User talk:Trouver/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Trouver. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Trouver, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Will Beback talk 19:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for helping the editing process by adding source material to the Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Sources page. However please note that, due to copyright laws, we must only post short excerpts from other sources. The excerpts should obviously be targeted to our topic, Aesthetic Realism, and not Eli Siegel or anything else. We should not include quoted excerpts of poems or other copyrighted material. Please edit down the material promptly or I'll have to do it. Will Beback talk 19:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trimming the material. However much of the material on that page doesn't mention AR and appears to be about Siegel instead. We can create a parallel page for that type of material, but it's out of place where it is and doesn't help us write the AR article. Will Beback talk 20:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies require that we limit ourselves to summarizing what sources explicitly say about a topic. So implicit associations are not generally useful. A review of Siegel's poetry cannot be used as a source for the article on AR unless the reviewer actually says something about AR. Also, I haven't checked the excerpts yet, but if any of the sources contain a range of views of the topic then the excerpts should as well. If editors are creating one-sided excerpts then that's not a sign of good-faith editing. I suggest you read the core content policies: WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Feel free to ask me or any experienced editor for more help. Will Beback talk 22:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Aesthetic Realism/drafts3‎

Per your request. Will Beback talk 22:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Move request

User:Trouver/Terrain looks quite good. I want to check out a couple minor issues, then will respond. You can move it yourself, or I will be happy to. If you want me to move it, I assume you want it moved to Terrain Gallery, not Terrain?--SPhilbrick T 20:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor points:

The first instance of the title in the article is commonly in bold. I thought it was a rule, but it appears to be common occurrence, rather than rule. Nevertheless, I think Terrain Gallery in the lead should be bold.
Your TOC is collapsed. I thought that was not allowed, but I cannot find the relevant rule.
Your name is at the end of the section, and should not be there when moved. If I move, I'll remove. If you move, please remove.
After moving please add categories.
I'm fine with your BLP observation, but not sure which template is best, so I'll ask you to add that yourself.
Many people search for their article after it is moved—please note, if you try to search for it using the search option, it always takes some time, a few hours to a day, for it to show up in search. --SPhilbrick T 20:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I moved User:Trouver/Terrain per your request.--SPhilbrick T 21:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The TOC us autogenerated, you don;t have to specifically include it, so i removed it. The only reason for including a TOC template is if location is a problem, or if depth needs to be adjusted--SPhilbrick T 21:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Did you know? If there's a good hook, it would be a good way to get some new readers. Has to be completed within a week. If you want to look into it, go for it. If you don't let me know, and I will.--SPhilbrick T 21:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

One small question

No problem, happy to help. One small question, though, no rush and you can answer on your own talk page, I'll check there. There's a backlog of move draft requests which I am slowly going through, but I have a tool to notify me of new additions, so I can respond promptly, at least to the new ones. However, your page never showed up in that tool. I'm not asking why it didn't show up in the tool, I'll check that out, but I'm curious how you happened to know to contact me? --SPhilbrick T 22:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Re DYK

Whenever you can, this will be great. Also, dyk how long between nomination and posting? And dyk how long items stay on this page? Wish I'd included one of the noted photographs--but actually the black and white there is pretty interesting, and it's in public domain. Thanks again. Trouver (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is too late. While I've never included a photo in a DYK, it is common, so I bet I can figure out how to edit the nomination. However, the article has two black and whites, which one did you mean? The Exhibit or the Koppelman one? --SPhilbrick T 19:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Update on indexing and DYK

The official position of Wikipedia is that we don't care about indexing by Google, as that is a different company. In practice I know that many editors are interested in seeming their article appear in Google. That doesn't happen until the internal indexing is completed, which normally happens within hours. The indexer was "stuck", I talked to the developer, and got it going again. I just checked and see it is now indexed in Wikipedia, and does show up in Google. I have no idea whether this was important to you, but if it was, wanted to let you know.

Re DYK, the proposal is here. Based upon my limited experience (I only have two prior DYKs), it can take a week to ten days. If it gets approved, it will only be on the main page for six hours, but I'll try to keep you informed so you can see it. I want to follow up re your comment about photographs, but I'm in a meeting at the moment.--SPhilbrick T 13:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)