Help talk:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Reverted 1 edit by 41.113.250.191 (talk): Unclear addition, not an edit request |
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. (Fix Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter) Tag: |
||
| (29 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{pp-protected|reason=Constant misplaced help requests. Please use the [[WP:TEAHOUSE|Teahouse]] if you need assistance.|small=yes}}
{{Talkpage of help
{{Wikipedia Help Project|importance=High|class=A}}▼
{{central|text=all {{Look from|Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup|Help|"Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup" talk pages}} redirect here.}}
{{Help:Introduction/feedback talk banner}}
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|
{{American English}}
{{annual readership}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
}}
{{archives}}
<!--- Archive basics needs [[User:Technical 13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver]]. Configured by [[User:Mlpearc]] --->
{{Archive basics
Line 17 ⟶ 26:
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Please do not post your requests or questions on this page unless they relate to the ''Tutorial'' article.
For general questions about Wikipedia you can use the '''[[Wikipedia:Help desk|Help desk]]''' and for new editors, you can ask questions at the '''[[Wikipedia:Teahouse|Teahouse]]'''. At the '''[[Wikipedia:Reference desk|Reference desk]]''' you can ask questions about any topic. Volunteers will respond to your questions as soon as possible. [[User:DRAGON BOOSTER|<span style="color:blue;size=2">DRAGON BOOSTER</span>]][[User talk:DRAGON BOOSTER|<span style="color:#33dd44;size=2"> ★</span>]] 13:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
== Problem reading/editing the page ==
Line 58 ⟶ 57:
Need to add: South Mountain Park, Phoenix, Arizona 16,000 acres.
Here's a quote: South Mountain Park in Phoenix, Arizona is the largest municipal park in the United States, and one of the largest urban parks in North America and in the world. It has been designated as a Phoenix Point of Pride. Wikipedia" [[User:Wan Heterotroph|Wan Heterotroph]] ([[User talk:Wan Heterotroph|talk]]) 06:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' this is the [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] for discussing improvements to the page [[:Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1]]. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned.<!-- Template:ESp --> ‑‑'''[[User talk:ElHef|<
== Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2018 ==
Line 75 ⟶ 74:
But your highhanded "editors" don't take the time to check content before deleting. How does speedy deletion without checking for verifiability serving the internet community. Come on wikipedia, do better for your customers or did you not know that your [[volunteer]] [[authors]] are [[customers]]?. [[User:SocaAmbassadour|MissParker]] ([[User talk:SocaAmbassadour|talk]]) 19:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
== Typo ==
Line 105 ⟶ 98:
:::{{u|DESiegel}}, I saw the Teahouse thread after I replied. Since the editor mentioned {{tq|new to ''active'' editing}}, I assume they must have an account that's older than April 2014, which seems like a very rare situation, but I guess if they're asking about it it happens. How about we link to [[Wikipedia:RefToolbar]] over "RefToolbar"? That will provide an option for the (presumably very few) editors experiencing issues to more easily troubleshoot without cluttering things for the majority who don't need the fine print. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 16:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ec}}I initially thought [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/3&type=revision&diff=969356309&oldid=961721355&diffmode=source your edit yesterday] was a sound one, {{u|DESiegel}}, and worthy of a further tweak by me, but I now also appreciate that RefToolbar has actually been activated by default [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_68#Proposal_-_Turn_on_RefTools_gadget_by_default since early 2011]. The discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Why_doesn't_my_edit_box_include_a_%22cite%22_menu? yesterday at the Teahouse] which initiated this change now seems to me to have been sufficiently unusual ''not'' to warrant a specific mention here that RefToolbar can be turned on/off in Preferences>Gadgets. If new users since 2011 have it by default, do we really need to tell everyone about activating it in this Help section? Yes, the questioner who didn't have the Cite button began here in 2009 (so maybe that was why they didn't have a 'Cite' button visible whilst editing, or they'd simply turned it off without appreciating its purpose) but I think most long-standing editors should either know enough to investigate Preferences to find tools for themselves, or know how to ask at a help forum, as that one did. Even just adding ''"'RefToolbar' can be disabled in your [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets|Preferences]] settings"'' would seem rather unnecessary. (Just to note that I've since made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/3&type=revision&diff=969466017&oldid=969374394&diffmode=source some further tweaks] to add clarity and to this page, including a mention of 'Preview' which I suspect is of more value to most readers) I also think Sdkb's (edit conflicted) suggestion above of linking to RefToolbar is a good way to point to "turning it off and on again". [[User:Nick Moyes|Nick Moyes]] ([[User talk:Nick Moyes|talk]]) 16:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
== "The Michigan Daily" example - "letter to the editor" by an author without established reliability? ==
I am surprised that [https://www.michigandaily.com/content/debunking-moon-myth this letter to the editor] is considered a reliable source. The paper itself and anything written by staff, sure; but a letter to the editor can be written by anyone. I can't really find anything else the author has written other than that article, so it is not as though the author is a known authority on the matter. If the paper does its own independent fact-checking, then I could see calling this a reliable source, but I see no indications that that is the case. This seems to have the same issue as the "Forbes" example:
: "Not reliable. Forbes, a well-known American business magazine, might seem at first glance like a reliable source. And indeed, content written by Forbes staffers is considered generally reliable. However, this article was not written by a Forbes staffer, but rather by an unaffiliated contributor. Such articles have little editorial oversight and are considered generally unreliable."
Similarly, the letter to the editor was written by an unaffiliated contributor. That makes me think the answer to the Michigan Daily should be "not reliable". [[User:Ikjbagl|Ikjbagl]] ([[User talk:Ikjbagl|talk]]) 15:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:{{Re|Ikjbagl}} Oh oops, I missed the letter to the editor designation. Yeah, we should probably find some other college fact to use as an example there. Any thoughts on what the best general-interest college fun fact might be? <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 15:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::{{Re|Sdkb}} How about, from [https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/04/03/43rd-stanford-tree-talks-stunts-branching-out/ this article], something like this: "Although Stanford has no official school mascot, each year a student is chosen to be the "Stanford Tree" and wears a costume of their own creation." [[User:Ikjbagl|Ikjbagl]] ([[User talk:Ikjbagl|talk]]) 18:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Ikjbagl}}, sounds good to me; I'll update it. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 18:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
== The Los Angeles Times reference of the first example is identified as Reliable for the wrong reason. ==
The first sample reference is identified as reliable because "news articles from the Los Angeles Times are considered generally reliable." However, the reference is to a blog post hosted by the L.A. Times; it is not to a news article in that publication. As it happens, the blog post is by a writer who works for the Times, so it might still be a reliable reference, but the reason given for it being reliable is not correct. I lack the experience to make an actual correction here and am simply bringing it to the attention of more experienced persons who might feel more confident in correcting it. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Diversitti|Diversitti]] ([[User talk:Diversitti#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Diversitti|contribs]]) </span>
:{{re|Diversitti}} Yeah, I did notice that that article was to a "L.A. Times blog" when I added it. It seems that the ''L.A. Times'' tried out labeling some of their articles as blogs at some point, but as you noticed, they're still written by staffers and still look like they carry the same reliability as the newspaper itself. If it's tripping people up, we could try swapping it out for a different clearly reliable publication that covered the SOPA protest. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 16:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
== language error in link to this page ==
Editing any WP page produces ''Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources.'' Where can i request correction of that text? Correct English is "references to" but "citations of reliable sources". --[[User:Espoo|Espoo]] ([[User talk:Espoo|talk]]) 05:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
:@[[User:Espoo|Espoo]], see [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_185#Changes_to_the_universal_editnotice]]. Cheers, <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 06:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
== "Help:Refs" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect [[:Help:Refs]] and has thus listed it [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|for discussion]]. This discussion will occur at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 14#Help:Refs]] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:deeppink;">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup>[''[[User talk:Tamzin|<span style="color:deeppink;">cetacean needed</span>]]'']</sup> (she/they)</span> 23:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
== Missing sources ==
Sources for claim ''Some cultures still use their teeth as currency today.'' [[User:Porch potato|Porch potato]] ([[User talk:Porch potato|talk]]) 14:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
| |||