Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Векочел (talk | contribs) at 23:38, 8 March 2019 (Векочел moved page Talk:Sons of Antiochus VIII to User talk:Векочел/Sons of Antiochus VIII). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Векочел/Ptolemy IX is currently a World history good article nominee. Nominated by Векочел (talk) at 01:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC) Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)

Fork

This article is somewhat out of place. It is just copied material from other articles piled together! I think we have a clear Fork. The articles of Demetrius III Eucaerus, Philip I Philadelphus, Seleucus VI Epiphanes, Antiochus XI Epiphanes and Antiochus XII Dionysus were literally copied and pasted here!

There are no articles like this. We will not see an article on the sons of Philip IV of France, where the articles of Louis X of France, Philip V of France and Charles IV of France are simply copied and stetched together! I believe this article ought ot be deleted under the Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic criteria. Before I ask for the deletion, I would like to give the creator a chance to explain this article and hear from other editors. Maybe Constantine and FunkMonk can participate?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree, and would also point out that there is no WP:Attribution, which is mandatory even when Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages, either. Unfortunately it also confirms my impression of the editor in question, who appears to be taking a minimal-effort approach to scoring GA and FA "points", simply reusing information drawn from the first available source and then copyediting it around into a mashup, rather than doing any actual research and having any real insight into the topic and its intricacies.

This lazy approach is perfectly exemplified here, where a set of articles have been "joined", without regard to WP:SS or to presenting a coherent narrative about a historical period, but rather based solely on a somewhat chronological narrative. Other than copyediting to merge the separate articles, there is zero new material, zero additional research. There are however loose references that point to no sources, sources without references, and a few duplicate source entries resulting from the merge, and I suspect that the author has not read (or possibly even looked at) even a single one of the sources contained in an article he ostensibly wrote. This whole modus operandi, to out it bluntly, is unethical. This latest incident confirms a long-standing pattern of behaviour, despite repeated warnings and advice on how not to do things (at least from me), and therefore raises serious WP:Competence questions about User:Векочел. Constantine ✍ 08:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cplakidas and Attar-Aram syria: I created this article with the thought that, after the Antiochus XI article gets nominated for FA, we could make a featured topic. However, the featured topic must have a main article. Векочел (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

But why would the sons of Antiochus VIII be a topic? And a main article should be your own creation, the result of your own research. It also should provide its own insights and not just replicate existing articles. I dont see how you can create a main article. This is not really logical, just like the example I gave about Philip IV of France. I will ask for this article to be deleted. Many articles in Wiki about Hellenistic kings can use an expansion, and maybe you should give that a try, but first familiarize yourself with the topics. Read the sources. Each article I write takes months of research and endless journeys to the five university libraries Im subscribed to. It cant be that easy and you shouldnt take the easy way.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Векочел: apart from Attar-Aram syria's comments, please let me reiterate something here: Misplaced Pages is not about creating Good Articles and Featured Articles and Featured Topics and getting barnstars. It is about creating, which means a long and laborious process of research and editing, good articles, which means articles that we as editors would be satisfied to present as our work and be sufficiently certain of the quality of our work that we can submit it to peer review and even expert review, if it came to that. The GA/FA process is mostly a way to get that review and improve the articles, the shiny stuff at the end is simply the cherry on top.

With you I rather think that you care more about the status rather than about the quality of your work. This has led to problems in the past (Basil II), but this case is particularly egregious: you have mashed together a few excellent articles that are not your work, without any idea of the topic or the scholarship (!), simply trusting in the fact that others (Attar-Aram syria and the reviewers in the GA/ACR/FAC processes) have done all the heavy lifting, and "created" a new article, without attribution (!!), without even notifying or requesting the input of the actual author of the content you reused (!!!). IMO, this crosses the border into plagiarism. If a university student did this, it would be grounds for exclusion from the course. Misplaced Pages is more lenient, but it is still a very troubling action. I strongly suggest you take the time and reflect on what you did wrong. Before thinking about featured topics with other people's work, start actually researching and creating your own content from scratch. Constantine ✍ 13:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree this shouldn't exist as a separate article. Not everything can be a featured topic. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)