Help talk:Cheatsheet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is not the page to ask for help.
Emblem-important.svg This page is for discussion of the Help:Cheatsheet page itself. You may be looking for one of the following pages:

See also:

Wikipedia Help Project (Rated A-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
A-Class article A  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Naked URLs[edit]

The example REFs shown on the Cheatsheet contradict the Manual of Style. The first example is just wrong; it won't even resolve into anything useful. The second example is a naked URL which is undesirable. Using these as examples of the REF tag on the Cheatsheet is contradictory and steers new editors, who are most likely to rely on the Cheatsheet, in totally the wrong direction. I suggest that:

Hello,<ref>Library of Congress</ref> World.
<ref>http://www.w3.org/</ref>

be modified, at the minimum, to show an example like the following:

Hello,<ref>[http://www.loc.org Library of Congress]</ref> World.
<ref>[http://www.w3.org/ World Wide Web Consortium]</ref>

But perhaps we ought to show a couple more parameters as well, like date and author:

You can also use the Citation Template wizard to produce a full citation like the following:

<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.w3.org/ |title=World Wide Web Consortium |first=John |last=Doe |date=June 2012 |accessdate=16 August 2013}}</ref>

btphelps (talk) (contribs) 06:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

@Btphelps: Hmm, I agree that we want to show best practices, but we also want to balance that with non-complicated directions, at least at this level. Additionally, we don't want to imply that only online references are valid (nor that root-urls are good enough). Hence, I'll suggest that we replace the current copy, with something like this:

Hello,<ref>[http://www.loc.gov/about/ Library of Congress]</ref> World.
<ref>''The Story of Philosophy'' by Will Durant (1926)</ref>

What do you (or anyone) think? –Quiddity (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand the desire not to overwhelm new editors with a solution that's too technical. So your idea is a step on the right direction. I'd like to suggest a slightly more realistic book example that's hopefully not too complex for new editors:

<ref>''[http://books.google.com/books/about/Guns_of_the_Old_West.html?id=6EMF4l14xbMC Guns of the Old West: An Illustrated History]'' Dean K. Boorman, (2004)</ref>

btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 02:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hee! I'm curious, in what way are you considering The Story of Philosophy to be less "realistic"? (I chose it based on a glance at my bookshelves, looking for something non-fiction, with a short title and short author-name to minimize wordwrap). Ideally we'd use something without any links (internal or external).
I've updated the LoC example for now. –Quiddity (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Preparing for an edit-a-thon I find I having to advise my students not to use this cheat sheet. It is not explained that naked urls (while allowed by the software) should never be used in the text outside the #External links section. Secondly there is the issue of references- again it is the naked url that is shown in the example- no mention of using the four templates, and that a web reference is basically useless with out the date-accessed. Could this be passed to someone with a notable FA count for suggestions how current practice can be expressed. ClemRutter (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Red Link Confusion[edit]

I believe the instructions for how to do a red link are confusing. The coding looks exactly like that for an ordinary link to another page. And I believe it is identical. I think the article should clearly explain that a link will display in red automatically if the article linked to does not already exist.
Richard27182 (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Thnidu (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Named reference confusion[edit]

"References and footnotes" says

References and footnotes (first use on page)
Hello,<ref name="LoC">[http://www.loc.gov/about/ Library of Congress]</ref> World.<ref>http://www.w3.org/</ref>
References and footnotes (subsequent uses)
Hello again,<ref name="LoC" />

"First use" and "subsequent use" are easily misunderstood as referring to position in the text, though they're really about chronological order of insertion: <ref name="LoC" /> throws an error message if there's no full ref. I'm adjusting the text to clarify.

--Thnidu (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Move back to Wikipedia:Cheatsheet (or maybe "Wikipedia:Cheat sheet"[edit]

I don't feel like doing an RM. I'd just note that I think this should be moved back to Wikipedia:Cheatsheet. The prefix Help: almost always flags a page that is for help with the topic identified in the following name or phrase, e.g, Help:Moving a page is for help with the topic of: moving a page. This is the Wikipedia cheatsheet (or even "cheat sheet" [as spaced]); a cheat sheet for editing Wikipedia. It is not for "help with Wikipedia's cheat sheet", but that non sequitur is what results when applying the standard convention to this title.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose as this is definitely a help page, and as such the Help: namespace seems appropriate. It can be seen as a highly condensed form of Help:Wiki markup, which is also in the right namespace. I always read "Help:Cheatsheet" as "Help page: a cheatsheet" and have no difficulty seeing it as appropriate. Project pages I feel are inappropriate for pages that directly help the reader to understand topics, and overused in this capacity in general. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
But we don't separate pages into help versus the Wikipedia namespaces by whether they are for helping or not, but by the convention I spoke of. You may see it the way you say you do, but actual use is otherwise. If followed, we need to move loads and loads of help pages that are at Wikipedia titles, e.g., Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, etc.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Well if you look at Wikipedia:Help namespace it says These pages contain information intended to help use Wikipedia or its software. Also why separate out the Cheatsheet when most of the other wiki markup pages reside in Help: namespace? Also I feel straight up help pages like "Your first article" and "Contributing to Wikipedia" would be better off in the Help namespace; project pages are too broad in this respect. Actual usage of the two namespaces is very inconsistent, but if help pages went in the help namespace this could be improved. This is a straight-up help page so it belongs in the help namespace. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)