Thank you for the helpful links. I'm trying to update my contribution to better conform to Wikipedia standards. If you have specific suggestions for improvement, I welcome them. Finding authoritative references for this topic (Website Correlation) is tricky but I am trying.
Nicklous20 (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- When I noticed the article, I did some quick checking to ascertain notability of the term, and I have to say it isn't much used at all, in fact I could not quickly find a single reference material online. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but the burden of providing them is on you. If reliable references can't be found to support the term and content, WP usually rejects such articles, or they will get merged into broader topics. Please also correct the capitalization of section headings and specific words like 'Internet' as is standard on WP. The article title on the other hand does not appear to be a proper noun. Kbrose (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I will work on capitalization, etc. This topic is a tricky topic, in terms of picking a name for it. Many of the terms used in the literature are focused on individual aspects of the problem ("duplicate websites", "website replication", "website clone") but the topic I'm writing about has more to do with publicly accessible solutions to the problem. So the literature isn't useful for choosing terminology. People looking for solutions to the problem are likely to try these kinds of searches: find related websites, reverse ip lookup, find other websites on same ip, Website fingerprinting, two urls same site. I felt there was a need to write something that encompassed the different approaches without alienating any of the popularly used terminology. Perhaps creating stubs for the individual approaches using more commonly used terminology would be a good way to resolve your concern. Maybe "Website correlation" should become a category page? Maybe I should create a linked "duplicate websites" page to address the problem separately from the solution? Maybe add redirects for the various synonyms? I believe this may be one of those uncommon situations where the encyclopedia needs to lead rather than follow, if you get my drift. But if that is not Wikipedia policy, it's totally understandable. Do you have a suggested course of action to resolve this complex topic? Thank you!Nicklous20 (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Nicklous20, 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!
That said, please observe that Wikipedia has a set of rules and policies that govern article creation and linking within other articles. Please familiarize yourself with these before adding links to other articles that only remotely are associated with an article. Otherwise we would have endless lists of links with each article touching on subject within the scope of the Internet. Otherwise, such links would be considered link spam with the intent of promotion. Before linking at all, you should examine your contribution for quality, spelling, proper referencing, etc., your contribution needs a lot of work to conform to WP standards. 19:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)