omit the section. Gareth Aus

The article on Chow Mein actually describes LO MEIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Several months ago, I created Requests for feedback. It's a process whereby new contributors can seek feedback on articles they write or major edits they make. The feedback is intended to help the newcomer understand his strengths and weaknesses as an editor, and to use the feedback to improve his editing skills, as well as the article he is requesting feedback on. This process facilitates both article development and editor development, and is a type of basic, general Peer Review, that is designed for new articles.

RFF is a relatively new initiative; traffic there is slowly but surely increasing, and I hope to make it an integral newcomer process. I created RFF after trying to solicit feedback on two articles I wrote, Google Groups and Homerun (film), but finding Peer Review only for high-quality, established articles.

I am thinking of including a link to RFF in the Peer Review paragraph, as RFF is, as I said, a basic, general Peer Review. If a newcomer posts his article on RFF, and a reviewer spots any glaring problems with the article, he can fix them himself, ask the writer of the article to fix it, or add appropriate tags - either way, the article gets improved, and the newcomer learns something. However, I would like to know what others think. I also started a discussion on the village pump that you may be interested in - please read and respond there. Thanks.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirects to this page[edit]

I'm curious about a few things - and was wondering if anyone would object to a few minor changes.

  1. WP:IA is a redirect to this article - it seems to me that it would be more appropriate to redirect it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Iowa, as IA is the common abbreviation for Iowa and I don't see how IA abbreviates Article Development.
  2. WP:ARTICLE should probably be created as a redirect for this article - if I was looking for a source for information on developing an article, that's one of the first things I'd try. --Tim4christ17 talk 04:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 02:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured articles on Main Page?[edit]

I removed and reworded these assertions in the Featured article section:

  • Once an article is certified as featured, it can usually be featured on the main page...
  • Just be patient, and the article will eventually get its turn.

At the rate we're going, not all FAs will reach the main page. See a much more detailed discussion here. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 02:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why isnt Good Article a part of this page?[edit]


Good articles, while not part of 'becoming an FA' chain, definitely are a legitimate part of Article development. Can someone please enlighten me as to why this isnt so on ground?

Regards, AshLin 16:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Important information that is not present in this page[edit]

I have found this page with google, because i was searching HOW TO write a wikipedia article.

I need to know what is the programming language, or what editor I need to write the code for wikipedia pages.

that page needs a section that says "wikipedia pages are written in xxx language (html, php, plain text, wathever). To learn it (for example, how to make a hyperlink, or write coloured or bold code, insert a picture, etc.), go to that page.

For example, I have some info/ article writen in MS Word. I can save it on html, or other formattting, but I cannot copy and paste here, because it lost all formating (or maybe not?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marraco (talkcontribs) 13:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many questions you can answer yourself by clicking "Help" on the left. It will take you to Help:Contents. That page has a topic called "Editing Wikipedia". Click that and you will see among other things, "Edit a page, including markup details." You'll learn that wikipedia pages are written in wiki markup language, which is somewhat similar to html. The bottom line is that probably the best you can do is copy and paste from MS Word, losing all the formatting, then add in appropriate formatting using wiki markup.
P.S. Can you tell us how you came to this page to ask your question? There is lots of information in Wikipedia but much of it is not arranged in the most obvious and helpful way to inform newcomers. If we knew how you came to this page, we could rearrange things so that you might have found what you were looking for more easily. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do any of you know how to edit the right way so I dont get reverted?[edit]

Im not sure if this is the right page, or if I'm even talking to anyone?GIVE YOUR MAMA SOME SUGAR! (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding useful information on a notable topic would be a good place to start. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]



In the Stubs section, please remove the link to "Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive" as that project no longer is active. (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some enterprising soul could also do a "what links here" and take it out or move it to inactive in every place it is used. (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

☒N Not done. This is only a semi-protected page. Any user who have had an account for some days can edit this page. So there are plenty of editors to ask for it. (About 60,000 active editors, only about 1300 active admins.) And if you get an account you can fix it yourself a couple of days from now. --David Göthberg (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Voyaging(talk) 23:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Demotion (of a sort)[edit]

Please see WT:MOS#Article_development. It seems to me this is a good how-to page, but it isn't and shouldn't be a guideline. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I'm here, the only change this month was "Factiva - Provides multiple language interfaces and multilingual content covering nearly 9,000 sources." See Price for individuals is $69 per year. Is this a useful and cost-effective service? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's time for the monthly updates so I'm going to rush things a little and remove the style cat, leaving the how-to cat. Anyone can feel free to revert if they disagree. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone fix this?[edit]

"Category: To do" has been renamed to "Category:Wikipedia pages with to-do lists". TheWilyFox (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC) {{editsemiprotected}}Reply[reply]

Done fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 13:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Create new article[edit]

I have content for a new article. Where do I click (as a registered wiki member) to submit this new topic?PelleBluer (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia:Your first article. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excuse me, sir i am gonna be curious to write an article about my village which has historical importance, what procedure should i follow? Jugal kishor rauniyar (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to upload a new article :) Yukue is queen (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiii ravichandra garu..I am creating an article on singer mallikarjun garu but it is getting rejected again and again due to lack of reliable sources..can you please help me out with some good reliable sources of him and send it to me..Please contact me once my number ███████████ (number redacted) ..hope you call Sharathgunti (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the article ready?[edit]

has anybody noticed that the tutorial articles like this, on wikipedia, are incredibly patronising, and the authors seem to think that they have a monopoly on the knowledge of what constitutes good writing, which is more than a little bit arrogant. read the section on featured articles, for an especially good example of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleobolus (talkcontribs) 20:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stubs / Developing Articles[edit]

The "Wikipedia:Requested articles" link was marked historical/irrelevant in November 2008 ... the thought being that every single Wikipedia article could use expansion. Perhaps that link should be removed from both sections of this otherwise excellent primer on writing for Wikipedia. (newspaperman (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} WP:IA no longer points to this page as a result of an RfD. Will someone kindly remove it from the short cut box in the upper right hand corner? Thank you. (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, thanks  Chzz  ►  15:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Custodianship stage[edit]

What seems to be missing from this guide is a section on what to do after an article attains FA status. For me, the story doesn't end there. Wikipedia standards are continually evolving and research is frequently unveiling new information on a variety of topics. Thus an FA article has to continue to slowly evolve in order to stay in peak condition. Likewise, new additions and modifications to an article may not be in keeping with the FA criteria, so a process akin to entropy can occur where the quality starts to degrade through a series of otherwise well-intentioned edits.

I like to think of this stage as a type of 'custodianship' in which experienced editors regularly monitor an article and see to the maintenance of its quality. In addition to carefully integrating edits that are not in keeping with the FA criteria or historical talk-page consensus, these articles should undergo an occasional in-depth review (housekeeping) to ensure that any new standards have been implemented, the existing standards are being maintained (especially consistency) and any cleanup tags or templates are addressed. I believe it is beneficial at this stage to discuss any major overhauls of an article before they are implemented. This keeps disputes to a minimum and helps ensure outcomes have received a broader range of review and consensus, and are consistent with the input of the FA reviewers. And no, I am not condoning article ownership.

Thoughts? Regards, RJH (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see two basic parts to your proposal. One, the "occasional in-depth review", falls under the mandate of FA review. The other, "custodianship" as an ongoing process, sounds good in theory. However, in either happens or it doesn't (depending on the nominator, whether the nominator is still on the project, etc), and I'm not sure how this proposal would help - a nominator still engaged with the article would be involved in doing this type of work anyways, and a nominator not involved with the article after its promotion (for whatever reason) wouldn't do it even if this new stage was added to the guide. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, see WP:OAS. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, FA reviews only seems to happen once an FA article has degraded significantly. It seems better in my experience to keep an FA article in good shape prior to reaching that point. As for the rest, well, I don't see how it would hurt matters. It may encourage some new primary editors to take a longer view of their article, rather than just marking it as a completed accomplishment and moving on. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I continue to monitor my FAs and often improve them in preparation for TFA or even after. If I did not do so, many of them would be replete with unsourced information, vandalism, and the fascinating information that the subject of the article was played by so and so on such and such a TV series. I am uncertain that this should be made mandatory, but I care about the work I help to create.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was seeing this as mainly informational, rather than something "mandatory". I'm sure every experienced editor has some heuristics to pass along for post-FA articles. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alot of articles get a spruce up before appearing on the main page. The best thing about FAC is its function as a "stable revision" to compare degraded (or improved) articles back to later down the track. Most of my FAs are pretty esoteric and see little action - others are challenging to keep up with to say the least..I have warmed to something like this idea, of somehow keeping an eye on a "stable" of FAs but agree with Nikkimaria in the problems of how to go about this.Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cyrillic script[edit]

Considering that this article is intended to be read by newcomers to the project, should it not be better written and probably protected? This edit from 2006 seems to have introduced what I suspect to be a Bulgarian or Ukrainian translation. Longwayround (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. That's weird. It was definitely there last night. Either there's a bug in the server or a bug in my head. Longwayround (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with English[edit]

The sentence "The Wikipedia Manual of Style can help you with your English" should be removed, and replaced with a better place to get help. The purpose of the Manual of Style is not to help teach English, and should not be used for that, as it has been over the last few years. That was a mistake, and all of that should be removed from manual of style, and moved to a new essay, titled WP:Writing good English, or better WP:Writing good encyclopedic English. Apteva (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ending w/ preposition[edit]

Wow...whoever edited this page really worked hard to avoid ending with a preposition. I don't have enough time to to that in my work, so I always see it as a sign that whoever edited really spent their time on the article. Keep up the good work! Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perfection is our goal[edit]

In the Featured Articles subsection, the page says that "few articles are perfect, though perfection is our goal." I don't believe the goal of Wikipedia is to form perfect articles; it's to create a free encyclopedia. If the wording of this sentence could be changed, I think it would be less confusing. Tallflower77 (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:IA listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:IA. Interested editors may want to participate in the redirect discussion if they have not already done so. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Page Creation[edit]

Hello can a new page be created by one of the wikieditors for any person? they can take a look at the person's profile and make the page if deemed ok. thanksWhite Knight 676 (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page needs updating to 2023[edit]

This page needs updating to 2023, a lot of it's tech advise is starting to get outdated, which makes me doubt how much of it is actually up to date. Bart Terpstra (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]