Wikipedia talk:Tutorial (historical)/Wrap-up and more info/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Help us make the tutorial better by putting your comments and suggestions here.

Getting Started

I've been fooling around for hours trying to get my first article into the system. For some reason there is nothing in the Tutorial that leads one to posting a page. Seems like if the purpose of Wikipedia is to get articles posted that it would be easy to figure out how to do it. --User:zot/zot

To start a new article, please see Help:Starting a new page. --Jediarchives11 02:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've had to spend a lot of time tracking down how to bold, italicize and link things, how to link to other Wikipedia pages etc but would have liked to find such instructions all in one place. I'm still unclear on how to add a talk page, or if history, edit this page and so on need to be added to each article. Do these options appear on every page? Dawn Davenport

A Rough Ride

I just finished the tutorial. In my opinion it contain a great deal of data to be absorbed. Beginning in the days of VisiCalc, I have found overview / hierarchy charts to be very useful in learning new software. I didn't see any mention of them or what are popularly called a "cheatsheets". I'll keep looking and maybe making my own.

As an aside, while reading some of the material, an antimated brass band could have been playing in the sidebar frame and I might have missed it. I'll have to review parts of the tutorial again or maybe tackle the detailed articles referenced. --DrBobStirling 04:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This tutorial is certainly useful, but very detailed. Maybe someone very familiar with it could right a half-page summary on all important steps and policies, I think it would help. Also I am not a native speaker but I consider my English alright and I found the page on neutrality very confusing. I think an example on a controversial topic like abortion that shows exactly what arguments are included and what weight is given to them might help.

I saw a cheat sheet about a month ago some where. I can't find it anymore though. I'll keep looking a bit more.Yanwen 15:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this help? Wikipedia:Quick guide Yanwen 16:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Help! I don't get it.

I'm still unsure of how to make a pipe. If you gave a bit more to that I would probally understan it better. Thanks for listening.

Say you are editing an article and want to write the next sentences (silly, but still shows the example):

George W. Bush is the son of his father.

And now you want to wikify (make a link) out of the word father, so that when clicking it, you get to the George H. W. Bush. So, the right thing to do is to change father with [[George H. W. Bush|father]]. Here's what you get:

George W. Bush is the son of his father.

And this is a pipe link. I hope you understand. If you still have anymore questions, just ask or see Wikipedia:Piped link. --Jotomicron | talk 16:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Explaining pipes. Usually, when you want to create a link, you just type in the words of the title of the page you want to link to. For example, if I wanted to create a link to the page called 'united kingdom' i would put square brackets around the expression 'united kingdom' e.g.[ united kingdom ] and there would appear a link to that webpage. Now supposing I wanted (for whatever reason) for there be a link to the United Kingdom page, but instead of writing the full word 'united kingdom' surrounded by square brackets I wrote instead 'U.K' surrounded by square brackets. If a reader clicks on 'U.K' he will be led to a separate page called "U.K" which will be a completely separate page to the 'United Kingdom' page, even though both the words refer to the same thing. Computers are too stupid to realise UK and United Kingdom mean the same thing. To solve the problem, we use piping. In this situation, I want the text on the mainpage to read "U.K" but when people click on the word "UK" I want them directed to the 'United Kingdom' webpage and not the completely separate "U.K" webpage. Hence I use the piping technique. *Note, another technique would be for me to redirect traffic from the "UK" wikipedia webpage to the "United Kingdom" webpage. Hope this helps.--ToyotaPanasonic 14:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would still want people to go to the 'united kingdom' webpage if they clicked on 'U.K' and I would not want them to go to the "U.K" webpage (because by definition I want them to go to the 'United Kingdom' webpage). "U.K" and "United Kingdom" while they mean the same thing in English, are really two separate web pages in the computer world. . In this situation I would use a pipe.

Automatic word processor conversion available?

Since most of us are familiar with standard word processors (Microsoft WORD, WordPerfect, etc.) is there a provision to submit (copy and paste from a word processor) text already in such format that your system will automatically convert to Wikipedia markup? If not, may I suggest that this may be the easiest way to at least enter basic text? In longer articles, one will at least have the text already spell checked, and formatted as to paragraphs and sections. If your converter at least recognizes these attributes, then you may get many more submissions from those reluctant to learn an entire new 'language' for the sake of just this site, not that this site does not warrant that.

I suppose what they are trying to avoid is people doing it up in there text editor and then letting the converter do the work, without checking if the resulting syntax is correct, we could end up with sloppy-styled content. Then again, maybe it's just a matter of the hassle of making a converter for different formats / character codes etc.

~ SW 22:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

But surely there would be a big advantage in enabling knowledgeable people to submit text in any old format, and then improving that later, rather than scaring them off by the prospect of having to learn a whole new language?

Patrickjoel 18:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to admit that it is a little cumbersome, BUT we have the little toolbar at the top of this editing text book to aid us. Your idea is a brilliant one and could revolutionise wikipedia. IT MUST BE SUGGESTED in the improvements to Wiki media section (I think it is the right place to suggest such things). --ToyotaPanasonic 14:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

if you look at pages, are you being watched? Can you do with a Mac everything that you can do with a windows pc? It is hard to think up a long term username.

I think it is really stupid how you have to use codes and suff, it is so confusing! And I agree with you, it would be much easier if we could just copy and paste, but i don't think we can because it doesn't say so in the tutoral. Katie Nielsen (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Template tutorial

Something that I've seen used in numerous places on Wikipedia but didn't find in the tutorial was how to design and use templates. Can someone with an understanding of templates add a description?

I don't know much about templates but I found these:

-Yanwen 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing username?

The tutorial was helpful, but I can't find a place to change usernames if I wanted to. Does anyone know how to do this?--Candy 21:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that, currently, the only way to change a username is to get a new one. --Jediarchives11 02:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that administators can change usernames if asked by the user to do so. timrem 19:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I was able to change my username by going to Wikipedia:Changing_username. That did the trick for me. Cmd3187 19:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverting to old versions?

How do you revert a page to an old edition? Thanks! Chkiss 22:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Question from new user

Hi - I just finished the tutorial and have a question. I had originally edited a page about a subject I am very familiar with through my work. Someone added a sentence - stating that our local groups joined a different organization which has always been hostile to us. I would not mind someone adding a sentence, of course, but I happen to know this is not true. I took it off, and substituted a different sentence explaining why local groups are no longer around (our --PetitFei 20:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)structure changed and they were absorbed in the national organization). At some point, the person who wants that sentence on there is going to put it back on. What do I do? Do I just keep taking it off? If he insists he is right, how can I require him to prove it is true? -- Shulae 23:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I have the same problem and question. So I searched around, and I think I have the answer:firstly, chec out the Wikipedia policy. It says:

"Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

Furthermore:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to ::::::::remove it.

I guess you have to first provide a good source for your changes. You could then deal with the issue in the "discussion " page, and there, ask the person to provide a reliable source for HIS/HER changes to the article.

If you both have reliable sources, I suppose they will both have to go into the article!

MarinaC 12:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's basically a matter of it's only an issue if someone makes it one. As long as someone else doens't want the sentence to change back, you're good to go. If they do want the sentence back, then the idea is to discuss it on the Talk page and try and see if you can't come to an agreement as to what the article should say. If you have any further questions, let me know! Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 14:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are wrong in whatever assertion you are tyring to make and the other person is correct, even though, to all your knowledge, you believe what you are saying is the truth and nothing but the truth. But look at it from the other persons point of view - unless he is deliberately trying to mislead the wiki community, he probably feels that YOU have got YOUR facts wrong. So the only way to resolve such disputes without an 'edit war' happening would be to go to the talk page and state your reasons and your sources as to why you are correct and why he is wrong. hopefully a conclusion will there arise; but no facts are absolute and the fact itself may be very contentious. In such cases, where to people attest to the veracity of two diamterically opposite, mutually exclusive statements, no conclusion is readily available. Truth and fact are generally a statistic. So if everyone holds as fact that Maurice Green won in the olypics it will be held so, despite you knowing apart from this truth.--ToyotaPanasonic 14:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Language

Ok, I just joined wikipedia, did the tutorial, and started some editing. I speak more then one language so I wanted to edit a page in French also. But then, my log in info didn't work in the French version, does that mean I can't use the same profile when writing in different languages? How do I associate my profile with other languages?

It's really a bummer if I have to create a new account for each language. --PetitFei 20:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I use both English and French version also. Yes, you have to create a new profile for each version. Sorry. ^v^ [[User:orngjce223|my home page...[[Talk:orngjce223|my talk page]]]] 16:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation of articles

I would be interested in translating some articles from english to romanian, because there are very few articles in this language. I cannot write articles but I can translate some of them. Would it be legal? Of course I would also cite the english version of the article, in the section External Links. I tried to find an answer to my question but I could not, so I would like to get a short and clear answer. Thank you!

answered at user page.

Of course it would be legal!! Wiki is where anyone can do anything! And if what you do does not conform to guidelines, the worst that can happen to your editing will be that it will be reverted to its original state before you did the editing. I highly encourage you to start the transformation process to romainian. also don't forgot to sign in and put your signature at the end so I can easily send you a message to your talk page. ToyotaPanasonic 14:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Guide in General

In general, this guide is excellent and I recommend it for anyone that would like to know how to contribute to wikipedia successfully. Rubikfreak 04:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wrap-up and more info)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Chuck_Marean/sandbox&oldid=81171908

Concerning Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wrap-up and more info), this fits within square screens:

{| style="width:95%"
|-
| 
Left column             
|
Right column                                      
|}

Is there anything else to learn? This tutorial has been kept short and sweet, but you can always learn more. Continue your learning through the links below.

Advice and general information...

The Frequently Asked Questions answers the most common questions about all aspects of Wikipedia.
Faux pas avoidance helps you avoid some common mistakes.
Know how to contribute, but not what to write about? See Contributing to Wikipedia for help.
Learn how articles grow at Article development.
Examples of some of Wikipedia's best articles, based on these criteria.
Abbreviated glossary — the ten most likely words you'll encounter.

Editing and policy references...

"Cheatsheet" listing the basic editing commands.
How to edit a page is a far more detailed version, with information on things like character sets and variables.
How to start a page
Manual of Style is a comprehensive style guide for Wikipedia articles.
NPOV tutorial is a tutorial on how to write from a neutral perspective.
Annotated article
The Community Portal provides links to community resources — this page is always available in the navigation sidebar.
Policies and guidelines

-- Chuck Marean 08:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My point is that col-2 gives 50% and that doesn't seem to take into account the border. 50+50+ the border is wider that 100 and that could explain why the ends of the lines and the right border is cut off in square screens. Using the following code instead of col-2 solves the problem.

{| style="width:95%"
|-
| 
Left column             
|
Right column                                      
|}

--Chuck Marean 18:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The table

The table is in a border equal to 5%. A table set at 100% adds on to that, making 105%. This causes the right inch of the page to be cut off in many computers.The solution is to change the table to 95%. The markup itself can be put on the page, since the template is not for the picture of the day. After that is done, the width can be changed to 95% without harm to anyone and with great benefit to those whose screens can’t show 105%. -- Chuck Marean 19:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In other words, the quickest way to make the correction is to replace {{col-begin}} with {| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="{{{class|}}}" style="background-color: {{{bgColor|transparent}}}; width: {{{width|95%}}}" . -- Chuck Marean 20:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That fix it? --Quiddity 22:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Table plus border

The table in "Is there anything else to learn" and the border around the whole tutorial page add together. Both sides of the border together are 5%. When the table is set at 100%, that makes 105% and many computers can't show 105% as if it were 100%. To be fair, the table should be set at 95%. It's done as follows:

{{MultiCol|95%}}
This text appears in the first column.
{{ColBreak}}
This text appears in the second column.
{{ColBreak}}
This text appears in the third column.
{{EndMultiCol}}

-- Chuck Marean 08:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Error

I just noticed that if a vandal is caught then they can simply make up a new username and do it again. Is there anything we can do to stop this?Asteroidz R not planetz 13:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No. We just trust that they either learn or go away. Michaelbusch 17:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Copywright

I am unsure from this tutorial as to the specifics of copywright, eg. how to find out if something is copywright, whether there are instances that you can use copywright information with a citation, whether you need to ask permission for everything from a certain web page individually, etc. Also regarding books - how do you reference them, request permission for use, or do you even need to request if you reference properly? Frickeg 05:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

(1) The copyright laws to be abided by must be US copyright laws, because the WIkipedia server is located in the USA. Copyright laws vary drastically from state to state. (2) How you find out if something is copyright? Generally, copyright subsists in ANYTHING written: published or unpublished. Copyright basically means that you cannot: (1) Copy (2) reproduce in any material form (e.g. from text to sound, from DVD to CD etc. etc.) a substantial portion of any written work. Basically, you are not allowed to COPY anything unless you have permission. BUT, you can state the same things others have written etc. in your own words. FOr example, say you have read about the theory of relativity, nothing can stop you from writing about it in Wikipedia, so long as you don't COPY (i.e. use the exact same words Einstein used in his explanations). You most certainly can explain relativity in your own words. Technicially you CAN copy PROVIDED you don't copy a SUBSTANTIAL part of the original material? Now what exactly is a substantial part - this is an issue that courts define - use your commonsense, if you quote one or two words from the text of a newspaper e.g. 'this is a day that will live in infamy' - that should not be all that bad; but you cannot cut and paste whole articles and paragraphs from other sources without getting people's permission. (3) whether there are instances that you can use copywright information with a citation??? I think you may be confusing copyright violations with plagiarism. Plagiarism refers to the world of academics. There, you MUST cite otherwise you will be guilty of academic misconduct. With copyright, if you breach it by copying a substantial part of someone else's work without their permission, it doesn't matter whether you cited or gave acknowledgement of their work or not. Copyright would have been breached because you have copied. But, for copyright to ahve been breached, you must have copied a substantial part. (4) For webpages, you definitely need to ask permission if you are copying their specific words. Don't do this. You are allowed to rehash their wording and put it into your own words - in the end, whatever you do, so long as you: (1) haven't copied and (2) haven't copied a substantial part, you should be fine and there will not be any breach in copyright. Note, if you re-hash people's words and don't give proper acknowledgement you will be guilty of academic misconduct though.

(5) No need to reference. Just don't copy the specific words. You can restate the information contained therein (there is no copyright in ideas, but only copyright in expression), but you can't copy the words, sentence structures etc. You need permission from the publishers of each book if you seek to copy substantial parts of it.

(6) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Nobody can copyrgiht information. So if the newspapers write about, for example, shane warne's retirement today, you too can add that information into SK Warne's page, so long as you don't copy the specific words of the paper. No need for referencing to protect yourself from copyright, but you should reference for the benefit of readers. hoep this helps. --ToyotaPanasonic 14:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)--ToyotaPanasonic 14:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

suggestion to improve the main page ToyotaPanasonic 13:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

this page is quite important in wikipedia. It should be more concise, too many words here for my liking.

Suggestions: the tutorials did not make any mention of how to revert changes, and accessing and understanding how to view/change things in the history column.

Image tutorial needed with templates for sources, etc

I am new user, thought I had done everything right, but get bots saying my image is not correctly attributed, copyright not properly done, source not listed, etc. Things I thought I had done.

Wikipedia really needs a thorough tutorial on images and proper usage.DavidPickett 06:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-website citations

The tutorial does a reasonable job explaining how to cite sources that are accessable by URL. It wasn't that clear how to cite sources from a book. How do you cite sources from non-standard sources, such as college transcripts? Lon of Oakdale (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:CITE for details. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

College transcripts are rarely verifiable by people who are not the student in question, so not that great a source to begin with, as well. Better to stick with things that are generally accessible by readers. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Images

I think that Images (how to insert etc.) should also be explained in this tutorial -- C D 18:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)