Wikipedia talk:Core article

Changes

All ye who change policy/guideline pages: make sure that your changes are in line with consensus. Netoholic recently added descriptions of what things to avoid, etc., but may have been overly specific. A review by several people of his changes would be a good idea, I think. One example where he excluded things he shouldn't have in my opinion is: saying that users should avoid computer software products, internet memes, and websites. This should be "little-known computer software products, internet memes, and websites." Products like Microsoft Windows and sites like Google certainly deserve articles. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 11:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old vote to make article into guideline

In preparation for making this into an official policy, I (Cromwellt) would like to stage a straw poll to verify consensus. Please sign below in the appropriate section, but place your comments in the comments section.

Votes are still welcome, but because this poll has been active for a month and a half and there have been no objections other than Eptalon's, which is being addressed at the List of articles all languages should have, I am going to make this an official temporary guideline.

Support

--Cromwellt|talk 16:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
--Archer7 16:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Freshstart 18:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Adam Newbold 12:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Sarahgal 18:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC) This will help new wikipedias get started properly.[reply]
--Bhadani 15:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC). We should try to create all the remaining core articles. I tried a little.[reply]
^Blank ^Verse 12:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Except for History and International Organizations, almost all of the core articles have been written. Perhaps it is time for a second pass through the list marking which are stubs that need to be expanded, which need to have their language simplified, and any other problems with the articles.[reply]
-- Tdxi an g 08:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Core articles are important.[reply]

Oppose

-- Eptalon 13:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Abstain

aflm ^Talk 19:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think this is a very good idea, as long as it is temporary and it is encouragement, not requirement. --Cromwellt|talk 16:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Necessary to get good core articles. Archer7 16:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Good start. Over time, we should try to add a compelling argument about why people should focus on core articles (universal/timeless importance, etc.), and maybe add allowances for 'supporting' articles, such as the years/decades. Freshstart 18:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I like this idea and will do what I can to help. Adam Newbold 12:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
This is trying to introduce unnecessary control. As I have pointed out in other places (on Talk, mainly), different people have different approaches to learning English (which we basically agreed is one of our target groups). It will therefore be difficult to determine, whether an article is supposed to be core to that specific learner. Also, we might be wasting manpower by forcing highly specialised people to write articles on a predetermined, possibly locked list. If the list is not locked, people will simply add their article to the list, and then write it. In short, this measure will reveal itself to be counter-productive. Also, who is determining, that a certain article is good as article 12.654, but not good as article 8.732? - But I know, a child has to play with fire to learn that fire is dangerous. -- Eptalon 13:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Hi! I just wanted to mention that the list of core articles (which appears to be not just a Simple English Wikipedia thing, but a larger overall guideline) is not designed to decide what's best for learners, but what's best for the wiki itself. This is a wiki designed to provide content to people who will understand it better if it is presented in Simple English. It is not, as I understand it, a wiki designed to provide certain content geared toward people who are limited to understanding things in Simple English. We should be providing the same basic articles and information as all of the other wikis, but providing it in a simple manner. We should not be deciding that such-and-such article is "too advanced" for people limited to Simple English and therefore exclude that article. With that in mind, what's the harm in working toward the common goal of making sure this wiki provides the same type of content as the others? This has nothing to do with which article is better than another article, but with ensuring that this wiki covers the basics. If you think another article should be added to the wiki that isn't on the list, add the article to the wiki! This is just a guideline; nobody is saying that you still won't be allowed to write articles about other subjects. Adam Newbold 14:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]