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)

RSP is the only place to send editors for real world examples that has broad community consensus. It is also used by at least a couple source highlighter scripts which are used by many AfC and NPP reviewers so I think definitely think it should be mentioned but I agree it needs careful wording. It already states it is some common sources and is not all possible sources so not sure what needs to be changed. S0091 (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It's more about proportion and what is *not* mentioned: what we have, is a section called "Gather sources" in a page purporting to tell new users how to do that, which says nada about books, reputable magazines and newspapers, or academic articles, and the *only* concrete example given is the perennial sources page. That just seems way out of proportion to me. Mathglot (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Help:Find sources goes over the different type of sources and how to find them which is linked both in Further information and "this helpful guide". S0091 (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Mathglot (talk) 19:47, 27 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)

I like the section, and feel its inclusion is beneficial. I might spell out What You See Is What You Get (because not everyone is a programmer), and from my time TAing I would avoid describing anything as "easy" because some things are just not easy for some people. But otherwise I agree it is beneficial. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

That's good feedback; let me see if I can incorporate your suggestions and come up with a revised version. Mathglot (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

HouseBlaster, I've added something at § What editing tool to use. I actually think it's about three times too long, and should be just an intro sentence with three bullets and links. The problem is, I looked all over and found no page anywhere that has this information. The closest, perhaps, is Help:Editing#Edit screen(s), but it doesn't really cover this information, and some of it seems outdated. I would favor farming out this section as is, or with whatever improvements are needed, to a better Help or project page somewhere, and then just summarizing it here. In the meantime, please check it out and comment, or adjust as needed. I'll look around some more, and try to find a better home for it, so we can just link to it. Mathglot (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I made some small changes, but for the most part I think it looks good. (And I agree that it should probably live somewhere else but until a new home is found it can live here.) My only note is that when logging out and using Vector 2022 I don't see the edit and edit source tabs. I just see an "edit" tab, which has a pencil icon to switch between the source editor and VE. I will investigate by logging into a testing alt, but I think the screenshot is outdated. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Which screenshot? The bottom one with the pencil icon was created an hour ago. P.S., if you find a good home for that section, please lmk, or just move it. Mathglot (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I am talking about File:WikiEditor-both edit tabs ringed-en.png. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:45, 28 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)

Our PAGs do not forbid it so having a COI should not be a Don't. All we can do is encourage them to use AfC but even that is not a required, only '"strongly encouraged". S0091 (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

We could make it a 'do' (e.g. Do disclose any conflict of interests you have with the article subject) – most of the things on that side of the table are also just guidelines, not hard policy requirements. But it seems a bit like splitting hairs to me. Problematic COI creations are something we see often from new editors that don't know better. It makes sense to head it off here. – Joe (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine that or any other language that encourages disclosure and using AfC. S0091 (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I am opposed to recasting it as a "Do" and would prefer eliminating it from the table altogether in that case. As Joe says, those are just guidelines, and YFA is even less than that, just an info page as the box at the top says. And don't we want to head off problematic behavior by new editors? I think we do, and I see nothing wrong with keeping this a Don't. If they can ignore the COI guideline, they'll likely ignore an Info page, assuming they even read it in the first place. Why not recommend best practice? We can reword the Don't as "It is best not to write about blah blah..." and then I think we're in line with the guideline (which we link to and they can go read) as well as best practice, and it's very clear what best practice is, per COI itself, which states: "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia." I think that easily qualifies as a "Don't", and we should keep it in that column, or just remove it. Mathglot (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I would switch the Don't to align with WP:NOTPROMO which is usually the issue with COI (excluding UPE/sock farms which is a different issue and they aren't going care about YFA anyway). S0091 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean; are you suggesting adding some NOTPROMO verbiage instead of or in addition to COI and linking both? Or are you talking about a physical alignment of bullets from the Do and Don't columns? Or something else? Mathglot (talk) 19:56, 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)

It used a table for layout purposes, which is an accessibility issue. If there is some better CSS that we can use, I am all for it. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 14:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

That section says we can use a wikitable, as long as we use role="presentation" and avoid summary attribute, <caption> or <th> elements. That's a very easy adjustment, and is used that way in over five thousand articles, help pages, and project pages, and I think it's okay if we do, too. Mathglot (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I have done so, keeping within MOS:LTAB recommendations; have a look. Mathglot (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I am happy with it, though as a exercise (I have been trying to work on my CSS skills) I am going to see if I can make it happen with <div>...</div>s. If it does not look (nearly) identical, I am happy to use the role="presentation" fix. It is just a thing that should in general be avoided, but it is not the end of the world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I did it. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Nice; that looks fine! Mathglot (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

BLPs

I am wondering if it is worth a short section about the importance of being careful with BLPs. There are currently two short mentions, but it is a really important policy and could do with some more emphasis (imo). I am sensitive to the idea that we should keep the page as short and generally applicable as possible, but I think the added complexity would be worth it in this case. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we're okay as is, but maybe another bullet in section § Pre-publication checks? Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

"Two purposes" wording

 Courtesy link: User talk:Houseblaster/YFA draft § Should we drop the RS "dual function" wording?

There was a discussion a year ago about whether to drop or modify the wording about sources serving two purposes (i.e., notability, and verifiability) and it sounded like we agreed to remove that, but there was low participation, and it didn't happen. Things have moved on, so the wording and formatting isn't quite the same as it was then, but have a look at User:Houseblaster/YFA draft § The basics in the light of that discussion, and see what you think. Should we reword anything in that section? Mathglot (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we should have something, though I don't think it needs to be its own section. I think we should make it clear that citing sources with trivial mentions is okay – it is just not okay to write an article if you only have trivial mentions. Same thing with independent sources, with all the caveats about non-independent sources. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I was unclear above. What I am referring to, is specifically this wording in the middle of the top section:

Sources are used for two purposes:

1. to establish the notability of the topic of the article (see § Notability – should this topic have an article?), and
2. to provide verifiability so other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.

Sorry for any confusion. Mathglot (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Consensus and release planning

There are still some open issues above, but I think we are close, and we should start a parallel track here to think about what's next, once we come to a stopping point on further changes. This was looked at a year ago at § Welp: Your forked article without a firm conclusion, and then things went quiet.

I'd favor bringing this to a centralized discussion to achieve consensus to release the Draft, and I think the most logical place is WP:VPR. What I think would work is a one paragraph statement of what we've been up to, and containing a firm proposal to replace H:YFA with the Draft. (We could perhaps also link the histmerge discussion above, or just ignore it; no real reason to mention it if there isn't consensus to go with the draft.) I think it would carry more weight if signed at VPR at least by all the principals, starting with HouseBlaster, and then the other three or four main contributors in any order: @FollyMox, S0091, JoeRoe, and Mathglot:, and why not all of the editors or non-editing supporters if they're willing; a mega-signature at VPR certainly would not hurt. But having four or five sigs at least would lend it some gravitas as a proposal. We could either word it together, or HouseBlaster, as initiator, you should have first refusal if you feel like pulling the ripcord on the release proposal. I'm fine if you speak for all of us, and use "we" pronouns. Once we see your sig there, we could just jump in and add ours on the same line. Mathglot (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Reping: @Folly Mox and Joe Roe:. Mathglot (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to make a formal proposal unless there is pushback to the new version – I am very fond of WP:PGBOLD edits (even though this is not a P or a G, the principle applies). However, if we are going to make a proposal, the wording should be made as a team. We wrote the draft as a team, and so we should propose it as a team. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Ooh, I didn't know about WP:PGBOLD, and it's tempting; very tempting. Will wait for further feedback here, but did I mention that it's tempting? Mathglot (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)