 | This page is not for seeking help or making test edits. It is solely for discussing the Unreviewed new page page. for using and editing Wikipedia. For common questions about Wikipedia, see Help:Contents. To make test edits, please use the Sandbox. |
|
|
Revert
@MB: I do not understand what you mean by "simpler version" here: [1]. My edit consisted purely of copyedits and the two of brief additions noted in the edit summary. What parts did you object to? – Joe (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- That wasn't a copy-edit, it was a rewrite in you own style because you didn't like the original. Also there was almost as much blue in your version as black. That doesn't help a reader. It just distracts them if they think they have to click on the links. All the links they need are in the sections below. It's a simple didactic process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- For starters, in the very first sentence you change "New articles" to "All new articles". "All" adds nothing of value, it is just wordiness that makes the page longer. Then you changed "articles" to "articles and redirect". This page is about articles. It is irrelevant that redirects are also reviewed. A new user who is writing their first article probably doesn't know what a redirect is. More distracting clutter. MB 15:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- I thought "all" flowed better and added "redirects" because that is mentioned in the next paragraph, but I'm happy to take that out. Anything else? – Joe (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Joe, I was giving examples from the first sentence as an illustration of how it was unnecessarily wordy. I did not mean those were the only "extra words". You have just put back a version that is substantially longer than the way it was. Please revert yourself. MB 05:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- My primary intention was to make it less wordy; the current version is four words shorter than the one you reverted to. Again, can you be more specific about what you're objecting to? – Joe (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- You added this entire sentence "Drafts, including articles moved to draft, are also deleted if they are not edited for more than six months." There is no need to be explaining details of draft space to this audience. That should be explained to someone when/if there article is moved - it doesn't belong in this summary. MB 05:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll remove that part pending discussion. I did think it was important to mention though, because we told people they could use draftspace undisturbed "for a while", but this is only true up to a hard deadline. Also, while this page is ostensibly about the review process, it is currently only used in a message sent to people when their article is moved to draft. It seems to me that if we're going to do that we need to give a bit more space to drafts here. Would you prefer to mention G13 in the drafts section? What do you think, @Peppery:? – Joe (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't get that ping because you misspelled my username, but anyway I don't care. I only care that you don't state things that are technically incorrect or give false impressions, which I felt the original wording I modified did. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll remove that part pending discussion. I did think it was important to mention though, because we told people they could use draftspace undisturbed "for a while", but this is only true up to a hard deadline. Also, while this page is ostensibly about the review process, it is currently only used in a message sent to people when their article is moved to draft. It seems to me that if we're going to do that we need to give a bit more space to drafts here. Would you prefer to mention G13 in the drafts section? What do you think, @Peppery:? – Joe (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- You added this entire sentence "Drafts, including articles moved to draft, are also deleted if they are not edited for more than six months." There is no need to be explaining details of draft space to this audience. That should be explained to someone when/if there article is moved - it doesn't belong in this summary. MB 05:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- My primary intention was to make it less wordy; the current version is four words shorter than the one you reverted to. Again, can you be more specific about what you're objecting to? – Joe (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Joe, I was giving examples from the first sentence as an illustration of how it was unnecessarily wordy. I did not mean those were the only "extra words". You have just put back a version that is substantially longer than the way it was. Please revert yourself. MB 05:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I thought "all" flowed better and added "redirects" because that is mentioned in the next paragraph, but I'm happy to take that out. Anything else? – Joe (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I think links are helpful to give context on wiki-insider jargon that new users may not be familiar with, and are widely used across help pages for that reason. However, I can tone it down and we can discuss them on a case-by-case basis.
- For example, I really think it's helpful to link "Wikipedia's core content policies"/"core policies" to something. A long-standing problem with NPP's communication has been the use of phrases like "not ready" or "minimum standard" without actually saying what that standard is. Linking to Wikipedia:Core content policies right at the start tells users what we actually expect from articles, which may be obvious to reviewers but can be opaque to new users. – Joe (talk) 05:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- The text on the page is not some random one-draft writing. It was discussed by several users and linguists with experience in UX and writing instructions for readers including non-native English users, as was the 'Move to Draft' script which you don't like. Several versions of the page and the script developed made until they were just right and appropriate from the new user's perspective. For example, "Drafts, including articles moved to draft, are also deleted if they are not edited for more than six months" was deliberately left out, otherwise what you get is users immediately moving their draft back to mainspace. This new system is only a few hours old. Affected page creators will soon tell us if the page is not informative enough or simply leads them to wall of text of policies. Let's give it time and let them speak for themselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- For starters, in the very first sentence you change "New articles" to "All new articles". "All" adds nothing of value, it is just wordiness that makes the page longer. Then you changed "articles" to "articles and redirect". This page is about articles. It is irrelevant that redirects are also reviewed. A new user who is writing their first article probably doesn't know what a redirect is. More distracting clutter. MB 15:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Some cleanup
I feel like the part about public ___domain/compatibly-licensed text (some material may be in the public ___domain or compatibly licensed for reuse in Wikipedia
) should be deleted. I was going to wikilink to Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia, but this is such a niche case I am not sure it belongs in a basic overview of the process. I am a relatively new NPR but I have yet to encounter a single new article that contained PD/licensed content. For compatibly licensed images, there definitely needs to be more explanation; it is not an intuitive concept. This might need to be the subject of another newbie guide—the newbie image page unhelpfully says that files must be "compatibly licensed" without elaboration or links to more information. There is File:Licensing tutorial en.svg, but I think some prose might be beneficial. For now, I think we should link to Wikipedia:Uploading images#Determine copyright status. I would rather a newbie be overwhelmed than commit a crime (namely, copyright violations). Thoughts? HouseBlastertalk 01:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed that COPYVIO is often poorly understood by even many experienced users and admins, and you are right that this page is not designed to cover every eventuality. The licencing system is a minefield - only yesterday I found a clear 'own work' graphic of mine tagged for deletion at Commons. However, this system is so new (only hours old) that it would be a presumption to suggest it needs changes already. I would wait until it has been in operation for a while and let the affected page creators speak for themselves. If they suggest the page has not been very helpful, then it can be improved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)