Wikipedia talk:What is an article?/Archive 1

count of articles
I've downloaded  from the downloads.wikipedia.org site. unpacking it gets me an XML file of what I thought would be all the current articles (where "current' is actually some moment on December 12th, 2005.)

Pawing through the file, I can find about 805,196 items. These items include what I would call "articles", but also include user pages, talk pages, and images. Maybe there's other stuff in there, too -- I haven't done that much aggregation just yet.

Do I have the wrong file if I expect all 800-thousand articles that the front page claims? Or is the definition here wrong, and the advertised count of articles really does include the Talk:, User:, and Image: namespaces? And some other stuff?

-- Mikeblas 06:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious -- is there any way to get wikipedia to generate a page that compiles all original content for a particular page. There are some particular POV pages that would be nice to see the entirety of, especially if you could color card various spots based on their retraction times,etc .. Any ideas??

New namespaces?
Why can't Wikipedia simply move disambig and redirect to Disambiguation: and Redirect: namespaces? This would reduce clutter and make the site a little more streamlined. MOD 05:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Lists
You might want to add list articles as a type of page that is in article space but is not really an article. Sure they contain data that can be useful to some visitors; but so do categories. And, no list article gives a thorough description of a topic. SharkD (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ''Incredible India"
 * Everybody is saying today incredible India, I also think it is true and I am happy for this....But when i see the poor people and their sons that time my heart fills with unspoken desire that our country is growing very fast and the poor is degenerating...many people and the government who are capable to eradicate the poverty But they are making planning only in files..seeing this my heart is moved....at last i would give a message that many people are doing best without being told in the world but we are not doing better even after promising....

we will say incredible india when we eradicate our poverty...... thanks...
 * Sanjeev vidua — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanjeevVidua (talk • contribs) 08:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Templates and/or articles
There currently is a discussion going on at Miscellany for deletion about the alleged violation by the WikiProject Stub sorting of wikipedia's ban on ownership of articles. Key issue is whether WP:OWN applies to templates. From the text of WP:OWN, it seems that it only applies to articles. According to the list in this page, "an 'article' does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes, such as: * the Wikipedia namespace ... * the talk namespaces ... * the special namespace ... * the user namespace ... * the image namespace ... * the MediaWiki namespace." According to the definitions of wikipedia, are templates articles or not? Aecis praatpaal 23:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC) hy waszup lol:P:P so i hope that u hav...... enjoy a lot while reading this...! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.57.161.23 (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Structure for describing knowledge to give understanding
It is surprising to find that for a structure composed of articles there is so little discussion of what an article is, or ought to be :)

It seems to me that the aspirational goal of Wikipedia, as with all collections of discrete subjects of knowledge, is to describe these subjects in a way that enlightens the reader.

What is missing is structure.

Like myself, many people go and start articles, only to see them deleted or changed over time because someone doesn't agree. This means that at least two individuals have differing POV of the same subject.

This is not a new problem. ;)

I would suggest that Wikipedia may profit from creating an article template that includes:

Subject definition

Defining the subject of an article as a parent of an offspring item of knowledge


 * Most knowledge is derived, so the hierarchy needs to be included in the article to inform the reader where they are within the knowledge map

Subject scope of relationships within the field of knowledge hierarchy.

Introduction to the subject that includes basic information only

Sophisticated examination of major statements in the basic section

Expert statements on the subject stating:


 * least strict sourced [[interpretation] of the statement/s


 * most strict sourced interpretation of the statement/s


 * agreed middle ground sourced interpretation of the statement

Conclusion or summary that assists in the synthesis of the data presented

The usual administrative section of references, sources and links.

How does this sound?

I note that neither sophisticated nor field of knowledge have articles in Wikipedia! Yes, I know, its not a dictionary.... --Mrg3105 (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedic article has no article in Wikipedia. What better way to exemplify what an article should be than a well-formed meta-article?


 * The suggested template above would be a good start, although I personally don't see a need for a separate conclusion where a sufficient introduction already exists. A problem I see with many articles is that they are not adequately prepared for the uninformed reader—they consist exclusively of esoteric material (recent fictional works, science). Nahum Reduta (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

sometimes bad people r there they destort or remove the information from the article but good readers are der as soon as they see dis that vandasliusm has started soo they insert the oringial page again.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.57.161.23 (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Feedback widget
Can someone remove the feedback widget, I am reading responces and they are all spam. Lets save the widget for articles

--Techdude3331 (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hotels
List the year the hotel was built in case you want to return, years later. Also lets you know how old it really is, inside the bones and if it's been updated in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.57.111 (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Interference of one part of page with another
The first paragraph, beginning "A Wikipedia article, or entry, is a page that has encyclopedic..." physically partly overlays the top of the box (just the words "Wikipedia:Processes") to its right when I enlarge the font size or make the page narrower or both, any of which I routinely do on other pages without any ensuing problem. Wikifan2744 (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.11.57 (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2014

 * Religion does not seem to understand that education is based on the applied factual equations, which are explaining the applied logic.
 * For religion to use the word belief and use the secular vernacular idiomatic. and assume that it is an accepted fact rather then explaining that it is an opinion, which in its own definition is unsupported of any fact. Which is also the definition of a fool or idiot, uneducated, low IQ person who is trying(a religious word, not being able to defend it self with any fact),
 * IT then try's to use an emotional event to lie about an unacceptable situation, to protect their inability to accept that they are wrong.
 * They then become a licentious act with practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of themselves and others with out due consideration of the fact or outcome.
 * Not a situation any true leader or person who cares or would have conscientious scruples would do.                      SO STAY AWAY FROM SUCH A LOSER!  Thank You John Cunningham aug 30 2014 johncunningham1956@netzero.com

John ph cunningham (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure. This process is for requesting changes to an information page about articles on Wikipedia. Are you sure you're in the right place? Anon 126  (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a very rich natural, most world famous pink pearl. It looks like Jesus Christ (Cross Shaped). I think it will be the world famous and only one miracle natural pearl in the world, looks like almost Jesus Christ (PBUH) and I think this type of pearl has never seen before, very rear and very most rich pearl in the world. I posted image/photo of my world famous historical Miracle pearl and it was taken by mobile phone, so it may not look as perfect as it is. But it’s very attractive looking. Christian Association may collect this for visitors in their prayer room or in Church or for Museum.

I am looking for a real buyer who is interested about this Miracle Jesus Pearl and can appreciate a real value. Honorable interested real buyer send me mail with good value. Size:- Height 39.5 mm Arms Length 25.4 mm Diameter 25.4 mm. Weight:- 4.5 grams. (+ -) Contact Mail..... bysc_helal@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.18.229.35 (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol declined.svg No thanks, sorry. Welcome to Wikipedia, a collaboratively edited online encyclopedia. This page is for discussing how to improve the information page called "What is an article?" Someone take you up on your offer here, but it's unlikely.   Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Problem with Article Count / Article Description
The definition on an article, at What is an article is reached by clicking onto the word article by the count of articles on the main page. It launches straight into an explanation of what an article is & is not.

However it is not until you get lower down the page that you discover that the published count is not the same as the definition given above: irrespective of the discussion over number of bytes, commas and links, the count does count stubs which are clearly marked in the text as stubs by msg:stub.

I'd earnestly suggest we should seek a means of getting a count which excludes stubs, even if the expedite way to do this is to parse a page as it is saved for the presence of the msg:stub (or a msg:stublist) which sets a flag that can be used by the counting software. Discuss. --Tagishsimon 00:08, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Siti Pitrayu Siti Pitrayu 12:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siti Pitrayu (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2017
would you please help me to edit the article i wrote but be deleted because i did not understand the rule! I AM SO SORRY Josephnguyenvu (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You have used the edit request template, which is for requesting a change to this page, not for asking general questions. If you need assistance with editing, you can visit the Help Desk or (for a new user) the Teahouse to ask a question.  You can also ask the user who deleted your article directly why it was deleted. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Scope and focus
Would like to add something to the guideline, about an article having focus; that is, "being about a single, identifiable topic". This should probably go into the #Scope section.

One way to think about this principle or how to word it, is to examine some articles that violate it. Some of these may have the Template:Unfocused banner placed on them, such as Path length, Biscuit or Chandelier Tree. How do we best say something that would lead editors to produce and maintain a focused article, and avoid creating an article structured like those?

I think the question of proper scope of an article is tightly bound to the article title, which "unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." I think all three articles above violate this principle.

So along with the main definition about focus, however we word it, maybe we could add something about that, as well, and point out that if an article seems to be going off in multiple directions at once, they could consider a couple of approaches: I think an expanded #Scope section would be an improvement to the guideline. Mathglot (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * change the title to encompass a broader scope (e.g., perhaps "Tunneled trees" instead of "Chandelier tree"), using a descriptive phrase (as in this example) if a common term is not available
 * keep the title, but recast the page as a disambig page, leading to several articles with similar titles but longer names to distinguish them, or with parenthetical disambiguation; (e.g., redo Path length as disambig page, leading to Path length (chemistry), Path length (computing), etc.) or, if the individual terms don't rate standalone articles, perhaps that's an indication the whole thing should be moved to Wikitionary instead.
 * By the way, I wouldn't want to mention in the guideline itself any articles (such as the examples given) that aren't compliant, because we don't want to pick on any articles or anybody. I only list them here as a way to help us think about how to word a guideline that helps avoid those pitfalls. Mathglot (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)