I like this idea of being a bit like wikihow.com but under the wing of the Wikimedia Foundation. You're welcome to use the "Essentialpedia" name if you'd need it. Still, I think the name should be a bit more descriptive, since "essentials" is very dependent on the situation, such as a telephone directory when needing a phone number. Perhaps Wikimanual or Wikiguidance would be more descriptive? Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think the the proposal should be limited to just wikihow and howto content, although I feel this could be a part of it. Almost thinking of a wikipedia that isn't strictly an encyclopaedia, almost a different rating of information. Encyclopaedia: "giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject", I feel the same sort of definition is fit but with more relaxed policies so not such a restriction on content. Some articles that don't fit onto wikipedia according to policies could be moved to this project and vice versa if articles on this project were to make it to a wikipedia standard. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 20:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The description of this project is so broad that I'm still unsure of what might be included or excluded. I have seen many articles excluded or deleted from en.Wikipedia for lack of independent coverage in reliable sources. Some examples of what might be suitable content would be helpful.
My example is Literary Journals. Many proposed and new articles about college/university literary journals fail to meet Wikipedia standards. Most current articles about literary magazines fail to meet the requirements for subatantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Check those currently listed in en.Wikipedia; most use primary sources and would likely fail a deletion review. Few authors write about the journals/magazines. Authors write stories and poems for inclusion in literary periodicals. Few reilable sources are interested in publishing stories about periodicals that publish fiction and poetry.
A home for articles on virtually all literary journals would be beneficial. That many fail after a few years of publication does not mean that their history is not part of the sum of all human knowledge. Doctree (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- The description as it stands is very broad, almost a wikipedia with slightly 'lower standards', but still maintaining article quality and references where possible. I feel it could be the perfect place for the linked to magazines. I plan on having a 'sample' wiki up shortly so that we can stick some content on there, see what would work and try and draw up some more distinct descriptions and boundaries. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 23:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)