This is a collection of important tips and answers archived by user khamar. Please edit and add any tips to this list you find particularly useful.
Create subpage link on sidebar
editTo add a Subpages link to your Tools in the sidebar, add this line to your Common.js page and purge per the instructions at the top of the page.
mw.util.addPortletLink ('p-tb', wgServer+wgArticlePath.replace("$1", "Special:PrefixIndex/"+wgPageName+"/"), 'Subpages');Reflist-Talk
editThis template is a version of {{Reflist}} designed to show a reference section for a talk page discussion within a bordered box.
Usage
edit
{{Reflist-talk}}Optional:
{{Reflist-talk|title=|group=|colwidth=|refs=}}In previous versions of MediaWiki, a bug caused this template to render incorrectly unless at least one parameter was specified, so a dummy parameter called "close" was often used. The underlying bug has since been fixed, so dummy parameters are no longer required and should not be used.
Parameters
|title=specifies the box title, defaults to ReferencesThe template honors these features of {{Reflist}}:
|colwidth=|refs=|group=
The template should be placed after the discussion that includes the references, as it will include all references before the template that haven't been claimed by a previous template.
Create Dab solver link on sidebar
editTo add a Dab solver link to your Tools in the sidebar, add this line to your Common.js page and purge per the instructions at the top of the page.
mw.util.addPortletLink ('p-tb', "http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/" + wgPageName, 'Dab solver');Rules for numbers
editExcept for a few basic rules, spelling out numbers vs. using figures (also called numerals) is largely a matter of writers' preference. Again, consistency is the key.
Policies and philosophies vary from medium to medium. America's two most influential style and usage guides have different approaches: The Associated Press Stylebook recommends spelling out the numbers zero through nine and using numerals thereafter—until one million is reached. Here are four examples of how to write numbers above 999,999 in AP style: 1 million; 20 million;20,040,086; 2.7 trillion.
The Chicago Manual of Style recommends spelling out the numbers zero through one hundred and using figures thereafter—except for whole numbers used in combination with hundred,thousand, hundred thousand, million, billion, and beyond (e.g., two hundred; twenty-eight thousand; three hundred thousand; one million). In Chicago style, as opposed to AP style, we would write four hundred, eight thousand, and twenty million with no numerals—but like AP, Chicago style would require numerals for 401; 8,012; and 20,040,086.
This is a complex topic, with many exceptions, and there is no consistency we can rely on among blogs, books, newspapers, and magazines.[2]
Hyphens
editQuotes
editDifferent ways of formatting and displaying quotes (with examples):
- Many examples: Template:Quote_box
Talk page graphics
editPronunciation Tags
editReferences
editFurther reading
editTips on Getting a nomination through the "Did You Know" DYK Process
edit(tip from JB)
- Make sure the article is well-sourced using reliable secondary sources.
- Make sure the article is written neutrally and in your own words. Close paraphrasing seems to be among the top most commonly cited problems for DYK pages. It can hold up the nomination process (or stop it completely) if not addressed properly. There are copyvio tools that help with this. I listed some earlier in this thread. That's also why it's important to get several sets of eyes on the page before publishing. There have been recent problems with editors "passing" nominations without thoroughly reviewing the page, so nominations are under even more scrutiny than usual.
- Make sure the page is long enough. On new pages, this usually isn't a problem. We wouldn't nominate a "stub" for DYK. For rewrites, that's 5x the original text.
- (from GN)Make sure that every paragraph has at least one reference to support it, apart from the lede which should just summarize information that is in the rest of the article and be referenced there.
- Make sure the images linked to the hook have appropriate permissions in Creative Commons. Only the first slot in any DYK list gets its image included on the front page. Fair use images can be used on a Wiki page, but they do not qualify for inclusion on a DYK listing.
- Make sure the hook--and any suggested alternative--has inline citations. That means the citation has to come directly after the sentence containing the hook. Offline citations can be taken in good faith, but some editors (especially newer reviewers) prefer hooks that link to online references (so they can verify them more easily). The hooks also need to be "interesting enough" and 200 characters or less (the more concise, the better). Also make sure the hook is specifically about the subject of the page and not some secondary detail. Sometimes it's better to go with a moderately interesting hook with a very clear citation than to go with a spectacular hook with an offline source. A reviewer has to review every ALT hook provided. Three well-thought out hooks seems to be a good number for providing choice of interest and relevancy for a reviewer. More than that and the editor is likely to by-pass the nomination and let someone else slog through the list.
- Make sure the nomination is made within 7 days of publishing the page. The purpose of DYK pages is to keep the newest and most topical Wiki pages on the front page. Some well-written articles have been denied DYK because they were not "new" enough. There's a tutorial for nominating pages in the quick links section. I'd recommend looking that over--especially if you haven't nominated a page before, but you want to and you're getting close to publishing the page. There is often a back-log to the nominations, but as long as the nomination is made within the time limit, the page (eventually) will get reviewed.
- If you've nominated more than 5 pages, you'll need to do a QPQ - Quid Pro Quo. That means you will need to review other people's pages. My recommendation is start reading reviews before you get to the 5th nomination so you get a feel for the review process. Also pick "easy ones." You can see from the nomination if someone's done a QPQ themselves. In general (but not always), that means the person who's nominating the page has some experience with the process and knows what a solid page looks like. You'll find a wide variety of pages on different subjects. Some are well written, some are not. To start, stay away from the controversial pages--unless you enjoy that kind of thing. It can get combative. You can do a review (using the DYK criteria) and mention that you're a new reviewer and that you'd like a more experienced editor to double check your work. The criteria for reviewing a DYK page are listed when you go into the comment or review section of a nomination. For fairness and to avoid conflict of interest, it's a good idea not to review pages you've worked on directly or helped with editing/proofreading.
- If an editor has questions about the nomination or the hook, they will leave a message for you. It's good to try to work with the person to clarify or correct the issues. Some editors are easier to deal with than others, as in any Wiki interaction, but approach the situation in good faith. People reviewing DYKs have varying degrees of experience. Even in some of the tougher interactions, there is something to learn about the process and the goal is to get the page through to the front page.
This may sound daunting, but it really isn't. DYK is pretty formulaic. The pages don't need to be particularly "exciting" or controversial, just well written...and, if we're putting in the work to write solid, well-sourced pages anyway, we might as well take advantage of this opportunity to get on to the front page.
Using the wayback template
editSelf-published sources, such as a person's CV or their own website
edit(tip from GN) The question came up recently about whether it was possible to use a person's self-published CV to fill in some details such as dates. So I looked into it, and the answer is that for some claims you can, in moderation.
The policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves which says:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves ... so long as:
1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
References
edit- ^ "Wikipedia:Subpages". Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- ^ Straus, Jane; Kaufman, Lester; Stern, Tom (2014-01-22). The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation: An Easy-to-Use Guide with Clear Rules, Real-World Examples, and Reproducible Quizzes. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781118790328.