Help talk:Your first article/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2016

Dharmendra bansal (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Your first article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I want to create an Wikipedia

How it work Mahindrakumar Patel (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mahindrakumar Patel: Can you be more specific ? Are you referring to an article ? or maybe you want to create your own wiki ? Mlpearc (open channel) 14:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Save your draft article to your computer!

I'd lke to suggest that the guidance for newcomers to Wikipedia, and especially guidance for people writing their first article from scratch, should advise them strongly to save a text version of the article on their computer.

This is because Wiki policy as interpreted by some administrators allows for the immediate and complete deletion of draft articles (even unpublished draft articles submitted for review) if they flout certain rules. This complete deletion happens even if a fault lay in only one section, for example.

Newcomers who don't know these rules risk wasting a whole day's research and drafting because an administrator may delete the entire draft article, which then cannot be corrected by the author, who has to start again from scratch (or, more likely, just not bother).

Holdspa (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, will keep that in mind.--RainbowsAndPonies (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Question

How can I upload a page or an article? Bigg Boss FC (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Bigg Boss FC I recommend you read "Your first article" and follow it through. If you have any further questions please go to the "Teahouse": Noyster (talk), 13:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2017

I recently wrote a recent history about Aldino, Md and submitted it. It is written from my experience as I have lived in Aldino since birth in 1943. Apparently I do not understand how Wikipedia works as I was chastised by someone for not having references. I am the reference. Everything I stated was from my recollections. Dougburdette (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll be replying on your talk page presently. Closing this edit request now because no request has been made. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

patrolers

Shouldn't this be patrollers?Neilc314 (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2017

Byrais (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done because this is not a project or page that needs to be created in the Wikipedia namespace. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 20:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Bold?

I believe the Talk page, among other things, is for comment on article content that would not be appropriate in the article. I find an urging to "Be Bold" in making your first article to be Completely Out Of Place, to the point of self-deception. I came to Wikipedia BOLD and had that boldness kicked out of me in 15 different way by Wikipedia policies. If you want to be bold, try Citizendium or other online reservoirs of information. Here, try something, but do it cautiously, following the rules. Wikipedia is not the Wild West No-Holds-Barred Internet. For example, if you can show something is true beyond a reasonable doubt, that doesn't mean you can write it out here, unless secondary sources have reviewed your topic and written about it independently.Moabalan (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Moabalan has a point. If new editors could be brought to understand this better from the outset, there would be a good deal less heartbreak over deletion of their new articles. If you look at WP:Be bold it isn't really talking about brand-new articles, rather about edits that fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate... Did you want to suggest a specific change to WP:Your first article, maybe the "nutshell" box?: Noyster (talk), 20:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Image use

There does not appear to be any general guidance about image use in YFA, particularly in drafts/user space drafts. I come across a number of cases where non-free images have been specifically uploaded for drafts, etc. or existing non-free images which have been added to drafts, etc., both of which are not allowed per WP:NFCC#9. It might be helpful to add a sentence or two about image use to the "And be careful about..." so that new editors who are working on their first article are made aware of WP:IUP and WP:NFC. Non-free content used outside of the article namespace can be removed at any time and such files will be deleted per WP:F5 if they are orphans. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright

The copyright section mentions that most works released after the 1^st of January, 1978 are automatically under copyright? Why is this? Mister Apple (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

That would be the US Copyright Act of 1976. See also Copyright notice and Copyright law of the United States. It's probably a bit of an overstatement, but in context is probably fairly reasonable. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2017

Hello, Looking for editing permission to contribute with wikipedia as a Digital Marketer. Kanso2017 (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not the place to request permissions. Please refer to WP:CONFIRM for instructions on how to request such permissions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 13:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Bold? revisited

Reviving an earlier discussion, started by Moabalan.

In line with the renewed interest in ACTRIAL arising from a concern with the flood of no-hope articles from new editors, it may be a good time to shift the balance between encouragement and caution at the head of the "Your first article" page, de-emphasising the injunctions to "Be bold!".

I propose

1. Replace the last sentence of the Nutshell box, its current wording [1] reading Feel free to be bold and create the article with a limited knowledge of norms here, but other editors might choose to delete it if it's not appropriate, with If you choose to create the article with only a limited knowledge of norms here, you should be aware that other editors may delete it if it's not considered appropriate. ("Might" is wrong anyhow, should be "may").
2. Remove the "Jump in! Be Bold." added [2] at the end of the first text paragraph: Noyster (talk), 11:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about a matter.

My dear friends on Wikipedia, I would like to ask you a question that, how many days does it take to show a Wikipedia page on internet after it's creation. I'm asking this because yesterday evening I created a page. Doctrosa (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Doctrosa The only page you appear to have created is Draft:Ichapore Anushiloni Pathagar. This is currently a draft and without further action will just remain so and not be visible to readers. Before this page could be accepted as an article it would have to include references to independent sources to establish "notability" either as a building or as an organisation. Also please remove street address, telephone number and opening hours, instead quoting the URL of its website if it has one.

When you think the page is acceptable, I recommend that you place the code {{Subst:Submit}} at the top of the page to enter it for review: Noyster (talk), 08:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Help

Hi,

 As per Wikipedia guidelines, my page Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri(Delhi) Pvt.Ltd was been reviewed by Shirt58. So I just want to know why my page has been removed. I will be, please enough if you give me brief details of why my page has been removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisschal.tbz (talk • contribs) 10:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC) 

• @Nisschal.tbz: See the deletion log. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

(cynthia ijeoma iduma'sbiography) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynthiaiduma (talk • contribs) 20:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Big Blue Button

In "Create your draft" it says "then click the big blue button" but I don't see a big blue button. I just wanted to add Mars, California since it is a valid populated place and currently when we search for Mars, California we get someplace else that has a different name. Sam Tomato (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sam Tomato: Thank you for catching that. I've changed the link to point to the Wikipedia:Article wizard, which does have a "big blue button". -- John of Reading (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2017

Kindly allow us to edit changes as per Wikipedia guideline. We will thankful for this favor. Bhupendra Avasthi (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Bhupendra Avasthi, the page is semi-protected for good reasons, but I suspect you're actually asking about an article you'd like to edit. (This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Wikipedia:Your first article, which is a page about creating articles.) If you have questions about contributing to Wikipedia, please visit the Teahouse, a forum specifically designed for new users. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

To long did not read!

These instructions are too long and evidently from the drafts and new pages I read, most new editors don't read them. They need to be shorter and more pointedly explicit about what not to do and what must be done. Also avoid less common words, as many new page creators are ESL. Legacypac (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Quick note

Am going to take a shot at ~trying~ to:

• make this less wordy
• make it appropriate for the WP:Autoconfirmed article creation trial that is going to start soon.

This may be rather drastic, but am being bold. We'll see.. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

About Wikipedia

Wikipedia gives lots of information about anything and everything.Its very useful to everyone to get details easily.WoW What an experience????Its awesome. Bipinmaheshwaran (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Templates

I used to be able to find a template area for filling out articles, and I used it to write my biographies, but I cannot find them now. Can someone link me to it? I also would like the templates for non-biographies (an object) also.

Schwiiz (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit to Create your draft

@User:Moxy, you have deleted my edit to the subject section with the comment "no need to say this 2 times". I would make the following comments in response.

• Not all of what I have said has been said before.
• A degree of repetition and reinforcement in learning guides and like is not only reasonable but appropriate.
• There is allegorical evidence, albeit my own experiences, that would support the material added.
• The material deleted is moderately well written.
• A deletion in full does not acknowledge that there is any value to any degree in the edit that was made.
• The wizard is (perhaps) more daunting than you realise and positive reinforcement is appropriate. Following the instructions there just now (as an editor of some experience) prompted me to write much of what I have said.

I submit that there is more value than detriment in what I have added and that a better course than a "blanket" delete is to improve upon my edit. An entity that is closed to "suggestion" labours on the false premise that it is perfect and cannot be improved - a premise that is contrary to WP. Regards. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Pls read article as a whole....we say most of this already with links in a non-opinionated-essay style. Why start small....this is just your POV

What was added....

The article wizard will help you create an article in the draft space. The search box at the top of every Wikipedia page only looks for articles. The advanced search option allows you to search through others spaces in Wikipedia, including drafts. Your sandbox is another place you can experiment with creating an article. The edit tab allows you to edit a page's text and the markup, that formats how the page will look. You can copy the text and markup from a similar article to your sandbox. In your sandbox, you can experiment with it to see how things work and use it as a template for your new article. Once you are happy, you can follow the wizard to create the draft and copy your sandbox contents to the new draft. From there, you can request your article to be moved to the article space. Try something simple for your first article. An article of one or two paragraphs can be a good start. While Wikipedia has thousands of articles, there are many things that are not suitable for Wikipedia and many that are not sufficiently notable to have an article in Wikipedia. By creating a small article, you will not be setting yourself up for disappointment. Short comments can sound harsh but most editors don't bite. You can contact them on their talk page but to be polite and open to constructive criticism. Remember, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar

What we already say.

Wikipedia already has 5,489,605 articles. Before creating an article, try to make sure there is not already an article on the same topic, perhaps under a slightly different name. Search for the article, and review Wikipedia's article titling policy before creating .....

(This is described in our "mission statement", "What Wikipedia is not".).....

Gather sources for the information you will be writing about. To be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, a subject must be sufficiently notable, and that notability must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources.....

suggest new article text or edits on the article talk page (not on the main article page

}

--Moxy (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It is appropriate in learning materials/guides etc to summarise at key points - usually at the end. This guide is a little different in that the "pivotal" step is not "the end" but at this point. I acknowledge the material you quote and knew it was already mentioned, when writing that particular sentence. The purpose of the sentence is to support and justify the advice being given. I also acknowledge you may say "start small" is POV but it is generally acknowledged as sound advice and the basis of many proverbs: learn to walk before you try to run, don't set yourself up for a fall, and don't bite off more than you can chew. I acknowledge that some but certainly not all of the links in what I added have been made. Again, It was a concious choice aimed at those that skipped the main (or got tired of it) and went straight for dessert. There are also other things that don't appear to be mentioned and which add value to the page. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Most will never get to the dessert...so I dont see a need to summarise at the end (Research:Which parts of an article do readers read)....as for start slowly ....yes its covered under " Practice first". In my view this page needs a real trim back to keep interest in it by new readers. No one wants to read a huge manual before they volunteer their time.--Moxy (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is way too much so even more so the need for a brief summary. The advice to "start small" is not the same as "practice". Practice in a sandbox doesn't give you feedback. Edits to an article may give some feedback but not about choosing a topic, naming, and writing an article - as opposed to adding a sentence or two. Readers are either going to go straight for the big blue or get a little past there and skip to the end. (and then come back a bit). If they go straight for the blue, there is a good chance they will get frustrated with playing 20 questions with the wizard. Can you compare the number of hits on the wizard v the number of drafts created? Also, the number of attempts a new user makes before they are successful or give up? If they write a substantial article first up, and it gets deleted, they are less likely to follow up with another attempt. Using a similar article as a template is the best advice I could give. For all the writing in the world, people are going to learn more quickly by mimicking what the can see works. Good "samplers" are going to be of more value than miles of writing how to. Cut out all the padding. Use brief statements and links. I have come close to saying everything that is important in two paras and four would probably pull it all togeather. IMHO Cinderella157 (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

PS you may be interested in File:Editing Wikipedia articles on History.pdf
This page is a soft redirect. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The nutshell

"Do not use content". Would it be better if it said "copy text" or similar instead of "use"? I mean we "use" content all the time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not able to write a new article how to write ? Reena Bhatt (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Read a traditional encyclopedia

"Read a traditional encyclopedia" might be good advice but doesn't Wikipedia have any content of its own worth imitating? Mustsclue (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Mustsclue, Yes, good and featured articles; added links. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Change red title to another colour?

The red title is kind fo difficult to red on that colour background, most often red is used for warning messages on Wikipedia so perhaps another colour? Light blue or something? I looked at the code and can't work out how its put together....

John Cummings (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@John Cummings: I've undone the most recent change to {{Pullbox}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much @John of Reading:, John Cummings (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Missing link in intro

In the second paragraph of the Introduction, you say, "We summarize such sources here," but "here" isn't hyperlinked. I believe it should be "We summarize such sources here."

Thanks! Joshstrupp (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Joshstrupp: I suspect that "We summarize such sources here", in context, means "We summarize such sources in the articles we write" or "We summarize such sources to create Wikipedia". If I've understood that correctly, a link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources doesn't fit well in that sentence. I'll leave your request active so that someone gives a second opinion. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Joshstrupp: I concur with John of Reading. That sentence isn't saying "For a summary of such sources, please look over here." It's saying "Wikipedia articles summarize the published sources." I've made an adjustment to that sentence to clarify the meaning. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@ElHef: Copy that. Makes sense. Thanks!

Statistics on rejected drafts?

I added a statistic on the number of mainspace articles that are deleted each day (more than 200). Is there a statistic anywhere on the number of drafts (as opposed to mainspace articles) that get declined and/or deleted? I'm trying to give prospective article submitters a reason to think hard about this, and especially about notability. I perceive a real need for this based on the daily questions about deleted articles that show up on the help desk. -Arch dude (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

More than 97 replies, read them all. Desireef79 (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 7 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move. I will file a technical move request. (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Your first article → Help:Your first article – This is a really a help page, and it would be a lot friendly to newbies to see "Help:Your first article" than "Wikipedia:Your first article". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support this seems to be far more a help page than a "guideline page". Compare Help:How to move a page/Wikipedia:Moving a page and Help:Category/Wikipedia:Categorization where the "help" pages primarily give help on the technical side rather than guidance on policy, while this does give guidance on notability and content policies its overwhelmingly a "help" page and I do agree the proposed title would be more friendly. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Profit

Is there any profit to me for posting articles Younus1925 (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia is a bottomless money pit. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. . .Mean as custard (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

No we deserve money for this Janettedone (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Terms of payment for the use Nation World Tour Webcite (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It will help us if Wikipedia pay us for our articles...like a part time job Justin menaria (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

For me I think it has to do with the fulfilment we get helping people with information. Akumachimaemmanuel (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Accidentally writing an article that has been previously deleted

I think it would help if this page described the "big pink box" that appears when searching for an article's name before beginning to create that article if the subject you are searching had been previously deleted. I just wasted a considerable amount of time writing such an article (that had been deleted before) because I did not notice this big pink box. Just saying there should be some mention of this possibility on this page for us newbies. Thanks, Mathdestruction (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies you went through that, Mathdestruction! That seems like a reasonable thing to add to this page. Sdkb (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Better link for first paragraph than Category:Pending AfC submissions?

Is there a better place we could link in the lead section than the raw category of pending AfC submissions (many of which don't even have examples yet of comments)? Perhaps we could even create a set of examples of what a good and bad submission looks like? Sdkb (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Simplyfy page

Considering this for many is the first help style page they see we should make this as simple as possible. As of now we have a banner blindness with a wall of text saying things 2 times is some occasion and with us redirecting them with 16 links to other pages and 2 navboxs. All this before there is actually info about the topic at hand "Here are some tips that can help you with your first article:.....". Serviceable information not should be so long in coming !!Research:Which parts of an article do readers read.--Moxy 🍁 14:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is massively bloated. It needs to have a clear, simple outline of the most urgent advice, followed by the (appropriately prominent) link to the Article Wizard, then more details for those who really want to do it right. I am going to move the "new here?" box back up a little bit, since it needs to catch readers before they start going through the whole process. The farther down it is, the more committed readers will be to creating an article by the time they see it. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverted.....just talked about less link spam...this was an easy fix. I know you want your 3 pages all over,,,but best not lead readers away from the page off the bat. Think of page purpose before leading them to your favorite pages.--Moxy 🍁 07:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: Pushing a sidebar below the first paragraph is non-standard. I maintain my reasoning from above — it's not that I want to redirect readers to my "favorite" pages, it's that those are the pages they should go to. I'm going to revert to the status quo while we wait for a third opinion on this. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Restore to before addition WP:STABLE.....ok then unwilling to compromise ...get consensus to add a new box before the intro and link the page 2 times in the lead.--Moxy 🍁 07:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Come on, Moxy. I know you're not pleased with some of the proposals I've recently passed, but that's not an excuse here, and your behavior is starting to raise WP:HOUND concerns. The sidebox has been in the article for a month at this point — it is clearly the stable version. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Only have a problem with 2 of your 50 ongoing proposals. I was just mentioning to someone that when I link a help page in a discussion you propose a change to it....most have been fine....but a few are very detrimental in my view. WP:BRDDISCUSS--Moxy 🍁 08:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Nutshell

"Do not use content from other websites even if"

In 2018 [3] I changed "use" to "copy-paste" because we use content from other websites all the time, it's actually a bit central to what we do. At some point this was changed back, but I think my version is better. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: "Copy-paste" is a little awkward, which I'm guessing is why it was reverted at some point, but "copy" would be fine and would get across the point just as well. I'm going to change it to that; hopefully that'll be good with everyone. It's true that on occasion we copy content from freely-licensed websites, but that's a fairly niche case. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

"Copy" is fine with me. But we "use" content from websites all the time, their info, as refs, we paraphrase etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed

I am surprised the intro does not mention that new accounts cannot create an article, nor that they are no longer "new" after four days and ten edits. To my mind it seems rather important; is it a deliberate omission? Jim.henderson (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jim.henderson: The help page steers new/new-ish editors towards the article wizard. Since the wizard creates pages in the Draft namespace, it can be used by brand new accounts. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jim.henderson: In the second paragraph of the introduction: The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is restricted to volunteers with some experience. Link in original, leads to WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2021

In Help:Your first article#The basics:

• Register an account. All you need is to choose a username and password. This will give you various powers. After a few days of editing articles, it will give you the power to create a new one.

I propose to put the {{If IP}} template around this section so it will only show up if you don't have an account, or alternatively also have the {{If autoconfirmed}} template to create a unique message that shows if you don't yet meet the autoconfirmed requirements. My change is below: (note you may have to open the source editor to see the message)

* Register an account. All you need is to choose a username and password. This will give you various powers. After a few days of editing articles, it will give you the power to create a new one.* Edit articles. To create new articles, you need to be an established user by making good edits for some time. After a few days of editing articles, you will have the power to create a new one. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Pages about Wikipedia policy should not be displayed differently depending on who's reading them. Someone logged in can easily ignore that line. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

"Create wikipage" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Create wikipage and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 31#Create wikipage until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears (if I understand things correctly here) that the above hyperlink (the one containing, in part, "/Log/2022 May 31") has since been moved -- at least once! -- and ... as of the last time I checked, it was spotted here:

• Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_15#Create_wikipage

Please forgive me if I have made some mistake ... e.g., if it was intentional, in the above hyperlink, to refer to a specific (OLD) "non-latest" version of something.

Just "FYI" ... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Put #Search for an existing article before #The basics

If you are trying to create a new article, it would be frustrating to read through pages and pages of guidelines before realizing the article already exists. There are starting-an-article-specific guidelines, like WP:N, that aren't as important for improving existing articles. Sungodtemple (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features § Newcomer experience new article creation

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features § Newcomer experience new article creation. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Encouraging improving content before adding a new topic

I believe that it would help most everyone, the newcomers, the reviewers, if newcomers coming here to read advice on writing their first article were advised to consider improving existing content related to their new topic idea before that attempt to add their idea of a missing topic as their first foray as a Wikipedian.

It is very challenging to correct create a new topic. There are very few new topics that are notable and straightforward to write compared to the number of existing topics already covered by articles. Even if the topic doesn't have an article, if it is notable then surely it has at least a mention in an article, and that mention can be improved. If it doesn't have a single mention in any mainspace article, then surely, if it is notable, then a mention can be introduced to one or a few articles. It is a lot easier to add a mention to an article than to create a new article. Adding a mention in another article will draw the newcomer's attention to the need for the topic to be somehow relevant to other topics. If the mention is not a good idea, or is difficult, editing an existing article will draw that attention of another editor, and may be the beginning of a productive friendship.

I think brief advice to create and improve mentions at other articles before writing the missing article belongs in the first paragraph. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)