Wikipedia talk:Annotated article

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.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles

‎

Comments[edit]

Why are there only external links? An example of a 'references' section (and probably even notes) would be instructive, I think. — mark ✎ 16:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think an example of a "References" section needs to be added in the standard position (that is, under the "See also" section.) -- Mecandes 12:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page I was looking for when joining Wikipedia! Is there a place for it somewhere in the Help: domain? — dogears (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Include indentation[edit]

Could text indentation (using the ":") be included in that article, please. --Dietmar Lettau 12:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of bold[edit]

Why is the word unladen in boldface in the lead paragraph? I'd remove this in a real article. —D. Monack ^talk 08:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the actual article does the same thing, so I guess I'll remove it in both places. —D. Monack ^talk 08:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another article?[edit]

I guess the real question should be, "Why isn't a featured article used for annotation?" If this is supposed to be instructional, shouldn't the best possible example be used? Autorack even has a cleanup notice on it. Ideally, the example used would have a references section and maybe an infobox. —D. Monack ^talk 08:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive annotation[edit]

Should the annotation about the picture really repeat so many times? Craig Pemberton (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are autoracks special in any way?[edit]

Why autoracks specifically? What is so special about them? Do you guys, huh, like autoracks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.139.143.122 (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Section in Italian[edit]

Deleted the following section:

Questo elaborato prende come riferimento il testo “Cervelli che parlano: il dibattito su mente,coscienza e intelligenza artificiale”. Gli spunti argomentativi sono stati selezionati dal capitolo “Intenzionalità e intelligenza artificiale” di Eddy Carli e si è cercato poi di elaborarli, attraverso l’evento concreto di bere una birra, tenendo come riferimento le teorie e il punto di vista di Antonio Damasio.

Does not appear to have anything to do with the article aside from the obvious issue of not being in English.Bobdog54 (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete comments[edit]

Since the change of the layout in 2023 TOC is displayed elsewhere. I'm not sure how to properly address that. RadostW (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable use of "sic"[edit]

See Special:Permalink/696941330. Looking for second opinions on the appropriateness of including the [sic] following the contractions. The explanation provided in the edit summary is the requirement to include "copied text" exactly and the WP:MOS rule against contractions. Fabrickator (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabrickator: This is an edit from eight and a half years ago, right? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: So are you suggesting that if nobody has raised this issue during such an extended period of time, then that demonstrates that this is proper? If that's the case, I'd like to discuss the reasoning behind using [sic] in this context. Fabrickator (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]