Wikipedia talk:Tutorial (historical)

Click here to test and save your edits in a Wikipedia Sandbox.

Delete tutorial redesign pages?

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

learning preferences

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

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

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

Citing sources

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

Expand to an assessed tutorial?

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

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

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

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

I see the following advantages:

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

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

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

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

What's Wrong With My Reference?

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

"Common Knowledge"

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

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

Edit request on 18 July 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previewing

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

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

To VE or not to VE

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

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

Edit request

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

H₂SO₄ → 2 H^- + SO₄^2-

we should have:

H₂SO₄ → 2 H⁺ + SO₄^2-

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2014

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2014

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2014

→

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