Wikipedia talk:Writing Wikipedia Articles course

	Writing Wikipedia Articles: The Basics and Beyond
	a free six week course

Welcome to the class discussion board! a.k.a. "talk page"

Feel free to bring up any items for discussion right here on this page. Hit "New Section" above to add a new topic/comment. Indent your responses with a colon (:) at the very beginning of the paragraph. Sign your name with a dash and four squiggly tildes!

MOOC article editing for Team Europe!

ORANGEABUNDANCE wrote: "please dear Europe Team lets meet again in thursday LAB session just to organize and begin our mutual collaboration" - suggesting work on the MOOC article and the MOOCS in Europe issue. - Sara FB (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

We love volunteers to spearhead "fixing" OER articles!

If you, or any team, wants to use the Collaborate OER space before or after the lab session, you are very welcome to do so! -Pete (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Badge requirements

What is 'start' level in Wikipedia quality terms?

Where are the quality levels detailed and how do I know when I have brought an article from one level to the next? --Tbirdcymru (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tbird, this is another topic we'll be covering in some depth this coming Tuesday. If you'd like to read ahead a bit, take a look here: WP:QUALITY -Pete (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have forgotten to tell how many "real contributions" I have made. I know that Talk pages don't count. I went to my Contributions User contributions but I remember seeing a page that showed a better summary. Maybe it was on the course pages somewhere? Or can I use the filter somehow? thanksPatricia.Loeblein (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey I found the "help" I needed Help:User_contributions in the "Total edit count" section I made it to 200!! I will reapply for my badge sometime soon. Trish Patricia.Loeblein (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry another thing - I know the badge has a relevance to a level of contributor in WP, can you provide the link to the info on the levels. I obviously do not know the proper term for searching. When I get my badge (which I plan to do), I want to know how to put something proper on my User page. Thanks, Trish Patricia.Loeblein (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations Trish! I noticed you were getting close. Your new submission doesn't need to say anything fancy; from my previous review, the only thing that was missing was that 200 edit count.

The page that describes the different levels is WP:Service awards. These aren't really anything official, but can be a nice way of tracking your progress! It should be obvious how to place this on your user page when you receive the badge -- and feel free to ask more questions if needed. -Pete (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Pete.I didnt really get 200 in 1 month, but I read the requirements and don't feel like I would be bragging too much. It is interesting to me to take a course to get a badge. Our organization is looking at badges for participating on the PhET Teach site (not live yet). I can see that for some people, a badge on their user account would be meaningful. Trish Patricia.Loeblein (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it just means that you've been active for at least a month -- not that all your edits have to be in that time! You're good. Let me know if you'd like to discuss badges more generally some time. -Pete (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

OER WikiProject

Is there a WikiProject for all of the OER articles. I'm looking at the list and there's so many of them that they could at least be added a separate task force under Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access. →ozhu量 (talk·contribs) 18:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ozhu, your best options at the moment are WP Open Access (as you mentioned) and WP:COMMOER. Hopefully we will be able to establish a more coherent WikiProject structure by the time this course is done, though! The interest expressed by you and other students is a big help, and we will need your continued engagement to make it a thriving WikiProject. Stay tuned, this is a topic we will revisit throughout the class! -Pete (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Notability requirements discussion.

This is the issue that I raised in the lab this morning. I was looking at a list of search engines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines and noticed a list that was labeled Geographically limited scope. I knew of a search engine that fit this description so I tried to add it to the list. The search engine that I added did not have its own wiki page so I started one and supported it with the citations that I could find. It was initially scheduled for quick deletion and deleted. I restored it and added more resources and a rationale for why it should be kept but was unable to convince some Wipipedia admins that it made an appropriate contribution to Wikipedia. What confuses me is looking through the other search engines listed on the original page, for example Goo, Japan -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goo_(search_engine). I have trouble seeing how it is any more notable or well supported, yet it remains. Some of the entries have been tagged for improvements but have not been removed outright. Is the criteria of "significant" one that is open to interpretation? negotiation? Or have I just caught the eye of some overzealous editors who now have this on their watchlist. ggatin (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gating (talk • contribs)

Hi Gating, the unfortunate but realistic answer is yes, the notability requirements are definitely subject to both interpretation and negotiation. And yes, it is common that once an experienced Wikipedian has determined that something is not notable, in practice it can be very difficult to convince them otherwise -- whether they are right or wrong! So, it's not uncommon to find cases where one article is deleted while another remains, even though they are very similar with respect to notability; it depends a great deal on who is watching them, who created them, when they were created, how that creation was approached, etc. It is worthwhile to read WP:OTHERSTUFF which discusses this topic (in the context of arguing for the inclusion of an article).

For this reason, I generally encourage new Wikipedia contributors to avoid creating new articles that are in a grey area, i.e. that may not be considered notable. You will generally have an easier time in these dynamics once you have a solid general familiarity with how Wikipedia works; but these kinds of issues can be a tricky way to gain that familiarity. If you want to dig into this one, I'm happy to take a closer look; but you might also consider holding off, and coming back to it in a month or two.

If you like, list the name of the article here, and I will take a closer look at the issues you bring up and give you some more detailed feedback. -Pete (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete. The article is here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/First_Nations_Seeker I also liked the idea of writing something for publication elsewhere to increase the bone fides of the entry. I made a connection with the fellow who designed the site and I'll consult with him. ggatin (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I restored your version of the article here: User:Gating/sandbox2 -Pete (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess this is a case for developing an article in the sandbox although I did that and thought I had a good start. It is frustrating to have it speedily deleted and targeted for deletion before others can help to build out the article. I thought that the editors were arbitrary and quick on the trigger. I would like to keep trying with this article because as I mentioned I would like to use the maps included on this page as part of a project for a digital humanities class.Turning the First Nations Seeker Maps into a Google Earth Layer Any help gratefully appreciated. ggatin (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Let's talk it over again before you make another attempt. I should note, after having looked through the revisions closely, the second indpendent reference wasn't added until 14 July, but there were two "delete" votes on 11 July. Since those voters never returned to the discussion, it is reasonable to guess they didn't notice that addition. This is one thing you could note when trying to publish the article again; but if you can find additional independent sources first, that would be ideal. Two might be enough, but usually people want to see three or more. -Pete (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

How to shorten successive references to the same cited source

This may be a learning by trial-and-error in the Sandbox, but I need a little help first. In the Olinguito article, I noticed that many of the footnotes are listed with a number and a superscript alphabet to show that the cited source was used more than once in the article. So, for example, 1. ^{a b c} means footnote 1 was cited three times in the article. In Edit source view, first use of footnote 1 is formatted as <ref name="Koepfli2007"/>. Also the Reference section is formatted with {{reflist|2|refs=. This seems to be a different method from the Phalaenopsis hieroglyphica article, in which we used {{reflist}} to create the footnote section and the citation templates available under Edit source to create each footnote. --Litjade (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Great question, Litjade. I think the answer you need is outlined pretty thoroughly here: WP:NAMEDREFS Let me know if this doesn't answer your question, though! -Pete (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Which page to sign up for teams?

I followed the link from the first week and signed up for a team here, but I noticed that the blurb for Week 2 links here. Should I sign up on both to be part of a team? or was there a reorganization during the Week 2 session? →ozhu量 (talk·contribs) 17:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Ozhu, from what I can see, you've successfully signed up for a team on the current (Round 3) class team page. The second link you found, here, is the team page for the previous (Round 2) class. --from your fellow classmate, Litjade (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Litjade, thanks for jumping in to clarify that! I have done a little reorganizing to hopefully prevent this confusion in the future, and added a big red "archive" note at the top of the Round 2 Teams page. (Because of my reorganizing, the links you guys put in above actually go to the current page now.) -Pete (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding images

Hi everyone, I just noticed that your classmate Tbirdcymrul successfully added three images to an article. You can see her edits to the article here. She had previously uploaded the images to Wikimedia Commons. Great work, Terese! Hopefully it's helpful to your fellow students to see how you did it. -Pete (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Other media besides images in Wikimedia

Hiya, just wondering if there is a way to add other media to Wikimedia? I'd be interested in both sound and video.--Tbirdcymru (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible -- but it can be a little tricky, because the only video formats supported are WebM and OGG/Theora, which are free and open, but not widely used with common video software. The preferred sound format is OGG/Vorbis, also not terribly common. There's a general media help page on Wikimedia Commons: COM:Media help. This page may also be of interest: COM:VIDEO Hope it helps. Let me know if you have more questions! -Pete (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Lists

Just posting here that I'm considering making a list of OER initiatives which have been started by Universities. Maybe I should call it OER Repositories by Universities, to keep it distinct from MOOCs? Not sure. I'm thinking that my group mate Sarah G might like to join in? Anyone else?

I have started a list in my own sandbox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tbirdcymru/sandbox

I copied the code from a list of greatest hits singles of the 1960s, so please don't laugh at the current state of the iist:-)