It is approximately 3:45 AM where this user lives.
A few questions for you to start off this adoption:
1) Would you prefer to be called Scribbleink, Scribble, or something else?
2) What is your goal in contributing to Wikipedia?
3) What time zone do you live in?
4) What do you expect to get out of this mentorship?
5) What picture would you like on this page to represent you? It can be a picture of anything, and it doesn't have to be one that you've uploaded yourself. For some examples, see User:Missionedit/Adoption/Molly's Mind or User:Missionedit/Adoption/Hisashiyarouin.
~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
1) Please call me Nik. My username is a cryptic crossword clue leading to that, wherein scribble is the action verb for an anagram and ink is the payload that needs to be jumbled. Thank you, Anastasia, for taking me under your wing.
2) In terms of the big picture: editing. As an ardent consumer of the information on Wikipedia, and a participating donor, I would like to take the next step and give information back to the source I'm tapping from. In terms of short term goals, I want to make at least 500 clean edits, earn AFCH privileges, complete my existing WIP article and gather sufficient knowledge of the guidelines to help review existing AfC submissions.
3) Pacific Time Zone
4) A sounding board for when the fog is too thick. A navigator to point me in the right direction. A filter to help me wade through the swamps here in WikiVerse. And a philtre when nothing seems to work. No pressure.
@Scribbleink: Great--good to know. My pleasure to become your adopter! Clever anagram you made up there :) I prefer to be called Anastasia or Stasia.
We can start with the five pillars (fundamentals) of Wikipedia, if you like. I just recently discovered the virtues of collapsible tables, and prefer to use them to organize lessons. If you can think of a better way to organize them, just let me know and I'll fix it. I'll try to get the first lesson up ASAP.
I've also found the ping template (used at the beginning of this reply) to be very useful on adoption pages. It sends a notification to the user named without the cumbersome clunkiness of a talkback template. It looks like this: {{ping|user you are responding to}}. Feel free to use it, but you don't have to as I check my watchlist daily. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
@Scribbleink: Good thinking about the collapse tables. I had forgotten to change the one at Hisashiyarouin's adoption page if that's what you're referring to. I just fixed it now. I don't really think Template:CTableStart will be deleted, only modified a bit, so I'm not concerned. I'll get a lesson up soon when I get the time. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
These are the five "pillars", or fundamental principles, of Wikipedia. I've reworded them a little from the original to further explain/simplify.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia incorporates various elements of reference materials such as encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not for advertising, propaganda, or social networking. It is also not a dictionary, newspaper, or collection of source documents; there are sister projects for this. The goal of Wikipedia is to form a comprehensive online encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
Wikipedia strives for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We present no such opinion as being "the truth" or "the right position" (in theory). Every allegation must be backed up by references, especially when concerning a controversial topic or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here.
Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute.
Wikipedia is free for others to edit, use, modify, and distribute. No editor owns an article, so everything you write is free to be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will. Respect copyright laws, and never plagiarize from sources.
Editors should treat each other with respect and civility.
Wikipedia has millions of editors who are bound to disagree on some topics. If a conflict arises, you should discuss your disagreement on the nearest talk page and remain level-headed without accusing. Just because another editor may be attacking you does not mean that you should to engage in similar behavior.
Wikipedia has no firm rules.
Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and nothing is carved in stone. Sometimes improving Wikipedia means making an exception to the rule. Be bold in your edits (but not reckless) and don't worry about making a mistake, as you can always fix it.
@Missionedit: I see you used the "never plagiarize" part of the third pillar in summarizing these rules for my benefit, thanks! Regarding the undue weight part of NPOV, does it suggest that minority groups will eventually not have any place in Wikipedia? More specifically, how minor does a viewpoint have to become until it is ignored? scribble · inkchat\contrib 00:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Scribbleink: Well. :) It's not so much a matter of how "minor" a viewpoint is, or how many people believe in it, but more a matter of how much evidence a viewpoint has to support it. In order to be ignored, a viewpoint would have have virtually no believers in it and no evidence to support it. If gave me an example of what you mean, it would be easier to explain. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Apologies, I meant to say minority and majority based on evidence, but I typed belief instead. That very fact means it is difficult, if not impossible, to be truly unbiased in one's contributions (as hard as we may try). I'd like to present two examples here.
Studies show that there has been a steady decline in the quality of newcomer editors (of which I'm a possible part of) to English Wikipedia.[1][2] I argue that newcomer editors represent a minority viewpoint and that there exists a systemic bias in English Wikipedia against them. I understand the merits of the system, e.g. against vandalism, but it exists nevertheless, and I do feel it. I don't know if and/or what I can do about it :)
There exist certain topics, say sub-spheres of Astrology, for which evidence is harder to garner and argue about truly logically and scientifically than other topics, so does it mean that Wikipedia isn't a place to write about them? Isn't it possible that verifiability prevents certain topics from becoming part of the so-called "encyclopaedia of human knowledge"? scribble · inkchat\contrib 17:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Scribbleink: I agree with you :) In my opinion, there is no way to be completely neutral when writing an encyclopedia. We can mostly keep ourselves free from propaganda and advertising, and try to present all points of view, but there is really no way to make an encyclopedia with out asserting some kind of truth. In reality, Wikipedia presents the world from a naturalistic point of view, assuming that everything has evolved from nothing. and that there are no gods or a God. While it does have whole articles on religion, all these are presented as only "beliefs", and never possibly truth. The Wiki also has a rather strong LGBT bent, whether its editors know it or not. You are right: It is impossible to be completely unbiased when writing an encyclopedia. We can do our best, but it will never be perfectly neutral. And it doesn't have to be. The world loves it for trying. Wikipedia is a reflection of the dominant worldview of today. If it had been written 200 years ago, it would be coming from a theistic viewpoint.
I know what you're talking about when you say there is bias against new editors. This is not something of policy, because there are many pages dedicated to helping the "newbies". It is rather a personal bias of certain older editors against the new ones, and not too much can be done about that. Except, of course, reminding them of how much Wikipedia needs new editors :)
As to limitations of verifiability, if there is no outside info on a viewpoint, it is safe to assume it is not notable enough to include in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of information that already exists, not of unverifiable original research or fortune telling. See WP:NOT for more on that topic.
I know just threw a lot at you :) Do I need to clarify anything? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Missionedit: No, Anastasia, you have made it quite clear :) Thanks. I wasn't looking for an answer, instead an acknowledgement of my interpretation of the current state of Wikipedia. I believe it aligns well with yours. Consequently, I feel more optimistic about what I can learn here. Let us proceed. scribble · inkchat\contrib 09:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
@Scribbleink: Great! I'm glad we see to have similar viewpoints. Next lesson on templates coming up as soon as I can post it :) I know Anastasia is a rather long name to to type, you can call me Stasia if you prefer. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Templates allow you to post large sections of text or complicated sections of code while only typing a few characters. All templates have "Template:" as a prefix (eg. Template:Cite web or Template:User Sandbox). Templates work similarly to regular links, but instead of using [[double square brackets]], you use {{curly brackets}}. To "call" a template, just type the title of the template between the curly brackets. Whenever you call a template, the content of the template page will be displayed. You don't need to include the "Template:" prefix; the MediaWiki software automatically searches within the Template namespace for what you're looking for. Only if the page you're looking for is in a different namespace (has different prefix), such as "User:" or "Wikipedia:", do you need to specify it. See below:
This calls Template:User en. Everything on that page (that is marked to be included, see below) appears where I type the page title between double curly brackets.
When I specify the User: namespace, the userbox at that location appears. Thus, a template does not have to be in the Template: namespace to work.
In that last example, I get a {{{1}}} where a number should appear. This is due to the fact that I did not specify a parameter in that template. A named parameter looks like this:
|(parameter name goes here) = (value goes here)
and an unnamed parameter looks like this:
|(value goes here)
Parameters allow you to change certain aspects of a template. One template you can use to welcome new users, Template:W-basic, has several parameters which can customize its appearance. Most of those parameters are named, meaning that you have to specify what the name of the parameter is when you use it by putting something after the equal sign. If you set the parameter "anon" to "true" in this template: {{w-basic|anon=true}}, the template will generate a message directed especially towards anonymous users, rather than just the normal message. The advantage to named parameters like these is that they can be placed in any order, however, they must be spelled exactly right or they will not work. The template also uses an unnamed parameter, a parameter which does not have to be specified when it is put into use. Templates automatically assign a number to unnamed parameters when they are used, starting with "1". {{w-basic|message}} sets the unnamed parameter "1" to "message", which is what that parameter is used for in that template. The userbox above can specify the number of states visited with that same unnamed parameter. Unnamed parameters must be in sequential order to work properly.
There are two ways to call a template. Transclusion is simply calling a template as I showed you above: {{exampletemplate}}. This displays the template where you put the call for it, but leaves the curly bracketed call in place so that it's easy to remove. This also causes the template to update every time the page is loaded, if it has been edited or has a time-sensitive variable. Substitution, or "subst'ing" a template, causes the opposite effect. To substitute a template, add the code "subst:" at the beginning of the call: {{subst:exampletemplate}}. When you save the page, the MediaWiki software will replace that call with the template's code. This causes all the content of the template to virtually be copy-pasted to your page. This makes it more difficult to remove, because instead of the simple template call, you've probably got lines of code that are now clogging up your article/page. Depending on how the template it written, it may require subst'ing to work properly, or it may require transclusion. The page at WP:SUBST gives details on what templates should, must, or must not be substituted.
Code
Displays
Comments
{{CURRENTTIME}}
10:45
Template is transcluded, so updates every time you load the page.
{{subst:CURRENTTIME}}
01:47
Template is substituted, so is stuck on the time I saved this page.
{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTTIME}}
10:45
Here, the template acts as though it were transcluded on the source page of this lesson, User:Hersfold/Adopt/Templates. However, it was substituted when I placed this lesson on your adoption page, and so is stuck at the time shown.
@Scribbleink: I know this is a lot to absorb and understand, especially if you have no experience with computer coding. If you completely drowned in the jargon in this lesson, please tell me (I can write a simpler lesson). These are only the basics of templates. We can cover more advanced stuff later, but only if you really want to. Any questions? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Stasia, I'm fluent in general coding and markup, just new specifically to the Wikimedia syntax. I would like more information on the tag includeonly, which isn't yet fully clear to me as to when to use during editing regular articles. This was a fun exercise, and I especially liked how you explained template transclusion. I believe the only way to fully understand something is to get my hands dirty and try it out. Based on your information and some light reading[1][2], I tried out how a custom signature might be generated. I'm not sure it works for anyone else because I could only test it with my user logged in, but here it is (after applying the subst): ←ǁ Penned by Jonesey95 (talk) on Tuesday, the 19th day of November, 23 years after the founding of Wikipedia, at 10:45 AM. ǁ
Good to know that you have a background in computer coding, Nik. I'll keep that in mind. The <includeonly> and <noinclude>tags are not for use in editing regular articles. Instead, they are used as specials effects in template coding. Any text enclosed within the includeonly tag will only appear when the template is called. It won't appear on the template page, or in previews when editing the template. As a result, any code included in these tags will not be executed until the template is called. Any text enclosed within the noinclude tag is not included in the template when it is called, but it will show up on the template page and in page previews.
@Scribbleink: Your custom signature looks very nice :) There are a few glitches, though. The {{REVISIONUSER}} template displays the username of the most recent editor of the page you post it on, and not necessarily the username of the one who originally wrote it. Therefore, since I am the most recent editor of the page, it displays my name. Another thing is the "... [so many] years after the founding of Wikipedia" part. Many editors do not know the founding year for Wikipedia, and would have to click on the link to find out. Furthermore, if an editor is a lousy mathematician, they will have problems calculating the year you posted your signature, and perhaps get the year wrong. For this reason you should probably make this section more simple. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Thanks. You're too kind. My motivation was to replicate what the four tildes do in regular signatures, but in my own way. It seems like there isn't a template or variable that provides the current username due to cache concerns,[3] so I updated my template to use the tildes instead. Additionally, I took your suggestion and simplified the year. I also put in the <includeonly> tag to use. Here is my updated template, after subst. ←ǁ Penned by scribble · inkchat\contrib on Tuesday, the 19th day of November, 2024, at 10:45 AM. ǁ
@Scribbleink: Nice job--one more thing: Instead of displaying the time you wrote your signature, your template displays the current time. "Subst"-ing the current time templates should fix this problem. Speaking of signatures, I'll try to get the next lesson on Wikiquette up ASAP. You probably know all that stuff, but it's good to go over every once and a while. If you have something you want to do a lesson on, tell me and we can do that next. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
"Wikiquette" is, as I'm sure you know, a portmanteau of "Wikipedia" and "etiquette". If this stuff is boring for you, please tell me what you would like to cover instead and we can learn that. Otherwise next lesson will be on vandalism.
You've seemed to have figured this out already. When you're responding to something I write, you use one colon. When I then respond to you, you use two colons. When you then respond to me, you use three colons. When you want to respond to the original post, then you just go back to using one colon. Think of it this way: whatever you want to respond to, preface it with one more colon than what it had already.
Avoid these mistakes which have been made by many an editor:
Don't create autobiographical articles or articles about someone close to you, company articles, dictionary-type articles (we have Wiktionary for that), or redundant articles. For the last one, it's easy to figure out if you're creating something redundant; just type in the search term into the search box and see if what comes up covers your topic.
Whenever you delete content, be sure you give an explanation as to why. Even if you revert vandalism, say that it's vandalism. Also, try not to delete valuable content just because it's poorly written and biased; instead, just rewrite it.
There are also Wikiquette rules for signatures. You can customize a signature any way you want using CSS and other code (as you have discovered). There are a few no-nos, though.
Do not copy another editor's signature. Even making it look somewhat like another editor's signature is wrong. Linking to someone else's user page on your signature is also a big mistake.
Don't make your signature too big. This can effect the way the surrounding text is displayed. Be sparing with your superscript and subscript, too. It can sometimes cause a similar problem. Don't make your signature too small, either, then we won't know who you are :) When you use different colors, make sure that color-blind people will still be able to read it without a problem.
Do not include images in your signature. It's wrong for a number of reasons, including server slowdown, distraction, comment displacement, and cluttering up the "File links" section every time you comment. You can use webdings or wingdings to get an image effect if you really want, because these are technically fonts and not images.
Keep your signatures short enough that they don't take up a whole line of text when you comment.
Make sure that your signature always links to at least your user page, talk page, and/or contributions page.
Don't include any external links at all or internal links that have no purpose to building the encyclopedia.
Assume good faith when approaching someone who has these problem signatures and be polite.
@Scribbleink: I know you don't need a test for this one, but it's good to know this stuff about signatures just in case. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Indeed, that was good to know. I'll have to make sure my signature isn't as colorful the next time I change it. There was quite a bit of reading material in the links you provided and I'm not sure I've done it justice in a single perusal, so I'll have to go through it again later. Please proceed with the lesson on vandalism. Also, wish you a wonderful new year! scribble · inkchat\contrib 06:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
@Scribbleink: A happy new year to you, too, Nik! I'll start working on the vandalism lesson. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
What we're going to do now is get started with some basic vandalism patrols. This is by no means something you will be obligated to do as an editor, many people prefer to do other things. But it is something you should know how to do due to the high risk of vandalism on Wikipedia, and you are likely to run into some. Should you ever wish become an administrator, you will be expected to deal with vandalism at least in some respect.
Wikipedia is, as you know, a wiki, meaning anyone can edit virtually any page. This is both a blessing and a curse: while it does allow a wide range of information to be added and shared, it also allows people with less than benevolent intentions to come in and mess around with stuff. It requires a fair amount of work being done 24/7 by well-intentioned editors to ensure that this vandalism does not run rampant and destroy Wikipedia. Fortunately, with the enormous amount of volunteers across the world, this doesn't really cause a problem. Various tools aid our cause and help us "revert", or remove, vandalism within minutes or even seconds.
What we define vandalism as is "an edit which is deliberately attempting to harm the encyclopedia" to an article or other page. Most commonly, these are pretty blatant - replacing a whole page or section with curse words, simply removing entire sections, and so forth. Occasionally, it's less obvious, like changing key words in a section to completely alter the meaning. Basically, anything that can't be helpful at all to the article should be considered vandalism. However, you should always remember to assume good faith for questionable cases.
The tool most commonly used to combat vandalism is Special:RecentChanges. Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across Wikipedia within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left of any page on Wikipedia. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks:
I'm going to explain what all these terms mean. Many of these terms are used across the project
A "diff" is the difference between two revisions. Wikipedia has a special feature that allows you to compare revisions to see exactly what was changed. This is particularly useful when on vandal patrol, as this is the best thing available to tell you if the edit was or was not vandalism. Clicking on the link above will only take you to the help page on diffs, unfortunately, however an actual diff link will bring you to a screen that looks like this one, an actual diff of another article. Content removed appears in red text in a yellow box on the left; content added appears in red text in a green box on the right.
The "hist" link will bring you to the page's history. You can click on the "hist" link above to get to the help page for this feature. A page's history lists all edits ever made to a page, something which is required under the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia's licensing.
The next link is the article that the edit was made to.
The time stamp will indicate when the edit was made. The time will appear in your time zone, as you have it defined in your Special:Preferences. Note that this is different from signature timestamps, which are always in UTC/GMT time.
The green or red number after the timestamp will tell you how much was added or removed to the article in the edit. A green "+" number shows the number of bytes added to the article - a red "-" number indicates the number removed. In general, the number of bytes is equal to the number of characters, however this is not always the case: Certain special characters can contain more than one byte, and templates can completely mess this number up. Templates will be covered in another lesson later on, however you will be using some in your patrols later. This number will be in bold if a very large number of characters were removed, which is usually a good indicator of vandalism.
The next part is the name of the user who made the edit, which will link to their user page. In this case, an IP address made the edit, so the link will instead go to their contributions. Since most vandalism comes from these anonymous editors, this serves as another convenience to those on patrol. The user name is followed by a link to their talk page.
The last part of a RC report is the edit summary. When editing a section of an article, the title of that section will automatically be included in the edit summary, as you see above. Other special edit summaries include "Replaced page with..." and "Blanked the page". In general, these last two are dead giveaways for vandalism edits, however you will occasionally see an editor blank his own user or user talk page, so be careful about that.
Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to go and find some vandalism edits. I don't want you to remove the edit yourself just yet - we'll get to this shortly and chances are, another editor or bot will beat you to it. So before you go on, go to Special:RecentChanges and find three vandalism edits. So that I can check your work and we can discuss things, I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below. (This is most easily done by copying the URL from your address bar while you're viewing the diff.)
Due to the very nature of vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible you will encounter something that will offend you. I take this time to point out Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, which basically says that you can find just about anything on here and it's not WP's fault. While you may find something offensive in your searches and subsequent vandal patrols, it is best to simply brush it off and not take it to heart. Later on, when you are actually reverting vandalism, it is possible that your own user pages will be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore and simply remove it. I do not tell these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible, although exceedingly rare. In many cases, these attempts to attack you are in fact somewhat amusing. If it occurs, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you actually have a life. Please add your signature here (~~~~) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning:scribble · inkchat\contrib 05:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, If you're using anything but Internet Explorer, I would suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. Then save your preferences and refresh the page. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more information can be found at WP:TWINKLE.
To revert vandalism, you go to "View history" on a page. Now click the "Compare selected revisions" button and find the vandalism reversion. Since you now have Twinkle, you should see three options: "Rollback (AGF)", "Rollback", and "Rollback (VANDAL)". The first one you shouldn't use unless it's obviously good faith (hence AGF, Assuming Good Faith), and we're not talking about that. The third one you should only use if it's a repeat offender who has a significant amount of vandalism under their belt. Usually for new editors you will use the second one.
There many different templates available to warn vandals after you've reverted their edit. I would recommend using Twinkle. If you are, the first step will be under the "Wel" button, while the rest will be under "Warn":
If this is a new editor's first edit, you welcome them and use either {{welcomevandal}} if they have a username or {{welcome-anon-vandal}} if they are an IP editor. You always link the article that you found the vandalism on.
If, after their welcoming, they are still vandalizing, you use a "General notice (1)". {{uw-vandalism1}} is the general, though if you can get more specific, try.
If they are still vandalizing, you use a "Caution (2)".
If they continue to vandalize, you use a "Warning (3)".
If they still continue their vandalism, you use a "Final warning (4)".
If, even after all your warning, they continue vandalism, you've warned them long enough. You report them to administrators using "APV" on Twinkle. Fill in as much as possible and send the notice on your merry way. The admins will do what they have to afterwards.
If someone has a level 3 warning on one charge (such as vandalism), but doesn't have one on another (like using a talk page as a forum), start with a level 1 warning on the new charge. I've found that some vandals have multiple charges.
Occasionally, you'll get an editor who won't stop vandalizing even after the final warning. When this happens, there is no choice left but to block them, which is something only an administrator can do. AIV, or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is just for this specific purpose. You can report them using Twinkle, as Twinkle has the option "ARV", which allows you to fill out a form that get sent to WP:AIV. Once it gets sent, there is no more left for you to do; let the admins handle it. However, if I were you, I would keep track of the editor and what the admins decide on for punishment.
Scared vandals. There are those kinds of vandals that make one kind of unhelpful edit (like replacing a heading with "muahaha" or some type of gibberish) thinking that everyone on Wikipedia does that. They then get a warning and are scared straight immediately. They either choose not to edit ever again or become upstanding editors.
Repeat vandals. The repeat vandals are bored and looking for a little fun. Once again, most of their vandalism is gibberish replacing good text. You can give them as many warnings as you want, but they won't bother. Once you get past the level 4 warning for them, you report them to WP:AIV and the admins deal with them.
Belligerent vandals. These vandals are similar to the repeat vandals, except the belligerent vandals will often leave a nasty note on your talk page or vandalize your user page when you give them a warning. Then you can give them two warnings: one for vandalism and one for personal attacks. If something like this happens, you just have to take it in stride. Personally, being a Christian, I find vandals forgivable. But without that factor, I guess you just have to remember that there will be mean people in the world, and that you can't let them get you down. Just revert their offence and hand them a {{uw-npa}} warning of whatever severity you deem necessary.
Malicious vandals. These are hardest to notice, because their edits aren't immediately recognizable. They will seem to be improving the article at first glance, when really they're replacing true information with false, often libelous parodies. Others replace valid links with shock sites, or add hidden comments with offensive information. This last version doesn't actually appear in the article, but is there waiting when someone comes to edit it. A similar type of vandal, the "on wheels" vandal, is here for the sole purpose of destroying the encyclopedia. The namesake, User:Willy on Wheels, replaced dozens of pages with the text "{{BASEPAGENAME}} has been vandalized by User:Willy on Wheels!" The BASEPAGENAME variable is a magic word that displays the name of the page. After his blocking, Willy continued to create hundreds of sockpuppets for the same purpose. This sort of vandal is clearly here to vandalize, as such actions are not accidental. With them, you can safely assume bad faith right from the start and slam them with a more severe warning. You don't have to escalate level warnings in all cases - if there is no doubt that the edit was made with bad intentions, you may start with a higher level than normal. In this case, you can give them {{uw-vandalism4im}}. If they continue vandalizing (which they probably will), report them to WP:AIV.
@Scribbleink: Tah-dah! You have just successfully read through one of the longest and most tedious lessons of this course. If you have problems with Twinkle or any other questions please tell me. The point of your assignment is to get you familiar with finding vandalism. After you find a couple instances, we can then move on to reverting vandalism. Unless, of course, you have previous experience with fighting vandalism? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Phew! This sounds like an area of concern that's also an opportunity for new editor contribution. I'm ready. Now all I need to do is be faster than some of the bots on here for rollback. Kidding, of course. Had to bring in some humor given I was away for longer than I expected for personal reasons. Once again, thanks Stasia, for your patience and guidance. scribble · inkchat\contrib 05:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You're very welcome :) The Polysemy diff is the typical content blanking-type vandalism, the Current events portal diff is the same. However, the edit to National Certificate is not vandalism. it's just some Filipino person not realizing they can't contribute in Filipino on the English Wikipedia. The only one that has not yet been fixed is National Certificate. You may revert the edit it as it does not contribute significantly to the article.
Assignment: Find an article that has been vandalized and fix it, following the necessary procedures. List the article here and explain why you had to revert the edit. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Sockeye salmon, changed by 95.131.179.202. The change broke an infobox field and introduced gibberish, hence the revert. Based on the history on this IP address' talk page, I upgraded the warning level to 3 and left a message there for future editors/admins. scribble · inkchat\contrib 07:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Deletion theory is one of the most discussed and contentious issues on Wikipedia. There are two primary factions, the inclusionists and the deletionists. The full policy on deletion is located here.
While Wikipedia does strive to include as much information as possible, there is a practical limit as to what we're going to include as an article. Just because you think your pet cat is the cutest thing on the planet, that does not mean you should create an article about it. There's a whole list of things that Wikipedia is not. Some relate simply to style or formatting, such as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia or Wikipedia is not censored. Most, however, relate to the content of the encyclopedia, and what is considered encyclopedic and what isn't. WP:NOT is an official policy, which means that all articles must adhere to it. If they don't, they're at risk of deletion. This lesson will have a test.
WP:CSD, short for "Criterion for speedy deletion", is, in its most practical form, a tag which you place on articles that need to be deleted "speedily", or as soon as possible. These are the following criterion for speedy deletion in article space (you rarely need to use it in any other space):
G1. Patent nonsense: Basically total gibberish or words that seem like they're supposed to mean something, but make no sense at all.
G2. Test page: A page used for Wikipedia testing. It can be hard to distinguish between this and G1 sometimes, but test pages are usually something like only bold/italics marks, a user's name written all over the page, an empty page that looks like it was created accidentally in article space, etc.
G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes: Anything that is obviously vandalism or a hoax.
G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: A identical (or almost identical) copy of a previously deleted article.
G5. Creations by banned or blocked users: Pages that a banned or blocked user try to create under their block or ban. This one is pretty rare.
G6. Technical deletions: Pages that serve no purpose, like a disambiguation page with one link.
G7. Author requests deletion: If only one person has edited a page and the talk page and wants the article to go, they file it under G7. Page blanking by the author falls under G7 too.
G8. Pages dependent on a nonexistent or deleted page: e.g. a redirect that redirects to a deleted page.
G9. Office actions: The Wikimedia Foundation requests deletion. Extremely rare -- neither you nor I can request CSD per G9.
G10. Attack pages: Pages intended to put down or harass someone else-- e.g. "Missionedit and Scribbleink SUCK!!!!"
G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion: e.g. "Come to JIM'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE! Crazy prices! Unbelievable furniture condition!"
G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement: Complete and obvious plagiarism from copyrighted source(s).
G13. Abandoned articles for creation submissions: An Articles for Creation submission that hasn't been edited in over 6 months.
A1. No context: A very short article that doesn't tell you who/what the article is about.
A2. Foreign language articles that already exist somewhere: E.g. an article written in French that already exists either on the French Wikipedia or (in English) on the English Wikipedia.
A3. No content: There is no actual prose here, only links/templates/images.
A5. Transwikied articles: E.g. a dictionary definition that is already at Wiktionary.
A7. No indication of importance: Any article on an individual, individual animal, organization, web content, or organized event that does not tell you why the thing is notable.
A9. No indication of importance (musical recording): An article about a musical recording that has no article about the artist and does not indicate why the recording is notable.
A10. Duplicate article: An article already covered somewhere on the English Wikipedia that does not give any further information, and the title is not a plausible redirect.
You should wait at least ten minutes after an article is created before tagging an article with either A1 or A3, because the author may add more information in that time that would render the CSD templates void.
PROD, short for "Proposed deletion", is what you use if the page doesn't fall under a CSD, but you're pretty certain it can be deleted without too much discussion on the issue. Someone can always contest your PROD, in which case you should take it to AfD. To PROD an article, add the template {{subst:prod|reason}} to the top of the article. YOU MUST include the "subst:" code at the beginning of the template.
This adds a little blue box at the top of the page to indicate that the page is being considered for deletion. If the box remains in place for five days, the article will be deleted. However, anyone can contest the deletion by removing the template. If you still believe the article should be deleted after this happens, you should open a debate at WP:AFD, which I'll explain how to use in a moment. PRODs also come with a notice for the author, {{subst:PRODWarning|Article title}}.
WP:XFD (XfD stands for Anything for Deletion) allows users to debate the merits (or lack thereof) a particular article and decide by consensus what to do with it. This does not involve voting - sheer numbers have no effect on the outcome of these debates. Only reasoned comments are (or should be) considered when concluding the debate. We will do the next lesson specifically on this subject, "votes" and consensus, an interesting topic in itself. The template to the right shows all the different types of deletion debates. Each XfD page outlines the process for each, which often is somewhat complicated. Deletion review is where users can appeal a deletion debate, and follows similar procedures. The most frequently used XfD is AfD, Articles for Deletion.
WP:AFD, short for "Articles for deletion", is where you go if you think something should be deleted but want to be sure. You can list it at AfD using Twinkle under the XFD button and then say why you think it should be deleted. Then the usual consensus debate process is followed. If you ever want to become an administrator, AfD is a great thing to be involved in.
@Scribbleink: For different people different things are harder, so just take your time. For me, the hardest thing to deal with is copyright :) ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Welcome back, Stasia. Hope you had a good break :) I do have a question. If an AfC gets accepted, and later nominated for deletion via AfD, where does one find the evidence of the reasoning that led to its acceptance so that it can be revisited? ~ scribble · inkchat\contrib 02:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@Scribbleink: Thanks, my break was a much needed one. :) The circumstance you describe is very rare, as the AfC process is usually very rigorous in accepting only very good articles. However, AfC reviewers do not give a specific reason as to why an article passes. It is assumed that if an article passes AfC, it meets all the criterion at WP:AFCR. Still, reviewers are not perfect, and sometimes they may miss something. Which article are we talking about here? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Questions 4-7 are hypothetical scenarios. Answer what CSD or PROD criterion (if any) you would tag these articles under.
1.) Q- Explain a scenario in which you would use PROD.
A-Scenario: I come across an article regarding a song that fails WP:GNG via WP:NSONG due to not having any claims of notability, which makes it an uncontroversial candidate for deletion. Further, it doesn't qualify for WP:SPEEDY via CSD A7, because the scope of that criterion does not extend to creative works. While I could have chosen AfD as a normal process, instead I choose the shortcut process of WP:PROD and watch the page to see how it proceeds. ← scribbleinktalk 19:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
2.) Q- You attempt tag an article for CSD under A7, but the creator blanks the page in the process and causes an edit conflict (two versions of the page colliding with each other). What should you do?
A- There are two possibilities, depending on whether or not the creator is the sole author of the article.
If the creator is the sole author, since it is an article (not user or category or talk), I assume his action is in good faith. Page blanking by sole author qualifies as a deletion request per CSD G7. I should tag the article with {{Db-blanked}} instead of CSD A7.
If the creator is not the sole author of the page, it seems more complicated. I will first have to read the edit summary (s)he gave for blanking and assess whether that constitutes as vandalism, or, whether it was necessary (legitimate reasons exist via either WP:BLP for libel/privacy, or, WP:Copyvio for copyright violation that I might have missed when attempting to tag for CSD A7).
If it was vandalism, I would first need to revert, then attempt to tag again with CSD A7. After tagging, I should consider posting one of the {{subst:uw-blank}} warning levels on that user's talk page, as outlined in the guidelines for page blanking.
If it was not vandalism, I should probably contact a more experienced user, either you or anyone at the Teahouse or on IRC, to clarify that there is no longer a need to tag with CSD A7. When in doubt, an extra pair of eyes doesn't hurt, right?
Phew. Apologies if I might have overthought that one. ← scribbleinktalk 19:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
3.) Q- Why should you wait before tagging an article for A1 or A3?
A- Quickly tagging new articles for A1 or A3 does not give the creator enough time to improve upon the article. It can discourage subsequent editors who could have meant to improve the article if it were not tagged prior to their arrival on that page. Further, it could also be construed as unfriendly toward newcomer editors, in the form of WP:BITE. The recommended wait of 10-15 minutes has developed as a result of consensus, as mentioned in this footnote of A1 and A3, and on {{uw-hasty}}. ← scribbleinktalk 20:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
4.) Q- You find an article which says: Joe Garrison is so nice and awesome and the best person I've ever met! He always has a beer and a hot dog for you! His fiancée Ashley is really cool too!
A- Check the history to make sure 15 minutes or more have passed since article creation. Also check for vandalism. Assuming these exceptions do not apply, proceed with a quick web search for "Joe Garrison". It reveals that the subject of the article is not easily identifiable with the information stated. Tag under CSD A1. ← scribbleinktalk 22:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
5.) Q- You find an article which says: ajdflajsdlfjalghaiefjalsfj
6.) Q- You find an article which says: Mike Smith is a trumpeter in the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra. He used to be in the Boston Pops. He likes to read and swim when he's not playing the trumpet.
A-WP:A7 due to no indication of importance. ← scribbleinktalk 22:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
7.) Q- You find an article which says: On the night of 22 April 1941, during the the blitz, over 70 civilians were killed, including a mother and her six children, when a bomb fell on the shelter near the Planetarium. The bomb shelter consisted of a series of underground tunnels which many had long-presumed lost but were rediscovered in 2006. The bomb blast was so big that human remains were found in the tops of trees. In 2006 an appeal was made to raise money for a public sculpture to honour those who lost their lives. (This one's a tricky one, but ask yourself: do you know what the article is talking about?)
A- At first I was considering skipping WP:SPEEDY and thinking about a WP:PROD, but I had trouble identifying the subject (as you rightly suggested). It is not clear to me whether the article is about "the blitz", "the blast" or "the shelter" so it should be tagged WP:A1. ← scribbleinktalk 22:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
8.) Assignment- find an article worthy of deletion (CSD, PROD, or AFD), and tag it/begin the process. Please explain what you did and why you did it below.
@Missionedit: Stasia, I found Special:NewPagesFeed, which made it easier to track articles that are either not reviewed, not patrolled, have no citations, and are orphans. Then I went through this list and found Asian Cricket Fans Group, wherein previously the user had nothing but a link to a non-existent sandbox page. I nominated it (see diff) as WP:G2, and as WP:A3. It was removed multiple times (I didn't know that was possible), of which one of the grounds was WP:G2 and the other was WP:A7. The WP:CSD process was indeed speedy, in that I don't even have the page history as evidence to show, unless you know of a way to unearth it. ← scribbleinktalk 10:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
So sorry for forgetting :) Feel free to refer back to the lesson during the test. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
No problem at all. To err is human, they say. So I guess forgiving you makes me divine :P But seriously, this exercise is a lot of help. ← scribbleinktalk 20:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Scribbleink: Wonderful job! I'm glad you persevered through that one. Since you discovered Special:NewPagesFeed, why don't we do a lesson on reviewing/patrolling articles next? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, when we have a disagreement on something, we go by consensus of the community. You can add your opinion to a debate by "voting". However, this type of voting is not like voting at an election or a poll. It is more like participating in a debate, with each comment contributing a new idea to keep the consensus discussion going. (Interesting fact: WP:Articles for Deletion used to be called Votes for Deletion, but the name was later changed as a result of consensus.)
A "vote" usually begins with Support or Oppose. However, just saying "Support" is very different than saying "Support: - User has been a loyal host at the Teahouse since its inception, shows a good article track record, and has enough experience in the administrative work they intend to participate in that I have no concerns with them using the tools." The latter is what your "votes" should look like. It is necessary to explain why you have "voted" support or oppose, otherwise, a stack of votes with no reasoning behind them will collect, and the discussion will not have progressed.
These are the following "votes" that you can use in RfAs and RfBs:
Support - User would make a good administrator or bureaucrat.
Oppose - User would not make a good administrator or bureaucrat.
Neutral - User might make a good administrator or bureaucrat, but there are some concerns.
You can add "Strong" or "Weak" to "Support" and "Oppose". Or you can also go for a more humorous approach, eg. "Oh my goodness yes". It's usually in better taste to have a humorous vote for a support than an oppose :)
There's no test on this one, just an assignment: participate in 3 AfDs and in any RfAs or RfBs that they have around. You can vote in AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You can vote for RfAs or RfBs at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. If there are no RfAs/RfBs you can skip that part of the assignment. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Any suggestions on how I can query information about a user to evaluate certain criteria that the tools on his RfA page do not provide? For instance, I would like to only see contributions by Jakec that are about either UAA or CSD, but nothing else. Tags don't seem to offer that flexibility. Further, how do I assess how he interacts with other users on Wikipedia? Does going through the list of all his contributions in the "User" and "User talk" namespaces suffice? Thanks. ← scribble · inkchat\contrib 03:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Scribbleink:Special:Log allows you to search a user's actions in a specific area. I would also go through his contributions to all the "Talk" and "Wikipedia Talk" namespaces as this is where he would interact with others as well. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Scribbleink: You know, I've been so busy, I forgot to give you the test on deletion :) Sorry about that. I'll post it and you can do it when you have the time. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@Scribbleink: Good job researching your opinions. We'll wait until you have time to finish the deletion test before we more on. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
One skill editors should know is how to review articles. It may not be something you do all the time, but it's still good to know. Wikipedia assesses its articles on a scale according to how much information they provide and how well the information is presented.
This assessment scale is largely unofficial, with the majority of assessments made by WikiProjects who claim jurisdiction over the articles. There are, however, two official ratings which are given to those articles which are nominated by editors and reviewed to see if they meet a series of criteria. The full ranking is as follows:
Featured articles are examples of Wikipedia's best work. These provide in-depth information with brilliant prose and superb attention to detail. All information is neutrally presented, well sourced, and informative. Articles are promoted to FA status by consensus at WP:FAC after discussion of several editors.
A-Class articles are considered "completed," although edits will obviously continue to be made. They provide a wide range of neutrally presented information that is well sourced and shows a wide background of sources. Articles at this stage should be sent to Peer Review for further improvement and preparation for an FA nomination. Note: An article need not have been listed as a "Good Article" to reach A-Class
Albert Einstein(As of August 22, 2007; promoted to FA January 13, 2005; demoted November 16, 2007)
Good Articles are not as complete and useful as A-Class or FA-Class articles, but are well on their way to becoming so. They are well written, stable, accurate, well-referenced, and neutral. If they display any images, they are freely available or meet all fair use criteria. While not as complete as higher-class articles, they do not skip over any large facet of the topic. These articles are nominated by editors at WP:GAC and then reviewed by a single editor for GA status.
Elephant(As of August 22, 2007; listed April 5, 2006)
B-Class articles have most of the information needed for a comprehensive article, but are lacking one or more key points. It is useful for general purposes, but not for in-depth research on the subject. It may have problems with editing, neutrality, copyright, or verification.
Start-Class articles are, as the name implies, just getting started. They have a meaningful amount of content, but lack large areas of information about a topic, possibly even key areas, and may have several problems with neutrality, verification, and/or copyright. They are in need of expansion and someone researching that topic would definitely need other sources.
Stubs are very short articles that, at most, provide simplistic background information about a subject. They may be useful to someone who didn't know what the subject was previously, but otherwise don't give much help. Articles shorter than this may be at risk of deletion under CSD A1 or A3.
Other types of pages are graded outside this criteria, including:
Lists, which are just long lists of topics that all relate to the main theme of the list. Lists don't provide any prose, and any references are there simply to confirm that the topic does meet the criteria for inclusion. Each list must provide a specific criteria for what is considered a member of that list. Usually this is clear in the title, such as in List of current heads of state and government, and only needs a little more background as to how the list should be organized. Other lists don't at first glance seem as exclusive, such as List of people affected by bipolar disorder, and require some strong referencing to merit inclusion.
Disambiguation pages: These are designed to help people find the right article. Some topics share names with other topics, leading to confusion. For example, if you were to search for George Washington, you're probably looking for George Washington, but you could also be looking for George Washington the inventor, George Washington the pioneer, George, Washington, or perhaps one of theGeorgeWashingtons. That last sentence contains a total of 8 links, all of which lead to a George Washington of some variety, and I certainly could have included more from George Washington (disambiguation).
Reviewing newly created pages is a rather different matter. Special:NewPages, or, more recently, Special:NewPagesFeed, is a list of new articles. All of these articles need to be checked for their overall content and their suitability to Wikipedia. Some of them are nominated/tagged for deletion, and many of them are tagged as needing fixing up in one way or another. These articles are not ranked, so to speak, but instead pass review by being properly tagged or fixed.
@Scribbleink:Assignment: Now that you've seen the different kinds of articles and how to review them, take a look at some articles using Special:Randompage and tell me what you think they should be graded as. Don't look at the talk pages or what they are already ranked as, just read the article and give it your own assessment. Give a short reasoning of why you have graded it such. If you believe an article is worse than any of these rankings, mark it as a "sub-stub". After you do a couple of these, I want you to review some pages at Special:NewPagesFeed. Good luck! ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Black Christmas (1974 film) - Upper C-Class - Structure is good for a movie, and has adequate references, but it is missing some inline citations. The critical reception section is lacking in content, so it cannot be B-Class.
Prosto Ya Fanatka - Stub-Class - Has a bit more than a track listing as an album, however it does not meet the criteria for Start-Class. For instance, it is missing categorization by artist.
Onomyšl - Upper Stub-Class - Has a nicely laid out infobox, a clear picture and a description of the place with many statistics listed. However, it has no other sections than its lead section.
Your Letter - Stub-Class - No section other than the lead section contains significant information. It is no more than a song listing. It does contain album context, artist information and categorization.
Loei Province - Start-Class - Definitely notable. Has maps, pictures and a table that support the article well. No inline citations. Since it is missing adequate sources, it cannot be C-Class.
Harold Young - Start-Class - Satisfies WP:BLP. Has references and inline citations. Has infobox with a photograph. Has only a single biography section apart from a short lead section, so I would not count it as a C-Class.
Junges Gemüse - Lower Stub-Class - A single line of information with IMDb as the only source.
Bolster, Washington - Upper Stub-Class - Contains references and inline citations. Well categorized. Content makes for an interesting read, but it has nothing outside the lead section other than a municipality template box. I would not rate it as Start-Class yet.
Presidential Range (Green Mountains) - Lower Stub-Class - No references or inline citations. Layout is lacking - putting external links to tools from Wikimedia Foundation in a box isn't part of WP:MoS.
Now that I've used WP:NPT, I understand its benefits. Specifically, the time I spent earlier (that I can never get back) manually looking through articles during the deletion lesson :) ← scribbleinktalk 06:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Scribbleink: Wonderful job! We'll do lesson on semi-automated tools (such as Page Curation) next. Sorry, I should have told you about that one earlier :) ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
You've had some experience with semi-automatic tools already, but we might as well officially cover it :) A semi-automatic tool is basically a pre-written program designed to make certain repetitive tasks easier and less complicated. There's no test for this lesson, just an assignment. I want you to go to the "Preferences" button at the top of the page, and then the "Gadgets" tab. There are two gadgets that I want you to enable. The first is Twinkle, fifth from the bottom under "Browsing". The second is HotCat, fourth from the top under "Editing". Just check to boxes to enable them on your account. These two tools are some of the most commonly used on Wikipedia.
Twinkle is a handy little tool that's been around for awhile. It allows you to easily tag articles and mark them for deletion, as well as some other useful things. After you enable Twinkle, you should see a tab with the letters "TW" to the left of the search box at the top of any page. Click on that tab and you'll be presented with a variety of options:
Unlink backlinks (This allows you to remove certain kinds of internal links from the text. This is a rarely necessary tool, so I would encourage you not to to use it unless you know what you are doing)
When viewing the last revision of a page (the top 4 appear in colored lettering on the page itself)
Rollback (meaning revert all the edits by that user on that page) for good faith
Rollback general
Rollback vandalism
Restore a different revision of the page
Under the TW tab, there are also multiple options to see other diffs compared to each other
User talk
ARV (Report a user to administrators)
Warn (Warn or notify a user)
Wel (Welcome a user)
TB (Talkback)
I encourage you to experiment with these as long as your edits are responsible (see "Responsibility", below)
HotCat is a tool that makes adding categories easy. Once you have it enabled, look at the categories at the end of a page. They should now look something like this:
The double-plus next to categories allows you to add several categories at once. The (-) after French equestrians allows you to remove that category, while the (±) allows you to modify it. The (+) at the end allows you to add one new category. This tool comes in very handy if you work with categories in any way.
I encourage you to explore with Twinkle and HotCat, but don't forget to be responsible with them. As you know, you should not tag articles just because it's fun or to annoy people, but do it to better the encyclopedia. User talk:Sandbox for user warnings allows you to test out warning, welcoming, and talkback. You are fully and completely responsible for all of your actions using or regarding semi-automatic tools. Please add your signature here (~~~~) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning:
@Scribbleink: Twinkle and HotCat are only a few of the many semi-automatic tools on Wikipedia. Any questions? Having trouble enabling/using these tools? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Thanks. I have used both of these before but only for specific cases, e.g. rollback (AGF) on Twinkle. This explanation gave me a good overall picture of the capabilities. One question: what is the difference between the "undo" link on the article history page and the rollback link from Twinkle? ← scribbleinktalk 04:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Scribbleink: Short answer: I don't know. I know that probably sounds lame considering I'm supposed to teach you everything, but I've never been able to find a page which explains this. Assignment: Ask an admin your question. That way we'll both know the answer :) ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Haha no, that's not lame at all :) Yes, you do have to teach me, but not everything. A famous green entity once said (paraphrased): Always pass on what you have learned, young padawan. On that note, I have set the ball rolling. I'll ping you when the answer is revealed. ← scribbleinktalk 05:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Undo will undo the editors last edit on a page. Rollback will undo all of the edits made by that editor to the last version by someone who isnt that editor. — User:Amortias
@Scribbleink: Good job, Nik :) That makes sense. Well, now that your question has been answered, anything else before moving on to the next lesson? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The Manual of Style is the style guide for all Wikipedia articles. Sometimes adopters neglect to touch on it, but I think the MOS a very important and necessary part of Wikipedia, and deserves its own lesson :) Here are the main points of it:
Article titles are like sentences, not story titles. This means that only the first word of the title and proper nouns are capitalized, not all important words. The exceptions are things like iPod and eBay, where the capitalization is weird.
Do not use a, an, or the to begin a title unless it is part of the title of the work. For example "Economic impact of dingoes", should not be "The economic impact of dingoes". A Clockwork Orange is a correct title because "a" is part of the title of the work.
The sections and information of an article should be organized in the following order, with the information in bold font being the proper header for that section:
Lead section with article summary
Article body with main information and sections as necessary
Works/Bibliography/Discography - Written or musical works by the subject
See also - Internal links related to the article
References - Notes and references
Further reading - Relevant publications that have not been used as sources
External links - Relevant websites, usually including the official website of the subject
Navigational boxes
Categories
Interlanguage links (if applicable)
Headings should not be redundant to the main subject or a higher heading (for example, if one heading was "Ecological impact", you would not have a subheading called "Ecological impact")
Headings should not have links or citations in the heading
Headings should not contain images or flag icons
Headings should not contain questions, unless the name of the subject is a question
Spelling and grammar in different forms of English
There are many different kinds of English from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds. To make sure the English style used throughout an article is consistent, sometimes an invisible template such as {{Use American English}}, {{Use British English}}, or {{Use Irish English}}, is placed at the top. Otherwise, it's best to try and follow the style the rest of the article is written in to keep it consistent.
Do not capitalize words such as "president" or "king" unless they apply to an honorific title (e.g. "a Scottish king" vs. "King David II of Scotland")
Religions (eg. Buddhism), scriptures (eg. Gospel of John), and deities (eg. Allah) are capitalized, as are specific mythical creatures such as the Minotaur and Pegasus. Pronouns for figures of veneration are not capitalized (e.g., in Catholicism, when talking about God, pronouns referring to Him are always capitalized; not so on Wikipedia).
Months, days of the week, and holidays are capitalized; seasons are not.
When dealing with scientific names, only the first word is capitalized. When dealing with taxonomic rank, all words are capitalized.
Common names are not capitalized (grey wolf, apple pie, calculator) unless they include a proper noun (Przewalski's horse, African violet)
"Sun", "earth", and "moon" are not capitalized unless personified or mentioning a specific astronomical body (e.g. The Moon orbits the Earth).
Do not capitalize directions. Only capitalize names of regions when they have attained proper-name status (the West Coast vs. southern Poland).
When it comes to institutions and places, follow their own usage (eg. The Ohio State University insists on having the "the" capitalized.)
@Missionedit: Yeah, a couple below. Don't go easy on me with your test, Stasia :)
Recent gossip brought a question to mind.[note 1] What happens when the subject of a BLP article undergoes a gender transition? Is it policy to change all of the pronouns in that article to match the new gender? ↳ Did that question have more to do with Verifiability and Concensus, than MOS?
With the widespread adoption of mobile devices, I can't help but worry about how a page I change the layout of is rendered on my mobile phone. For instance, the article Indian art looks quite different on the desktop site compared to the mobile one. Specifically, I'm referring to the length and the image placement within text. While I can change how I view Wikipedia by setting up custom CSS styles and/or scripts, is there anything I can do (any guidelines, or past discussions on MOS) to massage how the article is presented to readers on smaller devices? ↳ Devices are getting even smaller, e.g., smart watches. I wonder if it makes sense to have different levels of detail when reading a single article. For instance, perhaps the LEAD of an article is presented first, as the outermost shell of a set of Russian nesting dolls. ← scribbleinkᗧHᗣT 07:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Scribbleink: Good questions :) According to MOS:IDENTITY, all pronouns and such in a BLP should reflect the latest gender identification of the subject. As for for your second question, I don't think so. All of the application formatting relies on the Mobile Wikipedia. Have you read Help:Mobile access? I'm not really sure what you meant with the last note there. I'll be gone for the next week, but I'll try to answer queries to my talk page. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Good to know regarding Identity. What I meant regarding the mobile site is: instead of dumping all of the information in an article at once as a single scrolling page, a better user experience might be to only show a section at a time and update the navigation, e.g., swipe bottom-to-top, to go through each section of an article. Sounds off-topic, since MOS does not cover the presentation layer or user experiences while reading the site? Have a good week! ← scribbleinkᗧHᗣT 21:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Ideally this should be done via Wikidata, but H:IL states "the convention is to put them at the bottom of the page."
Y Sorry if this one was really confusing; I wrote it completely wrong. I've fixed it up so you can try again. I removed your answer so you can start from scratch (I've changed the question a lot and didn't want you getting confused). Sorry about that :)
Not a problem. In my previous try, I think I mistook the interlanguage link to be in the "See also" section. ← scribbleinkᗧHᗣT 09:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Y Nice job!
3.) Q- Name everything that's wrong with this if it were an article title:
Final character should not be a punctuation mark. None of the exceptions to that rule apply in this case. The question mark should be removed when the title is converted to a noun phrase.
No icons. The flag in the title is purely decorative. It is also distracting.
4.) Q- What type of English should you (most likely) use in an article if this is a sample sentence from it?
The tusks, at 9 m (30 ft), were adapted to minimise interference with daily life.
A- The preferred use of meters over feet, combined with the "-ise" verb form leads me to the en-GB locale, i.e., British English. I could not further localize based on the content, e.g., variants from former British colonies such as African English or Indian English, because I'm not really sure which creature has (or had) tusks 9 meters long.
Y It's not really possible to be exactly sure of what English to use with only one sentence to look at, but the point was to do your best at guessing.
5.) Q- Capitalize the following accordingly as if they were in a sentence. If correct, write "correct":
the republic of ireland
tailchaser's song
king cormac mac airt of ireland
a czech president
hasidic judaism
the book of revelation
winter
otomops madagascariensis
ursidae
hooded crow
jupiter has at least 67 moons
east coast
western kazakhstan
north
university of pennsylvania
A-
Assuming you meant "as if they were not at the beginning of a sentence":
the Republic of Ireland
Tailchaser's Song
king Cormac mac Airt of Ireland
a Czech president
Hasidic Judaism
the Book of Revelation
winter – correct
Otomops madagascariensis
Ursidae
hooded crow – correct
Jupiter has at least 67 moons
east coast
Possibly correct. Depends on what it is referring to. Should be "East Coast" when the proper name is intended and "east coast" otherwise.
@Scribbleink: Because it's mostly grammar, the test is simple enough. Feel free to refer to the WP:MOS while taking it or ask questions if I did not make something clear. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Ended up using the manual of style as a reference quite a lot. I doubt I can, and should, memorize all of these rules :) In the past, I have had to search quite a bit for special cases, such as the serial comma and the comma after i.e. or e.g. (see [4]). ← scribbleinkᗧHᗣT 08:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Copy editing is a skill which you will likely have to use at one time or another on Wikipedia whether you are writing a new article or fixing an old one. This lesson is mostly taken from the GOCE (Guild of Copy Editors) page.
Since you seem pretty confident in the areas of English grammar and spelling, I am pleased to invite you to join the Guild of Copy Editors. Wikiproject Guild of Copy Editors a collaborative effort that focuses on copy editing articles, as well as other minor cleanup jobs. To "copy edit" is to go through and check spelling, grammar, wikilinks, formatting, etc. Basically making an unreadable page readable :)
The best way to copy edit is to fix all of the spelling, grammar, and basic formatting first. Then you look up the type of the article (eg. biography) in the Manual of Style to see if every heading is in the proper order. For example, if I was copy editing a novel, I would go to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels to see what order the headings were supposed to be in.
Start at the lead section and fix any errors you find.
In the edit summary, put "Copyediting", "Copyedit", "CE", or something akin to that so that other editors know what you did. Unless you're only doing things that are obvious (e.g. putting periods at the end of sentences, capitalizing a person's name), don't mark the "minor edit" box.
Move down to each of the following sections and do the same thing.
Change the order of the headings to the order that the Manual of Style suggests, perhaps moving information to different sections as appropriate.
When you have finished, remove any tags which refer to problem that you fixed. A "tag" is a notice at the top of the page that something is wrong with the article.
Sometimes you'll see {{Use British English}}, {{Use American English}}, or {{Use Australian English}} in the lead when you edit. These templates are only visible when you edit; they are invisible to the public. There are other types of English templates such as Irish English or South African English, but first three are the ones you'll come across the most often. In articles containing {{Use British English}}, use mdy (23 May 2013) dates and British spelling. It's the same thing with {{Use Australian English}}, but with Australian spelling (obviously). When you come across {{Use American English}}, that means use dmy (May 23, 2015) dates and American spelling. If none of these or {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} is present in the article, it is most widely accepted to use dmy dates and American spelling.
@Scribbleink: Sorry it took me so long to get this up, Nik; I've been busy :) The Guild of Copy Editors has a list of article copy edit requests. Assignment: Pick an article from the list that you are going to work on, tell me which one you picked, and I'll monitor your copy editing and tell you how you did at the end (hint: Articles going for a GA or FA review are going to expect a higher level of copy editing). Make sure to read all the rules on the request page before beginning. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Alright Stasia, I believe I'm done with a first pass. This was a tough one because I had to fix the article layout, rewrite in some cases, and copyedit as well. I have a couple of questions for you. Do you think the "See also" templates I inserted into each section would be better moved to a separate "See also" section, or, does it make more sense to have them in context? Further, there is a reference that someone has placed in the external links section. Since it is not cited inline, I don't know how to move it into the reflist. You got a suggestion? ← scribbleinkᗧHᗣT 07:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@Scribbleink: Sorry again for taking so long; I was really sick the past week. Great job with the article! It still might need a bit of work, but it's come far :) I think the see also templates you put into the individual sections are great; in my opinion, a separate section would be overkill. As an answer to the second question, I a few different suggestions on what you could do with that stray reference. For one, you could put it in a separate "Further reading" section, or a section titled "General references". Or you could just place the stray citation under the "References" section at the bottom of the list (this is a common pratice). Ideally, you could find a place to cite that reference in the text and turn the citation into a reflist footnote. Do whatever you think is best, it doesn't matter all that much. Just get that citation out of the External links section :) Have you contacted the copyedit requester for this article at all? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Oh, I hope you're feeling better! No need to apologize – I'd like to get your guidance, but only when you're available. I like your suggestion. Yes, I'm in touch with the copyedit requester, e.g., via Talk:Cardiac output#May 2015 copyediting. He liked the edits and reorganization and has been contributing since. My question to you is: when do I mark a task as done on the GOCE requests page, given that articles that haven't reached GA or Featured status are more of a work-in-progress than the more advanced ones? ←
@Scribbleink: Thanks for the well wishes :) Usually you completed a copy edit request by giving an article a once-over copyedit, which you've done. Like you said, others can always improve it, but you've done what you can for now, so I think you can just mark the request as done! Good job! ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
You're about half way through the course (congrats!), so now it's time for a personal break. These questions won't be graded, I just want to get to know a little more about you as a person and as a Wikipedian.
Phew, thanks! ;)
1.) Q- Why did you begin editing Wikipedia? Why did you decide to become adopted? Why do you continue to edit?
A-
(a) Throughout my years of education, I have primarily been a consumer of reference information. At times, it has been hard to access things that, in retrospect, I feel should have been easier for me to. Being an editor on an encyclopædia of global scale is my way of giving back to the source I learned from. Generalizing further, I believe in everyone having quick access to high-quality information, to facilitate anything from primary education all the way to proving your friend wrong :)
(b) Initially on Wikipedia, I found myself dabbling in a few edits, but not gaining a deeper understanding of how consensus works. I was also curious how people debate existing information. Soon, the questions were mounting and I decided to reach out for help. I'd like to add that it has been a nice learning experience for me so far, thanks in no small part to you!
(c) Continue to help make things better? I'm not sure I fully know the reason why I continue to do so. I know for sure that I like it, and I believe I can be good at it.
2.) Q- Give me a little background on your username. Is it a derivation of your real name, from a show, sports team, game, book, etc.? Is it simply a random conglomeration of letters?
A- My name is Nikhil. With an aspirated K, it's usually easier for me to abbreviate it as Nik. I like cryptic crosswords, so I came up with a username that was simple enough to be a clue: scribble is an indicator verb for anagram, and ink is the so-called payload that needs to be anagrammed to get the abbreviated version of my name.
3.) Q- What are your major interests? What type of things do you like to do on Wikipedia?
A- In the tech industry professionally, which means I deal with engineering on a daily basis. As a hobby, I garden (so far my thumb remains green) and sketch (digital as well as traditional media). On Wikipedia, I've gravitated toward topics and regions of the world I'm familiar with - such as the art and culture of India, and certain specific applications of engineering. It has mostly been along the lines of content editing.
4.) Q- Do you have any future goals as far as something you'd like to do on Wikipedia?
A- My short term goal is to make enough edits until every decision I make is almost second nature, i.e., imbibe the workflow that is currently in place for due process on Wikipedia. I plan to focus on editing. I do not plan to get into the administrative side of the project until I gain enough experience - specifically, I will wait to be an adopter for the sake of experience, and, I will wait to be an admin because I although I'm sure I can handle it technically, there isn't a present need for me to get elevated rights.
@Scribbleink: Do have any preference for topic of the next lesson? If not, we'll move on to dispute resolution. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: No preferences. Dispute resolution sounds interesting. Go for it. ← scribbleinkᗧHᗣT 22:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Scribbleink: Great answers! Very interesting to know more about you. Moving on to the next lesson. Just so you know, I've recently lost some motivation to edit Wikipedia, so I'm taking a short wikibreak to get my motivation back :) Don't worry, I'm not leaving; I just need a bit of a break and will be operating at a lower editing level than usual. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very likely to end up in a dispute. This is especially likely to happen if you take to editing in the more contentious areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more evocative the subject - the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious.
Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.
I'm going to go through the different methods of dispute resolution there are on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth following through. This lesson will have a test.
I'm not expecting you to back down. You obviously believe in your side of the argument, and there is nothing wrong with that. What you should do, though, is attempt to resolve the dispute.
First, assume good faith: remember the person you are in a dispute with is (most likely) also trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are not trying to deliberately damage the encyclopedia. Try to see things from their point of view and see if you can both come to a compromise.
Keep calm. There's no urgency to the change you are trying to put in or take out, and it will wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to make your point by editwarring (repeatedly reverting someone else's same work) to keep your preferred version there is a chances that you will get nowhere and face a block. So, instead, follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss rule - one editor makes a bold edit which they feel improves the encyclopedia. A second editor reverts the edit because they disagree. Then, these two (or more) editors discuss the matter on the talk page until they come to an agreement or proceed along Wikipedia's dispute resolution process.
When it comes to discussion, try and stay in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right; this pyramid explains the different forms of disagreement. Something you should never do is use personal attacks to try to get your way; attacks on the character of an editor will only make thing worse. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editors argument and respond to that. If it continues, report them to admin.
If you think about what you are saying and how the editor you are talking with is likely to respond, you realize that you have a choice. Your comment will generally go one of two ways:
1) It will address the editors argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor will be able to understand.
2) It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama.
Accusing the other editor of attacks, bad faith, ownership, vandalism, or any number of negative things are going to fall into (2). If there are issues with one of these problems, use the following dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, walk away and have a cup of tea. Play a game of racketball. Whatever you do to calm down and just not be on Wikipedia.
If you want someone to talk to but not necessarily step in, there is an WP:Editor Assistance notice board. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the situation.
You can get someone uninvolved to step in and give an opinion on a content dispute. Third opinion has instructions on how to request a third editor to come in and discuss the situation. Another option to get a third opinion is to go to the project noticeboard associated with the article to ask for an opinion (the talk page lists which projects are associated with the article). Finally, you could leave a message at a relevant noticeboard - WP:SEEKHELP
If the issue won't go away, even after a couple of people have weighed in, you can try the more formal route of Requests for mediation. The editors here specialize in sorting out debates.
You can use Request for Comment to draw community discussion to the page. You are likely to get a larger section of the community here than with a Third Opinion request. Request for comment is rarely necessary and should not be taken lightly. Only after almost every other route of dispute resolution has been taken should this happen - and it requires at least two editors having the same problem with one editor to be certified.
I really hope you'll never have to go this far with a dispute. It's the last resort; the community has elected its most trusted willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated and serious cases. Have a read of WP:Arbitration Committee if you like, but try not to end up there.
You could be acting against consensus! But as long as you are open to the possibility and have been sticking the top 3 sections of the pyramid, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realize you are flogging a dead horse.
1.) Q- Explain, in your own words, each level of dispute resolution:
A- Editor assistance: Do not participate in the dispute, but talk to someone about it using editor assistance.
Third opinion: Designed for a dispute between two editors only. Related to content or sourcing. For specific policy guideline help (Wikipedia:SEEKHELP), or for general content help (Wikipedia:DRN), one of the noticeboards can be used.
Mediation: If the dispute proves difficult to resolve in that consensus is not reached, you can request for mediation from a neutral, experienced editor. This is for article content only. It is also a voluntary process.
Request for comment: Only when all other dispute resolution attempts have been tried and consensus is not reached, the WP:RFC process can be started. It pulls in multiple random users into a single discussion. These are usually serious discussions regarding policy or content that do not fit into existing noticeboards, e.g., whether an admin can overturn the closure of an RFC by a non-admin.
2.) Q- Editor A adds something that he believes is helping Wikipedia. Editor B disagrees and reverts it, so Editor A re-adds the content only for Editor B to revert again. What should the two editors do instead of this edit warring (repeatedly adding and removing content)?
A- They should not short-circuit the cycle. Instead, they should begin a discussion and keep in mind what not to do as they try to resolve their dispute. ← scribbleinkᗧHᗣT 08:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Y Exactly. Keeping cool and using talk pages correctly are key to working out problems on Wikipedia.
3.) Q- You mark a particular article for deletion. The creator of the article then leaves a message on your talk page, calling you an incompetent, intellectual snob who has no right to edit Wikipedia. How should you react?
Y Yup. You are actually my only adoptee so far who has gotten this question completely right ;) Good job!
4.) Q- You find information saying that the island fox is making a comeback and decide put it in the article with a proper citation. Then another editor reverts it as patent nonsense. What should your next step be?
A- I'd start a new discussion section on Talk:Island Fox, in which I'd {{ping}} the editor who reverted it, asking her/him for an explanation.
Follow-up Q- What do I do if they do not respond to said ping after a reasonable amount of time? ← scribbleinkᗧHᗣT 08:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Y Your question is a good one. First you should probably make sure that they got the message; one of my other adoptees has a problem receiving pings, so you may want to leave a message on their page/use the talkback template to contact them. If they still don't respond, I guess you can re-revert back to your edit, explaining why you think your edit is not nonsense. If your edit is reverted again, make sure to go to Editor assistance or Third opinion for advice on what to do in that particular situation. This kind of thing is very unlikely to happen, however; people usually find satisfaction in explaining their opinions to others.
5.) Q- When you are in the middle of a dispute with someone, they insult you on the basis of gender and religion. What should you do?
Y Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks, so neither should you.
6.) Q- OPINION: Is there any way to make the dispute resolution process easier?
A- Conventionally, it doesn't seem like much can be done apart from being civil and trying to reach a consensus via discussion. Perhaps I try to play devil's advocate against my own stance, to test the validity of my argument, and, to understand better where the other editor is coming from? ← scribbleinkᗧHᗣT 08:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Y I agree-- these suggestions are great ways to help cool off a heated argument, even in real life :)
FYI, I have read the test and I plan to finish it in the next couple of days. ← scribbleinkᗧHᗣT 07:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Done - <humor> "a couple of days" clearly means 2-5 days according to this. </humor> ← scribbleinkᗧHᗣT 09:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Scribbleink: XD - But you got the test done, and you aced it!! Way to go! How would you like to do Templates 102-a more advanced lesson on templates-next? I know you can handle it :) ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Awesome! I was a little lost with all the dispute resolution options, so I had to read them carefully and it paid off. Bring on the templates. It's cute how you have a course number :) ← scribbleinkᗧHᗣT 22:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
@Scribbleink: Thanks. Actually, I just couldn't think of what else to call it at the moment, so instead of "Advanced templates" we just ended up with "Templates 102" :D I have to write/modify a lot of it so it might take me a bit to put it up. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
In the previous template lesson, we saw how to use parameters to add custom information to a template message. In this lesson, we'll look at how to use other templates to make even more happen, depending on the parameters entered. These other templates are called "ParserFunctions" and are built into the MediaWiki software that Wikipedia is based on. Because of that, you can't edit these templates by going to their template page (there isn't one), and they also are called in a unique way. This lesson is mostly ripped from User:Hersfold/Adopt because even I have a hard time understanding some of this stuff--it is very advanced. So don't feel bad if you get confused :) Get ready for a really long lesson!!
Before we look at these, let's have a quick review of how parameters work, because many of these ParserFunctions depend on them and you using them correctly. You can create a parameter by putting three curly brackets around a name (or number), like this: {{{foo}}}. In that case, calling the template "example" would require you to use a "foo" parameter, like this: {{example|foo=bar}}. That will cause the word "bar" to appear wherever you have the code "{{{foo}}}" in the template. If you forget the parameter, though, (just using {{example}}), bad things happen. Instead of a useful word, you get a big ugly {{{foo}}} in the middle of your message. We can avoid this by giving "foo" a default value with a pipe character: {{{foo|Hey, dummy, you forgot to set "foo".}}} Now, instead of an ugly parameter, we get a helpful message that tells us exactly what went wrong and how to fix it. If we'd rather our templates not insult us when we mess up, we can make the default value simply not appear at all: {{{foo|}}}. This works just as well, and in fact is exactly what we want to do for some of the ParserFunctions we're now going to look at.
#if:
The most basic function available is {{#if:}}. #if: probably looks fairly strange to you - since when do we start templates with a # sign? And what's with the colon? Actually, the colon and # are what tells us and MediaWiki that we're calling a ParserFunction instead of a normal template. Here's how #if: works:
{{#if: <text that either is or is not blank> | <what you want to appear if it isn't blank> | <what you want to appear if it is> }}
Huh?
#if: works a little differently than most "if... then..." structures work. #if: is set up like this: "If this space has something in it, I print this. If it's blank, I print that." How does this help us? Well, remember how we could set our parameters to have a blank default value? Imagine what would happen if I wrote this code:
{{#if: {{{1|}}} | Hello! | Goodbye! }}
Now, when I call the template that uses this code, I will do one of two things. I will either enter a parameter or I won't. If I don't, this code will display "Goodbye!" because there is nothing displayed between #if: and the first option; we set our parameter 1 to be blank by default, so there is nothing but blank space for #if: to look at. However, if I do enter a parameter, regardless of what it is, that code will display "Hello!". This is because when #if: looks at what you gave it, there's something between it and the first option. It doesn't care what that something is, it just cares that something exists. But now, here's why we had that short review on parameters:
{{#if: {{{1}}} | Hello! | Goodbye! }}
The difference between these two sets of code is minor, but causes the whole thing to bork up. This time, there is no pipe in our parameter, so there is no default value. As a result, when we don't set the parameter in the template, #if: still sees {{{1}}} right after its colon. So, regardless of what we do, we're always going to get "Hello!" as a result of this function.
#ifeq:
#ifeq: is a bit more useful. #ifeq: stands for "If equal" - instead of just checking to see if something exists, #ifeq: checks to see if that something is equal to something you specifically told it to look for. Here's how it works:
{{#ifeq: <text you input> | <text you want to compare against> | <what you want to appear if it they match> | <what you want to appear if they don't> }}
{{#ifeq: {{{1}}} | foo | Hello! | Goodbye! }}
In the sample above, I want to see if the user typed "foo" as a parameter to my template. If they did, #ifeq: will see that and print out "Hello!". If they enter anything else, though, or in this case, nothing at all, #ifeq: will compare whatever they enter to "foo", see that they don't match, and print "Goodbye!" instead. ( bar =/= foo; {{{1}}} =/= foo ) This code is a bit more "secure" - if you want the template to do something if the user enters "yes" as a parameter, #if: is not what you want to use. If you use #if:, it'll do whatever you told it to do even if the user enters "no". By using #ifeq:, the function will only do this thing if they enter "yes", exactly like that. It won't work even if they enter "YES", because uppercase letters and lowercase letters aren't the same.
But what if you don't want to risk confusing the user? What if you do want "YES" to work? It's pretty pointless to make an #ifeq: for every single different capitalization of "yes". There's two options available to you. One is to use another ParserFunction, which we'll get to shortly, which acts like a super #ifeq:, checking for multiple different parameter values at once. Another, much easier way, is to tell the parameter to use all uppercase or lowercase letters. How? Magic. Observe:
Code
What comes out
{{lc:foo BAR}}
foo bar
{{uc:foo BAR}}
FOO BAR
{{lcfirst:BAR foo}}
bAR foo
{{ucfirst:foo BAR}}
Foo BAR
You can use these codes (which are examples of some Magic words) on just about anything - including your parameters. Obviously, it won't have much of an effect on {{{1}}}, but when your user types in "YES" when your #ifeq: is expecting to find "yes", adding the code {{lc: {{{1}}} }} will solve all of your problems.
#switch:
This is the "super #ifeq:" I mentioned earlier. #switch: allows you to check a single line of text for a practically unlimited number of possible results. It works like this:
{{#switch: <text you input>
| <possible value 1> = <what is displayed for possible value 1>
| <possible value 2> = <what is displayed for possible value 2>
| <possible value 3>
| <possible value 4> = <what is displayed for possible values 3 AND 4>
| #default = <what appears if the value you input doesn't match any possible value>
}}
What this template does is this: It takes the value you enter (which is probably a parameter, which is probably forced to be either lower or upper case for the same reason it would be in #ifeq:) and moves down the list, comparing it to each possible value in turn. As soon as it matches something, it stops, and looks for the next equals sign. It then prints whatever you have between that equals sign and the next pipe. Let's look at an example, based on the above format:
{{#switch: {{lc: {{{1}}} }}
| foo = bar
| ice = cream
| french
| burnt = toast
}}
If I enter "foo", #switch: replies with "bar". Likewise, "ice" gets "cream" as a response, and "burnt" gets "toast". But "french" also gets "toast". This is because "french" doesn't have anything set specifically for it - there's no equals sign after "french". Because of this, #switch: is going to keep looking for the next equals sign, which is after "burnt". This makes sense for me, because I want that to happen. "burnt toast" and "french toast" both make sense. However, I do have to be careful about what order I put things in; this code may look similar, but will cause "french" to come out with a different result:
{{#switch: {{lc: {{{1}}} }}
| foo = bar
| french
| ice = cream
| burnt = toast
}}
Now, entering "french" will return "cream", because "ice = cream" is the next value in line for #switch: to find. For both of these, anything not listed in the ParserFunction will not return anything - nothing will be printed, because there is no default value. For #switch: to print something out regardless of what I type in, I would need to specify "#default = <something>" at the very end of the template. There's really no technical reason why #default has to be at the end, but it just makes it easier for other users.
#time:
Time is an interesting thing in how it is calculated and how it brings some order to our lives. Because of that, it's important we have a bit of code that allows us to display time however we would like. #time: is just that code, allowing you to enter your own custom time and change it however you wish. It's a very useful code, that you'll see used in many places throughout Wikipedia - for example, proposed deletion templates "expire" after five days, and those templates use a #time: function to control that.
Time, of course, is rather complicated, and #time: itself is complicated to mirror that. Because there are many different ways to display the time, there are many different things you can tell #time: to do. Before we cover that, though, let's look at how #time: works:
{{#time: <how you want the time displayed> | <what time you want displayed> }}
OR
{{#time: <how you want the current time displayed> }} (to display the time at which the page was viewed)
As you can see, there are two ways to set this code up. You can display the current time, or a custom time that you specify. This custom time can be simply a change in timezone, a certain about of time before or after the current time, or a fixed time that you set. Here are some examples below of how that works. You can ignore the formatting code for just the moment, we'll cover that shortly. Just focus on what I have entered in the time slot on the right hand side.
What I'm doing
Code
Result
Printing the current time in UTC
{{#time: H:i:s }}
10:45:58
Changing the time zone to U.S. Eastern Standard Time, during Daylight saving time) (Note that this is in fact backwards: EST is actually UTC-4 during DST.)
{{#time: H:i:s | +4 }}
06:45:59
Changing the time to 30 minutes ago
{{#time: H:i:s | -30 minutes }}
10:15:59
Fixing the time to the time I saved this version of the lesson
{{#time: H:i:s | {{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} }}
15:51:32
Fixing the time to 30 minutes before I saved this version of the lesson, in EST during DST (Combining everything you've seen so far)
With me so far? You can do almost anything you want with the time that way, but there are some limitations to the template. For example, I was trying to set up a stopwatch here, that would display how many months, days, hours, and minutes had gone by since I saved the code onto the page. This is the code I tried to use: {{#time: n "months," j "days," G "hours, and" i "minutes" | -{{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} }}. There's nothing wrong with the format, and the time looks as though it might work, but instead I got this: Error: Invalid time.. Obviously not what I wanted. The problem was that I didn't specify any units for it to subtract, and the number {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} spits out is way to big to be considered a time zone. #time: is very finicky about what it will accept as a time - it has to be something it can easily recognize and use, or it's not going to bother. Here are some examples:
Code
Result
Notes
{{#time: H:i:s | {{CURRENTTIME}} }}
10:45:00
{{CURRENTTIME}} converts into a usable value for #time:, specifically the current hour and minute of the day: 10:45
{{#time: H:i:s | {{CURRENTHOUR}} }}
Error: Invalid time.
{{CURRENTHOUR}} only returns the current hour, a single number that doesn't mean much of anything to #time:. We know it refers to the hour of the day, but #time: doesn't know if it's the hour, minute, second, or even year.
{{#time: j M Y | April 9 2008 }}
9 Apr 2008
#time: knows how to recognize names of months, as long as they're spelled correctly, so it knows to read that as Month-day-year.
{{#time: j M Y | 04/09/2008 }}
9 Apr 2008
This sort of format is recognizable to me as the same date, but is ambiguous - see below.
{{#time: j M Y | 09/04/2008 }}
4 Sep 2008
This date could also represent April 9th, and some people might expect #time: to display that. Keep in mind that #time: will always read in the order Month-Day-Year if things get confusing.
{{#time: j M Y | December 7 1941 }}
7 Dec 1941
We would expect time to be able to display this properly, but it won't. Computers as we knew them didn't exist in 1941, and this is reflected in how we program things. As far as #time: is concerned, all life began on January 1st, 1970, and you're not going to convince it otherwise.
{{#time: j M Y | October 14 1066 }}
14 Oct 1066
If you try too hard to convince it, #time: will get mad at you and throw a temper tantrum. Don't try it.
Now that you roughly know how to tell #time: and what time to show, let's take a look at how to get it to show it. You'll have noticed from above that I've been sticking what seem to be random letters in the format side of #time:. #time: appears to be written for the sole purpose of being confusing, because few of the codes for the format make any sort of sense whatsoever. No, simply typing "day" won't work - if you're lucky, #time: will simply print "day" out and it won't look horrible, but it's also possible you'll get another big red error message. So what does it take? Let's figure it out:
All times shown here are based on the current time, 10:45:58, November 19, 2024 (UTC). (If this is not the current time, purge this page)
The day of the month, with a leading zero if less than 10
19
y
The year, using two digits
24
z
The day of the year (January 1 = 0)
323
Hours
D
The abbreviation for day of the week
Tue
a
Returns am or pm for use in a 12-hour time format
am
l
The full day of the week (lowercase letter L)
Tuesday
A
Same as above, but uppercase
AM
N
The number of the day of the week, ISO style (Monday = 1, Sunday = 7)
2
g
The hour of the day, in 12-hour format.
10
w
The number of the day of the week, US style (Sunday = 0, Saturday = 6)
2
h
The hour of the day, in 12-hour format, with a leading zero.
10
Months
G
The hour of the day, in 24-hour format.
10
n
The month number
11
H
The hour of the day, in 24-hour format, with a leading zero.
10
m
The month number with a leading zero (January = 01)
11
Minutes and seconds
M
The month's abbreviation
Nov
i
The minute of the hour, with a leading zero.
45
F
The full month name
November
s
The second of the minute, with a leading zero.
58
U
The total number of seconds that have passed since January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC. This is used by computers to represent time.
1732013158
Anything that doesn't appear in this list will generally be treated as what it actually is. So, you can wikilink dates by enclosing the format code in square brackets: {{#time: [[F d]] }} produces November 19. If, however, you want to type a letter that is in this list, you'll need to enclose it in quotes: {{#time: U represents a time }} comes out to:
1732013158 Tue, 19 Nov 2024 10:45:58 +0000UTCpTue, 19 Nov 2024 10:45:58 +0000UTC58UTC113058 am 304511UTC
To get the template to display as you intend it to, you'll need to use {{#time: U "represents a time" }} (1732013158 represents a time) or something similar.
Things get easier from here out, don't worry!
#expr:
This is the last ParserFunction we'll cover; although there are more, this is the last of the more commonly used ones. #expr: stands for "expression", referring to the mathematical sort. #expr: is your calculator, allowing you to play with parameters and variables to spit out something that may or may not be useful. It also can be used for logical statements, where 0 is considered false and anything else is considered true. Here's what you can do with it:
Operator
What it does
Sample code
Result
Mathematical stuff
+
Adds stuff
{{#expr: 1 + 1 }}
2
{{#expr: 3 + -2 }}
1
-
Subtracts stuff
{{#expr: 1 - 1 }}
0
{{#expr: 3 - -2 }}
5
*
Multiplies stuff
{{#expr: 3 * 2 }}
6
/
Divides stuff
{{#expr: 3 / 2 }}
1.5
mod
Finds the remainder after dividing whole numbers. Cuts off any decimal values.
{{#expr: 3 mod 2 }}
1
{{#expr: 3 mod 2.8 }}
1
round
Rounds to the number of decimal places indicated to the right of "round"
{{#expr: 3.1415926 round 2 }}
3.14
{{#expr: 32345 round -3 }}
32000
Logical stuff
not
Changes non-zero to zero, and zero to one. (Makes it not true/false)
{{#expr: not 30 }}
0
{{#expr: not 0 }}
1
and
Only true if both sides are true (non-zero)
{{#expr: 0 and 30 }}
0
{{#expr: 1 and 30 }}
1
or
True if one or both sides are true
{{#expr: 0 or 30 }}
1
{{#expr: 0 or 0 }}
0
!=
Exclusive or - only true if one side is true
{{#expr: 1 != 0 }}
1
{{#expr: 1 != 1 }}
0
=
Equals
{{#expr: 3 = 3 }}
1
<>
Not equal
{{#expr: 3 <> 2 }}
1
>
Greater than
{{#expr: 3 > 2 }}
1
<
Less than
{{#expr: 3 < 2 }}
0
>=
Greater than or equal
{{#expr: 3 >= 2 }}
1
<=
Less than or equal
{{#expr: 3 <= 2 }}
0
You can combine mathematical stuff and logical stuff in the same #expr:, as well as add parentheses to group operations - for example, {{#expr: (30 + 2) / 16 > 3}} will produce 0 ((30 + 2) / 16 = 32 / 16 = 2, which is less than 3, so false or 0). The function follows a specific order of operations, with all things going from left to right:
Stuff in parentheses ()
Positive and negative signs (+1, -1, not)
Multiplication and division (*, /, mod)
Addition and subtraction (+, -)
Rounding with round
Comparisons (=, <>, <, <=, >, >=, !=)
and
or
Make sure to be careful about this; just as in school, failing to pay attention to order of operations can easily cause your equation to come out to something you didn't expect.
Obviously there are some things you can't do with #expr: - it doesn't like letters, so using exponential formats such as 6.67E-11, or mathematical constants like e won't work. Also, it's limited by the usual laws of mathematics (for example, you can't divide by zero, etc.)
Other ParserFunctions
There are a total of 5 other ParserFunctions we haven't covered. I'll list these below, but won't go into detail about them because they are rarely used outside of meta-level templates, such as {{db-meta}}. Each of these is either fairly basic (along with what you already know) or can be easily represented by using one of the functions already covered. If you have an interest in these templates, they, along with the ones mentioned above, are covered in full detail at m:Help:ParserFunctions(Note: this page is on MetaWiki).
#ifexist: Similar to #if:, this checks to see if a page exists at the given title, and returns one of two possible lines of text.
#ifexpr: Combines #ifeq: and #expr:, checks a mathematical or logical expression to see if it results in zero, and returns one of two possible lines of text.
#titleparts: Returns a portion of a given page title as specified by the user.
#iferror: Checks ParserFunctions that could return an error message, including #time:, #expr:, #ifexpr:, and #rel2abs:, and returns a specified line of text if an error is the result.
Templates and tables
You've noticed that all of these functions use pipes, just like regular templates do. You've probably also noticed that most templates use tables to keep their formats in a readable order, and that these tables also use pipes. So, how does MediaWiki know when a pipe is a template pipe or a table pipe? Well, it doesn't.
Say you're setting up a template, that displays a table with an optional third row, triggered by the parameter {{{row}}}. Here's the code you try:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!This is
!a template.
|-
|This is
|a row.
{{#if: {{{row|}}} |
|-
|Here's an
|extra row. }}
|}
So, let's see what happens when we test this out. We made {{{row}}} be blank by default, so we should see a table that has only two rows.
What we expect to see
This is
a template.
This is
a row.
What we get
This is
a template.
This is
a row.
-
Yuck. That's not quite what we wanted. Things came out this way because when we condense the #if: code to a single line, this is what we get: {{#if: {{{row|}}} | |- |Here's an |extra row. }}. #if: doesn't know that it's in a table. #if: just sees that for some reason it's being given four different bits of text to choose from. However, it only cares about the first two: the blank section between the first two pipes, and the dash between the second two. Oops. So how can we tell #if: it's in a table, and needs to ignore some of those pipes? We trick it.
The templates {{!}}{{!!}} and {{!-}} are all designed for this purpose. Since we can't put an actual pipe in there and have it work, we fake it with another template. What happens is that #if: sees the template as a template, that is, like this: {{!}}. Since that's not a pipe, it assumes that's part of the text you want it to print out. But when it prints that text out into the table, it strips the template down into what it actually is, in this case, a pipe |. Now it's the table's turn. It goes through and sees the code left behind by #if:. Since there's a pipe there now, it deals with it accordingly, and spits out the table as we wanted to see it. So, this is how our code above should be written:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!This is
!a template.
|-
|This is
|a row.
{{#if: {{{row|}}} |
{{!}}- <!-- That makes a new row -->
{{!}} <!-- That makes a new cell --> Here's an
{{!}} <!-- That makes a new cell --> extra row. }}
|}
@Scribbleink: That's everything! Try testing out these templates in a sandbox, and seeing what all they can do. Once you're confident with what they do, feel free to add userbox {{|User t|3|c}} to your user page - you'll have earned it! You can ask questions--but then I in turn might have to ask someone else who knows this stuff better than I do ;) ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: I believe I've figured out most of the parts. I created these to test myself:
User:Scribbleink/Templates#Page_age - uses expr and time with arithmetic. I couldn't find a Magic word to retrieve page creation time, so I ended up looking at the page history and manually entering that information.
@Scribbleink: Wow, great job! I knew you could do it :) We've got only a few more lessons until you graduate; next we'll do one on policies and guidelines. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
A policy is a page describing a topic whose views have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that editors should normally follow. Examples of policies are WP:NOT, describing things that Wikipedia is not and therefore should not lead to pages of, and WP:Verifiability, saying what counts as a reliable source. These are commonly described as being "rules". However, there are usually exceptions to these rules.
A guideline is a page describing a best practice as supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines to the best of their abilities, although exceptions probably apply and everything should be treated with common sense. Examples of guidelines are WP:Assume good faith, which tells you to always assume that editors are working for the good of Wikipedia, and WP:Citing sources, which outlines the best way to cite sources on Wikipedia.
An essay is a page describing the opinion of an editor or group of editors. Essays are not rules or even guidelines to follow, and they do not represent the entire community's view. They are, however, worthy of consideration when you are editing. Examples of essays are WP:Existence ≠ Notability, which says that just because something exists doesn't mean that it deserves a Wikipedia page, and WP:Just drop it, which says that if things get heated, you shouldn't continue arguing.
Sometimes people make mistakes from not reading polices carefully. In addition, violating some guidelines and even some essays can get you blocked or banned. Some policies, such as WP:Verifiability is a policy that gets broken every day by thousands of users without them getting blocked.
Policies tell you what you must do, and guidelines tell you what you should do.
There are a number of exceptions to policies, and many guidelines tell you exactly what to do, such as WP:ELNEVER.
Policies are prescriptive while other guildlines are descriptive.
Prescriptive, in this case, is telling you what editors should do, and rarely what the community actually does. Most policies rose out of the common practice of good Wikipedians, which would make them descriptive.
Policies are supported by a higher degree of consensus than guidelines.
While policies are watched by more editors, and therefore it's more likely to be noticed if there's a change, there is no guarantee that they better reflect the community's views. In fact, if every edit is scrutinized and usually reverted, changing views may not be recognized, and policies may no longer reflect the views of the community.
Editors must follow the most relevant advice. For example, WP:Verifiability, a policy, allows low-quality, self-published blogs as sources, WP:Identifying reliable sources, a guideline, says that's not such a good idea.
The fifth pillar of Wikipedia is "Ignore all rules". It basically says that you should ignore a rule that keeps you from improving the encyclopedia. Some people try to apply it in bad situations, and it rarely works to their favor. There's an essay about it called Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. It basically says that if rules keep you from wanting to enjoy participating in the wiki, ignore them and go about your business. Everyone has their own interpretation of this pillar, and that's how it should be.
