Wikipedia talk:Tutorial/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comment

OK, the first 4 pages are mostly done. I might break up the links page into one on internal link, and one on external links (and put in some discussion of when/why/where to use them as opposed to just how,) but that's about it. I think that gets us through the most basic elements of Wikipedia. Here's a list of further topics I was thinking we might include, not necessarilly in this order. I'm sure there are some things I'm overlooking.

Things I'm pretty sure should be included

  • NPOV basics.
  • Wikiquette basics.
  • When to mark edits as minor.
  • Creating new pages.

Things we can consider including:

  • Using page histories.
  • Tables
  • What links here
  • Recent Changes
  • Watch lists
  • Deletion procedures (I personally don't think we should include this, but some might)

I think we should include at least some of the "optional" material above, but having all of it would make the tutorial long. It occurs to me that we might have two tutorials, one basic and one advanced. Then the last page of the basic tutorial says something like "OK, you've learned the basics now. If you'd like to learn about more features, keep going to our Advanced Tutorial." Comments, anyone? Isomorphic 03:19, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Great work so far, Isomorphic -- please continue! I added a few notes and examples to the links page -- please edit freely.

Do you want to keep this a simple "how-to", or do you want to include "best practices" that we've reached a consensus on? i.e., "you can do it this way or this way, but in the past we've generally considered it best to do this..." (I'm thinking of issues like principle of least astonishment, etc.)

I agree, both a basic and advanced tutorial might be a good idea. There are many existing pages that can serve as pages in an advanced tutorial, and there have been several attempts to organize them -- see the Yellow Pages, Utilities, the many links on the lower portion of the Community Portal.... I'd consult with others about how best to integrate them into the tutorial, to avoid duplicating others' work as well as to avoid having information in more than one place that may (will!) get out of synch over time....

Best of luck -- this is something we need! Catherine 00:58, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The main goal is to have a single, unified, multi-page document that gets someone started on Wikipedia. So the real question is, what do we all think it's most important for newcomers to know? If this includes some "best practices" then we can include them in the tutorial, but mostly I expect this will be a how-to, plus an explanation of the most basic guidelines (wikiquette and NPOV.) Isomorphic 07:39, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
1) Great job. 2) Should get links from pages like the Community Portal as soon as it is deemed ready (which it may well already be). 3) Adding user name/date isn't just for "Talk" pages--I think it's good practice on most pages that aren't articles or documentation pages like these tutorial pages (other than the sandboxes on the bottom). Maybe add a paragraph above the "Here's an example of well-formatted discussion." one, something like:
In addition to the talk pages, signing your comments helps in any page with a discussion. If you're not sure, just follow the lead of the previous contributors.
4) The sandboxes at the bottom are a great idea. 5) I tend to agree that beginning/advanced is probably best, and that most best practices would land on the latter. 6) I assume by Deletion procedures, you are referring to VfD, Cleanup, etc. I agree they probably don't need to be covered in detail in the basic tutorial, but perhaps at the bottom of what is currently page 6 (Conduct/Editorial policy), there could be a statement to the effect of If you find a page that you feel violates these guidelines, see [some appropriate page] on how to report it.
Navigation: I think all the pages should also have navigation links at the bottom (I'd make it just like the top one, or maybe [previous] Frontpage [next]). However, to avoid conflicts with the sandboxes, they should probably be generated by HTML from the msg:tutorial at the top (I'm assuming that is possible--I'm not very knowledgable about the full capabilities of HTML). Niteowlneils 21:17, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Glossary: I was going to suggest a link to the glossary, but it's fairly overwhelming. Maybe add a tutorial page with a very abbreviated glossary (and a link to the full one for the adventurous). I'd limit it to the main basics, like Admin, article, Disambiguation, Google test, Stub, User page. Maybe InterWiki, MediaWiki, Redirect, Vandalism, Vanity page, and/or WikiProject.
FWIT, I'm willing to do some of the leg work on my suggestions, but don't want to step on toes, nor duplicate efforts. Also, even tho' I'm closing in on 2,000 edits, I've only been here 6 weeks, so I have a pretty fresh memory of the newbie challenge. Niteowlneils 21:32, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Feel free to be bold in editing the tutorial and implementing any of your suggestions. If someone disagrees it can always be modified again. It's not live yet, but I think it's getting close. The last page (page 7) should have a lot of links to other pages. I think the Glossary should be among them. Isomorphic 21:44, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I am bold in many areas on WP, but I'm not ready here yet--I've only had a couple hours to begin to digest the concept and its current vision, and even my thots about additions aren't fully gelled. For the time being, I think I'll explore my ideas on subpages of my talk page. The two I've started so far are a shorter glossary (altho' I think an even shorter one might be better for the basic tutorial, or maybe divide it between fairly simple concepts (EG page, stub), and more complex ones (EG Infobox, Transwiki), and a page about registration. I'd be tempted to get out an HTML reference, and see if I can play with my footer-navigation idea, but I don't even know how to edit anything "msg:". On the otherhand, I may decide to be bold with a couple things I think could be added to the policies page). Niteowlneils 23:32, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Before this goes public, I think we should consider changing the page titles to words, instead of numbers, in case people have many ideas of other topics to add--renumbering regularly could be quite cumbersome. Niteowlneils 19:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good thought. I'm not sure what to call them but if you want to rename, go ahead. To change the index message at the top, just edit the Mediawiki message at Template:Tutorial. Isomorphic 22:11, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've done the moves (still need to circle back and see if it needs any cleanup), and Template:Tutorial looks right, but the msg links on the pages still get page numbers. Help? Niteowlneils 01:12, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Nevermind. The names show up using IE, so Mozilla must just be showing me cached pages. On to clean-up. Niteowlneils 01:17, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
OK, cleanup is done (took less than an hour, including cleanup, documentation, and two smoke breaks). I updated the links from places like the Village Pump, but left the ones on User pages and User talk pages, as it is my understanding we aren't supposed to edit other people's User pages. Niteowlneils 01:51, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Since it involves moving pages, I want to bounce my name ideas off people before I make any changes. My main concern is, are some of these too long?
Tutorial (Basic editing)
Tutorial (Basic formatting and headings)
Tutorial (Linking to other Wikipedia articles)
Tutorial (Linking to external sites)
Tutorial (Talk pages)
Tutorial (Some things to keep in mind)
Tutorial (Namespaces)
Tutorial (Links for more information) Niteowlneils 22:47, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, a bit long. How about:
Tutorial (editing)
Tutorial (formatting)
Tutorial (wiki links)
Tutorial (external links)
Tutorial (talk pages)
Tutorial (keep in mind)
Tutorial (namespaces)
Tutorial (more info)
LUDRAMAN | T 03:52, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I second Ludraman's proposed names. Isomorphic 00:47, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I didn't see this until I came here to report being done with the moves. However, I did mostly use his suggestions. Other than make the first letters caps, the only two that are different are the third page, which I named Wikipedia links, and the last one as Wrap-up and more info. I can move them again if these titles aren't acceptable. Niteowlneils 02:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comment:

Nobody will get upset if you screw up an experiment here, so play around and see what you can do. (Page 1)

I assume this means "no one will get upset if you screw up an experiment here on Wikipedia", not "here in this tutorial." The meaning's pretty ambiguous, though -- you might want to change it just so that people don't think that they're getting an invitation to experiment by editing the tutorial itself.

(Oops, please disregard that -- I hadn't yet seen the mini-sandbox at the bottom of each page!) Adam Conover 00:06, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

I tweaked the text a bit to make it clear that the experiments are being encouraged in the sandboxes. Niteowlneils 02:40, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be good to take the material on the sister projects section from the Keep in mind page (currently #6), and the language and Meta stuff from the Cross-server links of the Namespaces page (currently #7), and combine them into a new page "Linking to related sites"?, and placed between the Wikipedia link page (currently #3), and the External links page (currently #4), as I think there is an advantage to addressing all three types of links at the same time. Since it involves a structural change I would like feedback in case I am missing something. My proposed new page prototype is at User:Niteowlneils/mergesisters. If I don't hear any objections, I'll probably insert it in a couple days. Niteowlneils 03:42, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, it's in, altho' I still want to cycle thru the pages and make sure no links or redirs elsewhere were negatively effected. Niteowlneils 02:40, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks good. The new organization makes more sense. Isomorphic 02:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. I also updated all the page names at Wikipedia:List of pages in the Wikipedia namespace. There are three more things I want to work on:
  1. Moving the indenting info to the formatting page.
  2. Brief intro to "namespace" concept at top of Talk page article.
  3. Try to squeeze in a very abbreviated Glossary page near the end.
Also, maybe sprinkle in a few more informative links, like maybe some of the specific tutorials.
Oh, and part of why I want to get all the formatting and various linkage styles up front, is to provide a better segue from general site-wide topics, to the specific namespace usages. Niteowlneils 13:33, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I got rid of the mini-sandboxes at the bottom of each page, and replaced with a unique sandbox for each tutorial page that used to have an experiment space. That makes more sense than the original configuration, because we won't have to be always checking to see if someone's changed the actual content of the tutorial. I didn't want people to have to use the main sandbox for the tutorial, because that'd make edit conflicts more likely. Also, it seemed useful for people to see the old experiments on the same topic. Isomorphic 21:40, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just wondering

Is there any kind of a WYSIWYG program for editing wikipedia? Cfive 16:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Direct link to wiki markup reference page?

This tutorial is very well done but I think the link to the How_to_edit_a_page is not enough. There should be another link somewhere, and preferably directly to the wiki markup part of the page. I think that part of the page is really important but I took ages to find it because I didn't want help on "how to edit a page". I don't know if you see what I mean, but well...

Menu template

I updated the menu templat {{tutorial}} to look like {{WikipediaFAQ}}, but it needs a stylistically-related graphic instead of the FAQ graphic. Who/where to ask? Amgine 18:30, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia introductory pages

A more holistic discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee. Interested editors may wish to add their opinions there. Niteowlneils 16:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tutorial reduction plan

Wikipedia talk:Tutorial/Tutorial v2 Niteowlneils 01:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the tutorial reduction plan..why can't we keep it simple so that it's easier for people to understand..especially beginers like me..However, I think it will be best if tutorials are put in terms of modules, i.e each module should be based on a certain topic.. J.J Kamuhanda - HWU -045003989

Deletion and general procedures

I've just started to actually contribute to Wikipedia, and I found a page that probably needs to be deleted. It took me over 30 minutes to figure out where the deletion procedures were and how to use it (since it's not linked off the main tutorial). The tutorial doesn't necessarily need a large chunk on deletion, but a link/reference to it would be nice. Oh, and explanation of common place practices (like dating and naming via tildas) along with what are good edit summaries would be nice so we don't learn bad habits. Janet13 3 July 2005 07:46 (UTC)

Templates

I've come across a couple of newbies doing weird things while trying to use templates - when I explained to them how they worked they asked why there was nothing in the tutorial to explain how they're used... and I must admit that's a very good question. Should we have a very short section explaining how to use templates, and also how to add images - perhaps on the Wiki links page of the tutorial? Grutness...wha? 5 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)

Profoundly hearty?

IMO, the profoundly hearty greetings line is awkward and corny. I'm deleting it, but please add a different greeting. Does anyone have ideas?

Redesign

I'm doing a redesign of this tutorial to bring it in-line with Wikipedia:Introduction. I aim to make the two areas flow together as I believe the new user should use both; first do a bare bones overview with the intro, then the tutorial gives some more specific help (then maybe the Help:Portal or something else even more in depth , but that's a future project). - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Hmmm, I hope you do a very good job in improving the tutorial, I use Wikipedia alot and I really want to explore into all its features. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.0.155.82 (talkcontribs) .
Looking better :)
Can we change/getrid of that "bootcamp" link? the newcomers help page is not the contextually expected content... (a bootcamp would be a series of structured exercises that one is guided through). -Quiddity 18:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
That 'glossification' was causing ugly overlaps, making some links entirely unusable, when I reverted it in January, and it is still causing overlaps, since it's come back in June, but now I can't just revert to the usable pages because the whole tutorial is hard protected. Why is it protected, and please restore a usable version. Niteowlneils 02:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Link to this page from the Editing Template?

Could there a link to this page be added to the actual document editing template? 99% of the time that's where I am when I need to refer to this document. --Irrevenant 12:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative header

I made an alternative header that spans all of the tutorial pages. It's located at Wikipedia:Tutorial/Header and looks something like this:
You can see a test of how it looks here. [1] What are your thoughts on making a switch? Rfrisbietalk 03:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
p.s. The spacing looks better on the full-page test. Rfrisbietalk 03:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I like having them all on each page, but i prefer the style we've currently got -- It's a better match with Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Introduction. Can we use your template and text-sizing, but without the extra title-bar, and with a different seperator (eg · or • bullets)? (I pressume that's why you've underlined the initial letters? This can be confusing, because the program GUI convention is to underline the letter that gives access to the dropdown menus via the keyboard. eg Alt-V opens the view menu in Firefox. Also some people will have all links underlined via their preferences.) --Quiddity 05:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
All those changes are fine with me. Rfrisbietalk 11:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Just updated to simpler format. Rfrisbietalk 12:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
p.s. Now, this doesn't look as "fancy" to me. If you all prefer tabs, I could try squeezing them together in a smaller format. Rfrisbietalk 12:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I've left a note on Gareth Aus's talkpage, as he's the man behind our current look :) --Quiddity 18:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried out a full tabs look. It needs a resolution of at least 1024 X 768. You can see a full page example here. [2] A setup like this could be made so that the "current" page has a different color tab than the others. Rfrisbietalk 19:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The current version is "workable" (it doesn't wrap) at 800 X 600. Rfrisbietalk 12:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Seeing no objections here and a basic okay on Garth Aus's talkpage, I'm going to start switching over to the full tab set layout. This also revises the border slightly to better match the Community Portal design. Rfrisbietalk 16:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I really like it :) --Quiddity 20:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki to Thai WIkipedia

I'm wondering if anyone can add th:วิกิพีเดีย:สอนการใช้งาน. I cannot edit since the page's currently locked. Manop - 01:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Quiddity 17:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Verification

This is the hardest thing I ever had to do, I can't believe how many hours I have been on this site trying to figure out how to create a paragraph and then post it to this site. I feel so stupid and still can't post anything why isn't there a phone number and live person to talk too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrakosi (talkcontribs) 00:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. It was just a standard editing test that noone had yet reverted. Thanks for the heads-up. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

TOC

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost Tutorials. —Markles 17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Editnotices for sandboxes

Using editnotices for tutorial sandboxes could help new users, with a sandbox-like introduction and more content hidden that users can show if wanted, based on the related tutorial. I have given editnotices that we could use at User:Cenarium/Sandbox/tutorial editnotice. Feedback and improvements would be appreciated, thanks. Cenarium (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Without taking a close look at the actual notices you've set up, I say go for it: I just plain like this idea. We've just recently put up an editnotice at Editor Assistance/Requests and the results were immediately visible. They are very helpful for new users. Good idea, Cenarium!  :-] Fleetflame 15:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I take it this is done now? Looks good. Rd232 talk 15:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I added ones for editing, formatting and Wikipedia links. They can be edited (by admins) at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Tutorial (Editing)/sandbox, etc. We can discuss them here for improvements. Cenarium (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks great! L∴V 14:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


shortcut to tutorial

Hi ya'll. Just want to mention, H:T goes to Help:Template, while WP:T goes here. Seems like it should be different is all. JoeSmack Talk 02:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Button on screen to be clicked rather than pressed

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Talk_pages) It says:

For your convenience, there is a button at the top of the edit box with a signature icon inserts "--~~~~" when pressed.

I think it should read "clicked" rather than "pressed". AmigoCgn (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Clicked may be a better term - have changed, cheers! Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 22:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, there are some issues with that particular sentence ("For your convenience, there is a button at the top of the edit box with a signature icon inserts "--~~~~" when clicked."). I feel it should read "For your convenience, there is a button at the top of the edit box with a signature icon which inserts "--~~~~" when clicked. I don't think I myself am actually able/allowed to make that correction, though, so I leave the matter in your wiser and more capable hands. ;) - ReySquared (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You're right - good spot. Just fixed it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing Protected Pages

Many Wikipedia pages are now protected and new users, who may be subject matter experts, will have difficulty understanding the complexity of different types of protection. This issue makes editing very difficult and discourages contributions to Wikipedia. WikiProject pages require special access to make edits. I would like to see a tab in the tutorial section called: Editing Protected Pages. Currently in Wikipedia there are links in different places leading to pages explaining protection. I have found that the format is not in a "learning style" and it is necessary to find and click on many links on different pages to gain a more complete understanding of how to edit protected articles. Figlinus (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

clarity on the "Citing references" page

It would have been a help to me if the line:

  • <ref>YOUR SOURCE</ref>

would have been followed by the words: This will put a footnote reference number in superscript after the last word before the tagged entry.--Ngstanton (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. I also think that the tutorial page on citing sources needs to be
  1. Rewritten in a more noob-friendly way, and
  2. Made more comprehensive.
Personally, I think that Wikipedia should encourage users to adopt a single variation of each type of reference format to make these simpler. SlimNm (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Standards not followed

The normal academic and business standard is not folowed in the first para. It reads, "Instead of a strict WYSIWYG approach ("What You See Is What You Get"),.. ".

This should be changed to "Instead of a strict "What You See Is What You Get" (WYSIWYG) approach , ...".

The standard is that you write the full term first and then put the aronym or other common term in parenthesis. Thereafter, you are free to use the acronym etc without explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apault (talkcontribs) 11:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Written by Apault (apologies for original omission) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apault (talkcontribs) 11:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Bold

Have boldly went and added a link to Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual for anyone wanting an extensive manual. See what you think of it, dave souza, talk 16:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I think many new users would appreciate having a more in depth tutorial. -- œ 17:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This site is a little bit redundant to WP:Article wizard

, isn´t it? --Hæggis (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, nope, I don't think so, but even so, redundancy is good when it comes to training newbies. -- œ 20:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
As the case may be. If you want to distinguish different types of newbies, it can be helpful. But different common (main)sites binds ressources for updating, (user) memory etc. and can confound newbies. --Hæggis (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Using the pipe symbol

From the tutorial: "These differing titles make piped links especially useful, as a link to Georgia (country) is far less readable than a piped link called Georgia."

As it stands, I disagree with it. A link to Georgia (country) is a lot more readable than a link to Georgia, for the simple reason that if you go to the Georgia disambiguation page you get a few dozen references to Georgia. I think what is meant is that Georgia alone is a lot more readable in proper context. For example, when naming European countries, it is obvious that a link to Georgia is referring to the country. Similarly, when naming US states, a link to Georgia will clearly be linking to the state. Outside of an appropriate context though, a link should include in brackets, what version of Georgia is being linked to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.189.7.40 (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The point is that Wikipedia links almost always come with a context, as they are not just bare links but are part of a sentence and paragraph in the body of the text. So for example if I write "The Macintosh computer is made by Apple" I need to pipe the link. I could add the ", Inc." to the text but that's not what I want to write and is not the way the company is normally referred to, and it's clear from the context I mean the computer maker.

--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And when a link does not have a context such as in See also sections and Disambiguation pages, the brackets are normally included (ie unpiped). So everything is already as it should be. -- œ 04:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Move to subpages

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request. One of the few times when magical thinking is persuasive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Tutorial (Editing)Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing — Moving these pages to subpages enables templates to use the magic word "BASEPAGENAME" to identify when in the tutorial. Bsherr (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And sooo.. what, again, is the advantage of doing it this way? -- œ 19:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
So, if one is writing a parser function, the parser function can detect when it is on a tutorial page as follows: {{#ifeq:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Tutorial|true|false}}. BASEPAGENAME returns the name of the parent page (which would be Tutorial). Without using subpages, a switch naming every page of the tutorial must be used. --Bsherr (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I see.. kinda. :) I'll take your word for it that this is an improvement and Support the move. -- œ 19:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Using subpages makes it clear that the pages are part of a series and not just similarly named unrelated pages. It also makes the pages automatically include a link back to the base page. Jafeluv (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support all, per request. Seems eminently sensible to me. – ukexpat (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, per request. Marcus Qwertyus 18:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. It just seems to make more sense as sub-pages than different pages. Alex³ (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support changes, clear rationales above. – Athaenara 01:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Video player malfunction

In the "Wikipedia links" tab the video player runs about 1/2 way and then just ends mid sentence. at least on my computer. I tried it 3 times. Just letting you know RifeIdeas Talk 17:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't reproduce the problem. It could be that it needs to buffer at that point on your computer. If your position in playing the video reaches the amount of video downloaded, the video player will stop while it downloads more of the video before continuing. --Bsherr (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I've had a few problems with content from the media server, i.e. uploads.wikimedia.org, so images have been missing on a few occasions for a short while in the last few days, so it could be you've had something similar. Apart from that Wikipedia's video support is unlike watching videos on the Web: almost everyone else uses Flash, the few that don't use QuickTime or WMV. See Help:Media for more information on the formats and what you need to do to play them.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I went back and made sure I had the allow Apple add on from Wikipedia okayed then went to Introduction and that video worked fine, then to Formatting and that video worked also, but when I got to the video in Wikipedia links that is where the video stopped about 1/2 way in fact the screen showed [[bold and the message "playback ended" appeared at the bottom. There was never any need for buffering at the beginning of the video and I waited 15 minutes after the stop, doing absolutely nothing to my computer and no change. Just an update. RifeIdeas Talk 21:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to add that none of the videos are working for me in this tutorial. I have IE 9 and the Apple plug in, but when I press the "play" button a "X" appears immediatley. I only see the preview image on each video. I'm not sure of the format but I assume it's open source? But it would be great if all these videos were also posted on Youtube or in another popular format besides. Thegallery (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
When you click the play button you should see a 'more' link which lets you select the format it uses. You only need to do this once for the whole of Wikipedia. None of the formats are as popular as Flash/Youtube but they all work, though they need either a modern web browser or a plugin other than Flash (Java or QuickTime).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks John, however it didn't work! I clicked on the first one, a java player, and now it shuts down the page and reopens it everytime I click on it. Any idea how I change the preference now? I'm guessing I should have clicked the 'quicktime' option instead! Thegallery (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC).
I'm sorry, I don't know how you solve that ! I suspect disabling Java would do it but that's pretty drastic and very OS dependent, and even that might not work. You might need to ask at one of the help pages for media or a more general one, which may be a better place to raise your concerns about the usability. This talk page is too poorly attended to be the best venue for either purpose.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Opening sandbox in a new tab/window

Sometimes, while in sandbox, I realize that I have already forgotten some minor things that I just read, so I have to go back read it again, go to the sandbox again and edit. I have a suggestion to make:

  • Open the sandbox in a new tab/window, when using the tutorial
OR
  • Make a page in the tutorial with the brief list of all commands, so that users can open that in a separate window.

That way, if something minor forgotten (like number of (=)'s or (')'s, the user would only have to switch between tabs/windows instead of clicking their way back to and from the tutorial page. --RukhShona (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Replying to talk pages

So I noticed that the talk pages section saysː

"You can reply in either of two ways. One is to put a message on the user talk page of the person you are replying to. The other is to put your reply on your own talk page beneath the original message. Both are common on Wikipedia; however, be aware that replying on your own talk page runs the risk that your reply won't be seen, if the user does not look at your talk page again. If you intend to use this approach, it is a good idea to post a notice to that effect, at the top of your talk page, so people know they have to keep an eye on the page to see your response, rather than getting your response on their page."

As a newbie here, I was actually wondering if there was a trend to make one way or the other the standard. I was also wondering if using the first way (putting the message on the user talk page of the person you are replying to) is easier since the other user does not need to constantly watch your own user talk page, and then just adding/quoting the message you are replying to as a reminder.

Also, unrelated but I also wanted to know if using the IPA colon (either from Special characters or switching from the Insert down-arrow) is the proper way to add a colon? I'm kind of unsure of how to add symbols that Wikitext already uses, such as apostrophes and colons. With the programming languages I am familiar with, I would just use a backslash/escape character (\) to perform the function I want it to. Iamany (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no standard, but I personally think conversations should be kept in one place, if possible. As you may not know, when someone edits your talk page in any way you get the unmistakable orange bar announcing you have new messages (I've just left a welcome message at your talk page so you should have just gotten your first orange bar). So, many think if they don't respond at the outside talk page, the person won't get this alert, which is part of the motivation for that. One solution is to use {{Talkback}} or {{Talkbacktiny}}, so the person get the orange bar but the conversation remains in one place. Regarding colons, I'm not sure what you're getting at but a regular old colon right from your keyboard works fine for everything. If you want to use a colon as text, in a place where the software would normally recognize it as code (e.g. at the beginning of a sentence as an indent level) you would place it in nowiki tags (<nowiki>:</nowiki>). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the welcome and for the very helpful information. <nowiki></nowiki> is exactly what I was looking for.--Iamany (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

first vid: sound behind vid

It's about a second, I think. Any way of fixing it? Tony (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Show preview image

Hi,

I notice that the image showing the Show preview button is a screenshot of a MediaWiki edit page, not a Wikipedia edit page. Can this image be replaced with a screenshot of a Wikipedia edit page showing the preview button? Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs review me 05:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a WP screenshot to me: the only difference is the style of the text and buttons, which depend on user preferences, OS + browser version, and the licence text below which has probably changed since the screenshot. Wikipedia is a MediaWiki based site, so the screenshot is just of the software used, not of e.g. mediawiki.org (which is a lot more different).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Found a mistake

Hi. I'm new on wikipedia, so I can't edit this semi-protected article, yet. But I've found this mistake on "Tutorial/Editing" page: "...enter a explanation...". It should be like this: "...enter an explanation...". I hope somebody will correct that.

Thanks. Uondre (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for catching that! DMacks (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Practise" as a verb

Could someone with permissions please change the start of the 4th para "There are links to "sandbox" pages where you can practice" -- to practise. Whether UK or US English, as a verb it's always 'practise'. This is a minor edit, but here of all places, should be put right. Notplayboy (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you have that backward. Practice (learning method) notes that US always spells it "practice", with UK the one that ever uses "practise". That's also consistent with wikt:practice and wikt:practise. To confirm, I checked the OED entry for "practise|practice, v.": "The form practice has become increasingly prevalent in U.S. use since the later 19th cent., and is now the generally accepted standard spelling." DMacks (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Typo spotted

On the Citing Sources tab, under footnotes, in the second last paragraph. Idetification should be identification. Thanks. Helenepollard (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Good eye! Fixed. DMacks (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sysop one day?

Hi, I spotted this remark on Wikipedia:Tutorial/Registration: Only registered users are allowed to become administrators (also known as sysops).

I must admit that I do not like this statement, for a number of reasons:

  1. Registering an account is (or should be) never done to become administrator.
  2. The phrase paints "admin" to be the ultimate goal of WP account registration, or WP editorship, like in an MMPORG.
  3. The phrase could be misunderstood as a sufficient (as opposed to: necessary) condition to attain adminship. Could it be that some of the WP:NOTNOW-cases at WP:RfA got their idea from the tutorial?
  4. Account registration is also required for most other advanced user rights. There is no need to single out one of them.

I suggest that the phrase either be removed, or replaced by something like Only registered users can gain further user rights like autopatrolled, filemover, sysop, or bureaucrat. Cheers, --Pgallert (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as that much of an issue: if readers are unclear what an administrator is they can follow the link. There's no implication that becoming an admin is the main goal of WP or something most people would desire. But again that can be discovered by following the link. As for other advanced user rights they are much more obscure, so much so that editors are often unaware of them and only find out about them when they need them. This makes your proposed wording a lot less clear, especially with adminship also made a user right.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)