Help talk:Your first article

Major overhaul of this page

Hello! For the past little while a bunch of people have been working on a draft of an update to this page. Please take a look/suggest improvements/leave feedback/etc. at your convenience. Thank you so much, HouseBlaster^talk 00:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster I would suggest using less "hand-holding" language and more "how this should be done" language (like in documentations for programming languages). This respects the competence of the reader and improve their perception of our competence as well. Also, it is helpful to give a more detailed explanation on the reasons why we have these criteria in the first place. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Welp: Your forked article

Seems two teams have been labouring in ignorance of one another, and now the RfC is closed. We've got H:YFA on the one hand, and User:Houseblaster/YFA draft on the other. Last synced 1 July, after I made the same mistake.

So, stet, merge, overwrite? Notifying editors who have touched either page during July:
@Mathglot, Tenryuu, Houseblaster, Rich Smith, S0091, Slgrandson, WhatamIdoing, Hyphenation expert, Lettherebedarklight, CopperyMarrow15, Ganguma, CactiStaccingCrane, Ianmacm, Edward-Woodrow, Paine Ellsworth, OutsideNormality, and Zinnober9:

Apologies to all involved for the notification. Folly Mox (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

No merge, the draft at User:Houseblaster/YFA draft has a completely different logic. Choose one or the other, and go from there, following the logic of the chosen design. Mathglot (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm no response either 🙃 User:CactiStaccingCrane, you expressed doubt about the new draft in the section immediately prior, so repinging you individually, but this question is directed at everyone.

How do people feel about a round robin move? Move the current help page to Help:Article creation basics or Help:Article creation fundamentals or something, and move User:Houseblaster/YFA draft to this title? That way we keep the thorough explanation for people who want something in between "I've never logged in before today but I'm tryna create an article first thing" and "here's Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines; good luck!", but also provide a thing for the day zero raw newcomers. Folly Mox (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I was kinda surprised about the crickets, too. Honestly, I think this draft beats the hell out of the existing YFA, and I would certainly support such a move, but probably we need a more central venue to publish or advertise it in . You could start... I was gonna say, you could start an RM (Requested Move), but that usually implies only a title change with no major change of content, and this isn't that at all. So, maybe an Rfc? Mathglot (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry! I got the ping but had other messages as well and forgot about this one. What do you think about posting something at WP:Village pump (proposals) first to request input/feedback along with WT:Teahouse? Given its importance, I would rather it go through some more vetting before a formal RfC. Also Cullen328 just posted some suggestions at User talk:Houseblaster/YFA draft. S0091 (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

YFA draft revisited

It looks like the discussion has unfortunately gone stale, but I agree with the above that User:Houseblaster/YFA draft is a major improvement over the current version, even if it has some rough edges. Is there still interest in moving it here? This is an information page not a policy or a guideline, so I don't think a full-blown RfC is necessary: consensus on this talk page that it is an improvement would suffice. @HouseBlaster, Folly Mox, Mathglot, S0091, and CactiStaccingCrane: – Joe (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it really is, and it deserves another look and serious consideration. And, yes, there is interest. Thanks for reigniting it. Mathglot (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I really dropped the ball on this one. I have the RFC statement and initial support !vote in my notes app, dated 22 August 2023. I don't remember why I never posted it to VPR, although I was helping a friend move that week, and moved house myself the following week.

Irrelevant background details aside, and with the declaration that I made 67 edits to that page and 30 to this one, yes please let's get the streamlined version in front of newcomers.

Given how frequently newcomers are provided links to Help:Your first article, I was rather surprised last year when not many people seemed to care what it says, but I imagine it's akin to WP:UPPERCASE (kinda how newcomers editing with the Visual Editor are often linked to WP:REFB instead of WP:REFVISUAL, because it's what people are used to linking newcomers to).

I evidently proposed a round-robin move in the previous thread, which I still prefer as first choice, to preserve the current contents of this information page, but the draft in userspace should be moved to this title. Folly Mox (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

A round robin move would obscure the history and attribution a bit (since the first revision of the new page will be from 29 June 2023 and the attribution link in its summary will become a self-reference). We could instead detach the post-29 June 2023 edits from the old page and merge the remaining history with Houseblaster's draft to form the new page. Then either delete the split history or archive it somewhere else. – Joe (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with almost all the above, with two exceptions. One, I should certainly take as much blame as Folly Mox. I let it linger in my (alt's) userspace for a year. (I used my alt account's user space because I was concerned about the number of subpages in my main user space… which was not a real problem. Live and learn.) My second point of disagreement is that it is not Houseblaster's draft. I started it, but it was truly a team effort.

I want to make a few changes before we go live (e.g. we are inconsistent about how you should deal with COIs and there is a MOS:LTAB that needs fixing). But in the interest of not getting stalled, I have every intention of resolving those within 24 hours and if they are not I drop my objection. I think a cut/paste with a WP:CWW edit summary works best, or perhaps a histmerge and moving the last ~year of history to an archive subpage. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 17:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as copy attribution, there is another attribution method that is infrequently used but nevertheless perfectly valid and comes straight out of the ToU, which is simply to name every contributor of the copied source in the edit summary. There are ten total users (four significant) involved in the draft, and the edit summary input field can easily accommodate all of them with plenty of room to spare, if one wanted to go that route.

I think cut/paste + histmerge is the best way, but before we use any method, I think someone should ask for advice at WT:HISTMERGE with a link back here. Mathglot (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

One other thing to consider: even if hist merge is the best option, we might want to hold off on the merge for some delay after release, in case there is pushback on the new version, and consensus turns against it. It would be annoying to have to ask for a reversal of the hist merge after we had just requested one. Mathglot (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a good idea. There's no harm in keeping the old version around intact for a while, it won't make the histmerge any more or less complicated (I'm also very happy to do the moving and histmerge myself, by the way, if that's what seems like the best route). – Joe (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Joe Roe, would it make a subsequent histmerge more difficult, if the article progressed further during the delay period? We could ask for temp full protection during the interval and just record edit requests at Talk, if that would help any. Mathglot (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

No it wouldn't make a difference. Now that there are overlapping histories, it doesn't really matter how long or short they are. – Joe (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Final tweaks

Let's discuss any last-minute thoughts about content before release here. Please add new headings for new subtopics.

Gather sources

I had one thought about section § Gather sources: I think there's way too much about perennial sources, and way too little about books, newspapers, journals, etc. here. I'm not sure if we want to say anything about perennial sources at all, but if we do, do we want to have that long disclaimer about it not being exhaustive, as in sentence #2? To me, that list is more a list of what not to use, and I only ever go there when there's some source that seems borderline, and I want to know what others think. Do we want really want to highlight this page? I'd rather see some of the text about good sources, such as the list at section § The basics. I think we could mention it in a brief sentence such as, "If you are not sure if a particular source is reliable or not, you can consult this list." Mathglot (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

How to create content

The section § How to create content includes this in the last bullet:

To add images, templates like infoboxes, and categories, see Help:VisualEditor. You can switch editor modes with the pencil icon.

I'm fine with mentioning Visual Editor, but that statement is a a no-go for me; there is no special connection between VE and addition of images, template, or categories, and they should not be mentioned in that bullet. I think it's fine to say something about different ways of editing, like VE, and given that over 50% of editing is now mobile, we should probably briefly add that, too. Mathglot (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm opening a can of worms but, since VE is the default presented to new users (I think?), wouldn't it be better to write the whole thing assuming that they're using that? At this point anyone who consciously switches to source editing is probably already beyond needing YFA. – Joe (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem writing the whole draft as per VE, but not that images, templates, and categories in particular are added via VE. (I do not use VE except for table column operations.) Also, why would a brand new user using the source editor not need YFA? Of course they would. Mathglot (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm just not sure that there are many new users using the source editor. Genuinely not sure... surely the WMF have some data on this? – Joe (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point; WhatamIdoing would know. Do any new editors still use the wikitext editor? Mathglot (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Well... in the last 24 hours, non-autoconfirmed registered editors have created a little more than 400 new pages, of which about 225 were in the User: space (a third specifically /sandbox pages), almost 100 were Draft: space, and almost 100 were some sort of talk page.

Looking only at new User: and Draft: pages, 139 were created with the visual editor (includes mobile visual editor), 137 with the 2010 wikitext editor, 1 with the 2017 wikitext editor (i.e., using Extention:VisualEditor, but not using 'the visual editor'), 8 by ContentTranslation, 28 by mobile wikitext, and the last one by the Wiki Edu Dashboard (total of 314).

I'd say that it's pretty evenly split. Also, it's consistent with what I remember from the last time work-me checked the internal numbers, which would have been about a year ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

That's really good information. Imho, we should take an approach that is agnostic wrt what editing tool a new editor is using. One of the big improvements in the Draft over Help:YFA, imho, was removing a lot of bloat, in particular, things that are better explained elsewhere in detail and can be linked to, rather than explained or even summarized here. Currently, with the exception of the quoted text at the top of this subsection, the Draft already is tool-agnostic, and I think it should stay that way. If we start getting into explanations of how to do this or that in various editing tools, I think this effort will croak from obesity.

That said, I think it would be fine to have a very brief subsection with three or four bullets, merely listing what editors are available, with a link to the main landing page for each tool, maybe as a new subheading after § How to create content, perhaps to be called "Editing tools". What do others think? Mathglot (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I would agree. The more I think about it, the more certain I am that YFA should be about the article writing process, not the editing Wikipedia process. Therefore, I think we should have more of to add an image, you can follow these instructions and less of to add an image, you should first upload it to Wikimedia Commons if it is free... (etc.). HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I made a temporary edit (followed by immediate self-revert so we can discuss here first) to add a new "Editing tools" section; you can see it in reverted revision 1236892883‎, section § Editing tools. I propose that we reinstate this section, or something like it. Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree; drop all the stuff about Commons; a link is sufficient. Can you look at the temp edit I did, and see if you think it should be included? I think it might be justified, because if they're going to write an article at all, they're going to have to use an editor to do it, so, what ones are available? Mathglot (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Acknowledged; I need to head to bed so I will look at this in the morning. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait, what? Do you seek consensus for this? What does WP:ZZZzzz have to say about this?   Mathglot (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Addressing COI editing

User:Houseblaster/YFA draft#Are you closely connected to the article topic? suggests that you can write about subjects with which you have a COI, but it is in the "Don'ts" section. I understand that what we are saying is that you probably shouldn't, but I am not sure we want to put COI editing in the same category as avoiding copyvios or original research. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I moved it to the bottom of the "Don'ts" section. I don't think there's an implication that everything in that section has equal weight. There are other things even more serious (libel, legal threats) that we don't mention at all, and I think that's fine. These are just the "Don'ts" that new editors writing their first article need to know, and COI is one of them, in my opinion. Mathglot (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Search box

HouseBlaster, any special reason for the recent change (diff) switching the article search box in section § Search for an existing article from a standard wikitable to an HTML <div> that also removed the standard background style present in wikitables, leaving an all-white box? Seemed a lot better before. Mathglot (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)