User talk:ElaineMeng
Welcome
[edit]Welcome!
Hello, ElaineMeng, 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
RJFJR (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi ElaineMeng, thought I'd add an explanatory note about UCSF ChimeraX. The problem with trying to publish an article about this program specifically (i.e., ChimeraX as opposed to Chimera) is that it hasn't received in-depth coverage and/or uptake on its own terms. Chimera has (more on referencing that in a bit), but this next version has not. Notability for subjects on Wikipedia is considered to be not inheritable, which means that it has to be demonstrated for every article subject on its own. What you are doing in launching an article for X is comparable to the situation where we have an article about a famous book, then that book's author publishes a new one, and immediately you create a new article for it - without any knowledge about whether that book will receive any attention at all (and thus become notable).
The absence of sources to demonstrate notability for ChimeraX is not surprising, seeing that it has just become available as an early release. But I'm afraid you'll have to wait until such are present before a standalaone article can be contemplated. However, what this release definitely merits is a topical update to the already existing article UCSF Chimera - these strict notability guidelines apply to articles per se, not to related topics within an article. So I would suggest you integrate the X information into that article for the time being, and then later on, when/if X makes a demonstrable splash, consider spinning it off into a separate one.
Reagrding UCSF Chimera: the article at the moment is basically a feature list and not an encyclopedic treatment. What would be desirable is a condensation of that into a shorter summary (I may do that), and at least a section about uptake and use, with referenced examples. Re sourcing in general, I would ask you to actually present inline references (see WP:Referencing for Beginners), of which currently there are none. What is required is an explicit linkage of statements within the text to named sources in a reference list. The features should be sourced to the documentation; information about use cases could be easily sourced to what is in the external link to the UCSF repository of articles. Lastly, I'm removing the external links to images, movies, and download from the text, as these shouldn't be integrated into the article but provided in the external links section. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)