 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
rm prod edit
In another spectacular piece of WP:BITE, this article (a new editor's first) was prodded for deletion within 6 minutes of its first save. That is a hostile action to a new editor, detrimental to the encyclopedia and the community as a whole. There was no reason for this action - whilst there were issues, this was not the way to address the problem. In particular, new editors deserve a little grace and encouragement in navigating our arcane rules and formatting.
The prod text itself was reasonable. For a comment on a "finished" article, by an "established" editor, it would have a point (and even then it's a justifiable stub).
- Suggesting to start an article about Latil (the manufacturer itself) first, before creating stubs about individual cars. Content is only to a small degree relevant to its title (most is about the history of the company) and would fit better in a Latil article.
The first sentence is just plain wrong, according to WP policy. Editors should create articles in any order they damn well please and it's no business of other editors to criticise this, or to prod articles for being "out of sequence".
The second sentence is quite right. Most content is focussed on the maker, not the vehicle. It might well fit better into a maker article, and we could easily move it there afterwards. There is no call for a prod here, there is especially no call for such a prod on an editor's first article. According to most past experience here, all that achieves is to discourage a new editor and drive them away from the project. Not a good result. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well said. Biscuittin (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)