Wikipedia talk:Tutorial (historical)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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 (talk • contribs) .

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? Rfrisbie^talk 03:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
p.s. The spacing looks better on the full-page test. Rfrisbie^talk 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. Rfrisbie^talk 11:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just updated to simpler format. Rfrisbie^talk 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. Rfrisbie^talk 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. Rfrisbie^talk 19:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The current version is "workable" (it doesn't wrap) at 800 X 600. Rfrisbie^talk 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. Rfrisbie^talk 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 (talk • contribs) 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/Series/Tutorial. —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 (talk • contribs) 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.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 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 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Written by Apault (apologies for original omission) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apault (talk • contribs) 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.

--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 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)

• Wikipedia:Tutorial (Formatting) → Wikipedia:Tutorial/Formatting
• Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wikipedia links) → Wikipedia:Tutorial/Wikipedia links
• Wikipedia:Tutorial (Citing sources) → Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources
• Wikipedia:Tutorial (Talk pages) → Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk pages
• Wikipedia:Tutorial (Keep in mind) → Wikipedia:Tutorial/Keep in mind
• Wikipedia:Tutorial (Registration) → Wikipedia:Tutorial/Registration
• Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wrap-up and more info) → Wikipedia:Tutorial/Wrap-up and more info

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.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 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).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 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.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 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).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 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.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete tutorial redesign pages?

Looking at Category:Wikipedia tutorials to see what's useful for WP:Workshops and found all these incomplete old redesign pages of the tutorials. Shouldn't they be gotten rid of to avoid future confusion? CarolMooreDC 03:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

learning preferences

all this text - is there a way to add a video for those of us who prefer to learn through hearing or doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesnord (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems one of them has it. Definitely something that WP:Videos project should work on, though I don't know how active they are. Will keep in mind since I'm trying to help fix up these pages, but so many projects, so little time! CarolMooreDC 19:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I found the videos to be extremely helpful, I wish there had been more. It helped clear up some confusion for me and made the entire process much easier. --Rlwomalley (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Citing sources

Wikipedia NOOB here. The citing sources section could be improved by giving examples of the formatted references immediately below the markup language examples provided. That way users could see the results prior to attempting the markup themselves. I don't have the confidence to attempt this level of editing 203.114.167.88 (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the subsection "Citing sources" should be at the very top of the "Keep in Mind" page, with its importance very strongly emphasised. Lack of sufficient citations is by far the #1 problem on Wikipedia. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Expand to an assessed tutorial?

Hi all, there is not much activity here, but I'll try it anyway: We currently have tremendous problems at Wikipedia:School and university projects/Polytechnic of Namibia. The course is too big, there are too many violations of WP:COMPETENCE. I was thinking if it would be possible to combine the tutorial with some sort of assessment, in order to check if the user successfully completed it.

For instance, Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing could be expanded to creating an own page in user space, Assessment 1, where then someone could check if the page exists, and if it had been created with a useful edit summary. Wikipedia:Tutorial/Formatting could end with asking the user to create Assessment 2 in user space, and someone could check whether it contains headlines, bold, italic text, and so on.

Depending on the required level, one could even have policy-based assignments like Assignment 12: Copy this page to your user space. Then remove as many policy violations from this text as you find, one by one, and link the relevant Wikipedia policy in the respective edit summary.

If everything was successfully completed, editors could get a badge of some sort, and could get listed as having taken the entry test of Wikipedia.

I see the following advantages:

1. Students in Wikipedia projects could be asked by their lecturers to complete this entry test, instead of submitting content at a time when they are not ready to.
2. Lecturers could award some marks for passing the test.
3. Course coordinators could ask their tutors to pass the test before they get a contract supervising WP newbies.
4. At a certain---higher---level, one could even base admission to places like NPP on such a test.

Happy about any feedback, Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help_Project has been working on this sort of issue, for this set of documents and other related instructional materials. I've worked a lot on WP:Workshop more for local wikipedia group trainings. If you go to that page you also will find some of the Wikimedia projects that might provide you with more help. CarolMooreDC 18:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's something highly relevant: Wikipedia:Education_Working_Group/RfC. CarolMooreDC 17:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What's Wrong With My Reference?

Hi anyone there? Of course you are. I have a problem that needs to be answered. I was working on a reference in the tutorial sandbox and when I was finished I previewed it and there was just a blue semi-small 1 there is that supposed to happen? I mean I know it is but what about the words that I used when I referenced them. This is causing confusion within my mental stability and I don't think I will be able to edit, make an article, or reference anything without knowing what the problem is. Please respond. Also I would like the person who responds to this respond on my talk page. Thank You. CFyre (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"Common Knowledge"

If a piece of information is considered to be "common knowledge" (ex. "Snowmen are made of snow."), does it need to be cited? Thank you. Henrib736 (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Answered at Wikipedia:Help desk#"Common Knowledge" Citations and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#"Common Knowledge" Citing. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2013

Govind09033 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please indicate the changes you wish to implement.Moxy (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the only way I have been able to type a reply which is about replying and other such features that has no explanation on them at all

So the first question is, How do you write replies to people when the reply option does not exist. I should be able to find a clickable option somewhere on this page, to post a reply and it doesn't exist If something needs to be done, then don't assume someone is magically supposed to know. Fully detailed instructions on how to do everything in the wiki needs to be show along with voice narrated tutorials showing what they're clicking, where, how they knew enough on what to use,

I want a picture I provide to show up, as well as a video like people have...Why is there no explanation on how to do either of these 2 things anywhere.

How do you write replies to people, the reply option does not exist. If something needs to be done, then don't assume someone is magically supposed to know. Fully detailed instructions on how to do everything in the wiki needs to be show along with voice narrated tutorials showing what they're clicking, where, how they knew enough on what to use, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.171.247 (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Previewing

Because the primary method here is to use VisualEditor, why does it say Done the edit summary? Previewed the page?? George8211 (talk | mail) 18:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There's actually discussion ongoing right now about whether VisualEditor should be enabled by default. If it is decided that it should, this page and many others will need to be updated. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

To VE or not to VE

While I accept that VE is the future, that it's easier for new editors and that it should be emphasized here, there are still many pages that need to be edited the old way - including the drafts at WP:Articles for creation, one of the first places many new editors (at least those who start by writing an article) will encounter. Thus I'd consider it rather counterproductive not to cover the wikisource in the tutorial any more, or to relegate it to a mere footnote. Huon (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Somehow we need to keep both available. The current version is a very good explanation of how to use VE, but what's actually needed here is the old version. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

The example under subscripts and superscripts is incorrect chemically. The hydrogen ions should have a positive charge rather than a negative one as shown. Instead of:

H₂SO₄ → 2 H^- + SO₄^2-

we should have:

H₂SO₄ → 2 H⁺ + SO₄^2-

L.Will (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Huon (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2014

170.185.38.19 (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2014

The Pokemon story is one of the worst tutorials on editing. I'm too new to roll back to an earlier version myself. I found a February 2014 version to be better. Coffeebug (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Coffeebug (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done thanks. That was wrong for far too long, so thanks again for noticing it. On my Watchlist now so hopefully won't go overlooked for so long in the future.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2014

→

Boopathi.r (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. (t) Josve05a (c) 10:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Live Society in Decheance

<<extended content removed>> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.183.92 (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not a good place to submit content for the encyclopedia. Instead please see Wikipedia:Your first article. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Buttons?

  On the formatting page, the part about super- and subscripts says:

This code is presented via buttons, just like the Bold and Italic buttons

What buttons does this refer to? The tutorial hasn't introduced us to the editing toolbar, if that's what's meant. And there is no reference to buttons in the Bold and Italic section. - Gorthian (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)  

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2014

Helmylaw (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - you need to say what you think needs to be changed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

HEY HEY RECENT CHANGES PATROLLERS, READ AND REPLY AND SPAM THIS AROUND!!!

Yo. I've a request.

Somebody teach people to use

Foo bar baz.

in place of inline, unnamed references, which clutter the article prose when they include web citations. It makes source editing really hard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.167.30 (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2014

Sercank35 (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014

<my name is adil>

Shaikhadilmunaf (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2015

KENNETHR23 (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Can I edit???

Not this page no. New editors are prevented from editing this page because of problems in the past. You can edit this talk page but it is meant to be about the tutorial, not for general questions. If you want to try editing use your sandbox: the link is at the top of this and every page. If you want to edit an article just go ahead and do it. It would not be "the encyclopaedia that anyone could edit" otherwise.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia tutorials

Should this page link to Wikipedia:Training or Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure? The pages cover similar matureial in different depths/formats but are relatively hard to find from each other. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 01:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2015

HELLO, i would like to edit trisha paytas wiki on some rumors that are not true . im a huge fan of hers and i would just like to help her out .21:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Rosalie boyd (talk)

Rosalie boyd (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Go to Talk:Trisha_Paytas, and leave a message there explaining what needs to be changed, what it needs to be changed to, and why. For example "please change the line saying 'blah blah blah blah' to 'blahdy blah blahdy blah' because this cited source points out 'blah blahdy'". Ian.thomson (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Wrong page. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 21:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2015

BOBY MISHRA — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOBYMISHRA74 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2015

Here is a source to confirm that UNC is the only team to beat the preseason top four teams since the AP began releasing the poll in 1961-1962.This is under the Roy Williams 2003- Present section. f Bgent16 (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Tutorial. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Edit Request on 17 May 2015

I would just like to point out that there is a typo in the tutorial. It is in the introduction of the how to edit tab. The word information is misspelled. — JustinePH (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for reporting it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Merging duplicated paragraphs on this page

I noticed that one paragraph on this page has been copied and pasted into 3 separate help pages on Wikipedia. Can each of these paragraphs be merged into one page? Jarble (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2015

Hello, the alexei berrionuevo page entry on wikipedia used to include information about accusations of plagiarism, including citations and links to sources such as Slate and The New York Times. Now, all of this negative information is gone. Can someone please put it back? I don't think it is fair that this person can clean up his wikipedia entry so it only mentions positive information, while other writers cannot do this.

Here is the page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Barrionuevo

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2008/03/more_plagiarism_same_times_reporter.html

Thank you.

194.2.154.34 (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you are in the wrong place, since this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Tutorial.
The reference to plagiarism was removed from the Alexei Barrionuevo article on 8 December 2013, and the article has only been edited twice since then.
The page is not protected, so you can re-add this information yourself, but it must be written from a neutral point of view and cite reliable sources to back up your editsm without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe there is a missing word or two in one of the tutorial sentences. "An encyclopedia is, by its nature, a tertiary source that provides a survey of information already "available on?" the subject of "the?" publication in the wider world." or perhaps just reword that.

How to turn an unnamed reference into a named reference?

I was working on Pulaski (tool). I wanted to re-use a reference that was already in the ref list, but the ref didn't have a name. I looked for a way to fix this. Couldn't find anything in the tutorials area. Solved my problem (I think) by using another ref that was already named (Egan), and following its syntax, so now Davis is a named reference. But this was rather tough, so I hereby request an improvement to a tutorial. Oaklandguy (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"Only registered users are allowed to become administrators" - keep or delete?

Being an admin shouldn't be considered a trophy - so in my view I think including this line just serves to bring a few more power-hungry people to the wiki. I mean, you're not really going to go from IP editor to admin very quickly, so it might be placing an expectation on new editors. I'm sure they would learn the culture after getting the experience needed for adminship of course if they did genuinely care about the project, but using this line as a way to encourage people to register might not be the best idea. Just an idea I'm proposing. ~ NottNott let's talk! contrib 09:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Visual Editor

Many newcomers to Wikipedia may prefer Visual editor. We should try to either make a parallel version of this series for VE, or at least clear links to its user guide. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 06:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

For those with an interest in VE, I've put together a quick tutorial set at Help:Introduction to. They're all based on the {{intro to}} template:

Help:introduction to editing (VE)

Help:introduction to referencing (VE)

Help:introduction to images (VE)

Now they're finished I'm going to try to start integrating them into the on-boarding/tutorial/training processes. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 10:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse mention?

I was wondering if we could insert a link to the Teahouse or help desk in the first page. I was thinking that it could be done as follows:

This is a basic tutorial, not an extensive manual, interactive learning environment, or a help desk.

We could also phrase it this way:

This is a basic tutorial, not an extensive manual, interactive learning environment, forum for questions about Wikipedia, or a help desk.

I think that it's important to have something that would direct people to these resources on the first page, as people are not always guaranteed to click through an entire presentation/website. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• While I know that these links are listed here, I'm just worried that people won't click on the talk page if they don't see it straight off and adding these to the first page (at least the help desk) doesn't seem like it'd bog it down any. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Section "Renaming articles" image caption mistake

The image under section "Renaming articles"'s caption has a typo. About a line of text is missing. According to Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#How_to_move_a_page, it should be

The move option in the Vector skin appears when you move your mouse cursor over the small drop-down menu, shown here.

instead of

The move Move your mouse cursor over the small drop-down menu, shown here.

--AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@AhmadF.Cheema: Thanks for pointing that out! I'm amazed it went unnoticed for so long. I've fixed it now with a modified version of the wording that you suggested. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 03:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2016

There are two periods at the end of this sentence: "Its goal is to make using Wikipedia easier and more intuitive by promoting clarity and cohesion while helping editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting.." Wwhhllrr (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Aj Honky93 (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Question

Should commas and periods be apart of links to other articles or no? (Like should they be blue or not). Hawkeye75 (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)