User talk:Piero Caracciolo

May 2018
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Teahouse, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button Signature icon april 2018.png located above the edit window.

Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Help me!
I am writing an article about the (very rich) history of the Kurfürstendamm, an important street of Berlin. This article is doomed to be quite long (more or less 20.000 signs). It would be quite easy to split it into several articles linked together by an over-page containing a concise narrative of the same subject and links to each of them. Would it be advisable to do that? Which are the best tools that I could use for this purpose?

Wikipedia contains already an article about the Kurfürstendamm, one part of which is a brief history of the street. Would it be advisable to insert there the links to my small articles?

Please help me with... Your advice about the best practice to work with and the names of the relevant Help-pages.

Piero Caracciolo (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll let someone else answer the actual question, as history's not my area of expertise, but I'd like to draw your attention to a case we recently had of an editor writing VERY extensively about the history of a small island, Zakynthos. You can find the discussion here: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive984.
 * The person ended up blocked from editing so I'd urge you to try and learn from their mistakes. This is not meant to discourage you, and neither is it a warning of any kind, I just want you to succeed in what you're trying to do and I think being familiar with that one case will make your job much easier as it appears to me you're about to undertake a task similar to the one the other editor undertook. I think you're already on the right track, thinking about splitting the article into manageable chunks and asking for input from other editors (which the other person sadly didn't want to do), so, again, don't get discouraged; I'm just making you aware of at least some possible problems that you may encounter and that I, were I in your shoes, would myself appreciate being informed of. You can completely disregard this message if you want and you'll probably still do just fine. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest against making multiple articles. Make it first in one article, then if other editors agree that some sections should be given more extensive articles elsewhere, it may happen. Also, be sure to abide by WP:OR, WP:IRS, and take a look at WP:YFA. Vermont (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that the first step should be to improve the history section in our Kurfürstendamm article. It's currently not well-referenced and doesn't quite give an appropriate overview of the street's history. Only when the content becomes too large and detailed for that article should a dedicated "History of the Kurfürstendamm" article be created (and it would be linked from the history section via the main template; compare Berlin). Another piece of advice would be to start a more detailed page on the German Wikipedia, not here - it's a German topic, and the vast majority of sources will be in German. Editors at the German Wikipedia will be much better able to vet the sources, find additional sources and so on than editors here.
 * Creating sub-articles beyond the "History of..." one would only become necessary once that one becomes unmanagably large. At 50,000 characters I don't think we'd have reached that limit yet.
 * On an unrelated note, I took a quick look at your Italian page, and while I can't read Italian, I did notice some issues that might impact an English article. Firstly, several paragraphs - sometimes an entire section - didn't cite any references. The English Wikipedia tends to be rather strict in its requirement of verifiability, and large amounts of text with no apparent source are likely to get challenged. Secondly, the Italian article to a very large degree seems to be based off a single source, Metzger and Dunker. It might be better to make use of multiple sources, not just to reproduce information from a single book (and a rather obscure one at that, more than 30 years old and not on Google Books, which will make it somewhat difficult to look up). Thirdly, this might be a language issue, but to me it seemed that quite a bit of the information in the Italian article wasn't quite all that Kurfürstendamm-specific. For example, the changes in architectural styles over the ages are not limited to Ku'damm; an article on the history of the Kurfürstendamm doesn't need to bother with that general background. Conversely, significant parts of the content seemed to focus on an individual building with no larger significance on the street as a whole. Getting the level of detail right may be a little tricky. Fourthly, and that definitely may be a language issue since I had to rely on a machine translation, the Italian article at times didn't seem to have the dry, factual tone we'd expect from an encyclopedia. I believe it has been tagged for that problem, but in general, editorializing such as "famous", "masterpiece", "it is worth mentioning" and so on should be avoided. Huon (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I thank both of you. I'll try to put your advice's into practice. --Piero Caracciolo (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: History of the Kurfürstendamm (June 15)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Shadowowl was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:History of the Kurfürstendamm and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:History of the Kurfürstendamm, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:History_of_the_Kurf%C3%BCrstendamm Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shadowowl&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:History_of_the_Kurf%C3%BCrstendamm reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

&raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  06:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question
Hello, Piero Caracciolo! I'm CASSIOPEIA. I have replied to your question about a submission at the WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: History of the Kurfürstendamm (June 24)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by In Memoriam A.H.H. was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:History of the Kurfürstendamm and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:History of the Kurfürstendamm, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:History_of_the_Kurf%C3%BCrstendamm Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:In_Memoriam_A.H.H.&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:History_of_the_Kurf%C3%BCrstendamm reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

In Memoriam A.H.H. What, you egg?. 12:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Your comments at my talk page.
Hello Piero, you asked me about what you should change in order for your history article to get approved. Here's my opinion: Whilst you did clean it up a bit, it stills reads like a advertisement. The lead is written like a promo; you should rewrite it in order to make it meet WP:NPOV. The first section is okay; keep that as it is.

The Bismarck’s Project section should be slightly rewritten to make it neutral. The social and economic reasons for the Kurfürstendamm’s success' section seems okay, however slightly reword the 3rd paragraph so it seems neutral.

The 'Interval: Kurfürstendamm’s route' section is fine. The section about The Wilhelmine period (from creation to World War I) is where the main problem is, especially the lead. Please rewrite the lead, and please adhere to WP:NPOV whilst doing it. The 'Café des Westens' section seems fine, however remove the enormous from the cabaret sentence. The 'Fun and Games' section seems fine. The World War I section is fine. All the rest is fine, just some changes that I'll make for convenience. Even though the article does have some neutrality problems, your article is at-least a C-class, so well done. Any more questions? Then don't hesitate in asking me! Have a nice day! In Memoriam A.H.H. What, you egg?. 17:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "lead"
Thank you for your detailed comments. I'm learning much. I think a few changes will be enough, in order to make my article comply WP:NPOV. But there is bit of information that I need, that is: what is the meaning of "lead" in a text? Piero Caracciolo (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead is the beginning sentence or paragraph of any given section, such as the start, middle or end of the article. In Memoriam A.H.H. What, you egg?.  19:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:History of the Kurfürstendamm


Hello, Piero Caracciolo. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "History of the Kurfürstendamm".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)