 | 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)
- 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)