User talk:MarkHughes

Welcome
G'day MarkHughes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; they have helped improve Wikipedia and made it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions. Some resources to help new Wikipedians include:


 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Article titles
 * Manual of Style

As a contributor to Australian articles, you may like to connect with other Australian Wikipedians through the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and take a look at the activities in WikiProject Australia and associated sub-projects. Wikimedia Australia your local chapter organises editor training workshops, meetups and other events. If you would like to know more, email [mailto:help@wikimedia.org.au?subject=Help+me+please!&body=Please+tell+us+your+Wikipedia+username+and+the+article+you+are+trying+to+change+and+what+the+problem+is help@wikimedia.org.au].

If you are living in Australia and want to subscribe to location based notices, you can add location userboxes to your userpage.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~ ; this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you have any questions, please see Where to ask a question, try the Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Or you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up! JarrahTree 12:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Tricky
Using a user name like that and editing the article you have concentrated upon, there are some issues -

WP:COI and others... but take care - the main article needs editing - Wikipedia BIOs are not cv/s - and there is over-detail in the article... JarrahTree 12:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Basically wikipedia bios are NOT - CV publication lists - books ok - the rest usually is pruned by less shy editors, on the spot - JarrahTree 13:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Cool. I'll find somewhere else (i.e. not Wikipedia) to be a home for Helen Hughes' definitive publications list, and then reduce the content on the Wikipedia entry. MarkHughes (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, well now, I've just checked the wikipedia entries on some other authors (for example, Arthur Conan Doyle), and it appears that its fine to list every one of an author's publications on Wikipedia as long as its a separate 'bibliography' entry. Fine by me.MarkHughes (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Its almost midnite here so I won't get it fixed tonite. But I'll come back to it.MarkHughes (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

No big deal - I am not touching the article - you didnt start it - if it stays like that no big deal, the thing is some editors do have a more severe interpretation of what is valid in a bio article.. JarrahTree 13:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

When I did the 'Homeland Learning Centre' entry a coupla years ago (first Wiki page for me - woot!) I did a separate Wiki page with the Homeland Learning Centre locations. Similar sort of concept I suppose - a bit like the Wiki pages that list every episode of Dr Who LOL.MarkHughes (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure where all this is going - I am simply referring to what looks like an overloaded bio article - I am sure that it is too long, and too much detail in listing things see WP:NOT and WP:ABOUT JarrahTree 14:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion. The Wikipedia norm appears to be that lists (whether the Conan Doyle's publications, or episodes of the West Wing) are best handled by a separate page specifically for that purpose.MarkHughes (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we are not on the same page - - one does not create separate pages for individuals publications... JarrahTree 14:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

My apologies - that was poor phrasing by me. What I meant was "I agree with your opinion that the full publication list should be removed from the biographical entry".

I'll spend some time reviewing how this is handled for other authors on Wikipedia.MarkHughes (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I've had a look at various pages, Wikipedia guidelines, etc. Some thoughts - in no particular order:

I remember paper encyclopedias and the early days of Wikipedia (I did my first computing more than a quarter of a century before Wikipedia started LOL). Its clear that Wikipedia covers factual information in far more detail than paper encyclopedias - not surprising given the enormous costs of producing paper encyclopedias and the problem of keeping them profitable. For example, paper encyclopedias would never have included lists (and even the plot - see List of I Love Lucy episodes) of every episode of TV series made over 60 years ago. Nor would paper encyclopedias have listed minor publications such as pamphlets written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

The most relevant content guides I have found so far are Wikipedia:Core content policies, Wikipedia:Five pillars, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which I think is actually the most useful of the three, as its easier to rule things out than rule them in.

"one does not create separate pages for individuals publications". Could you help me by clarifying whether that is a personal opinion or a Wikipedia content guideline? Clearly there are many thousands of pages that have been created for that purpose / for their electronic media equivalents, and those existing pages appear to fit within the Wikipedia content guidelines I've listed above.MarkHughes (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)