Help talk:Cheatsheet/Archive 1

a space at left makes page too wide if lines are single spaced.

I think the software means by the dotted-line box that a mistake has been made; I think the "Ignore wiki formatting" command is for unformatted text.--Chuck Marean 14:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

They're both useful for different things. nowiki for showing typed wiki commands, unformatted text (dotted box) for composing ascii art representations and suchlike. See Wikipedia:How to edit a page#No or limited formatting - showing exactly what is being typed. --Quiddity 21:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a wall-poster in printable pdf form listed somewhere. Very similar to this. Cheat sheet indeed (rename this to?).

Aha. Image:Cheatsheet-en.png

We should update this to include some of that (but not all. link it at bottom instead).

Specifically from current, i don't think we need the Horizontal rule (it's essentially deprecated). But we should add internal/external link markup. --Quiddity 22:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Chuck: I changed it back to the direct image link, as it's better to not force an oversize image on users. The linked image page allows image preference sizes to work. I'm going to change that cheatsheet page into a redirect here. -Quiddity 00:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The other reason i suggested making cheatsheet redirect to quick guide, is to prevent the redundancy of mentioning them both each time. The quick guide is clearly more suitable for actually looking at online whilst editing, or small-scale printing; and the image/pdf more suitable for large-scale printing (poster size).

I strongly recommend that we just link to the quick guide, within the tutorial and suchlike. And redirect wikipedia:cheatsheet to the quick guide (or rename/move the quick guide to cheatsheet).

Specifically: The image is less helpful because, one can't copy the text, the resolution might be illegible/wrong depending on screensize, and the download time is far longer. --Quiddity 18:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirect/merge from cheatsheet

I've suggested that we Redirect/merge this page with Wikipedia:Cheatsheet, for the reasons above. Chuck Marean disagrees, and keeps reverting my changes, but without replying in talk page threads (he's a fairly new user still). Feedback from others on the issue of a merge would be appreciated. Is it confusing enough having near duplicate pages that they need to be merged? or is the redundancy irrelevant and they both deserve to exist? (leading to potential troubles of linking both everywhere). Thanks. -Quiddity 00:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should redirect Wikipedia:Cheatsheet here (or rename this page) and provide a link to . As this page is created in wikimarkup, I think it should be the "primary" (eg. linked) page, with the pdf file for printing. The image of the pdf says "this is just a preview", so the pdf is the logical choice. Certainly, the two pages shouldn't be linked everywhere. What links here, shows no pages link to the png or pdf files & 3 pages link to Wikipedia:Cheatsheet, where as this page is integrated into the help system and has started appearing on user and talk pages. -- Gareth Aus 05:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirect is what i meant, yeah. :) I'll change it back, and make a userspace version of the image for chuck marean. I agree with the renaming this page to cheatsheet proposal. Is there an admin reading this that agrees and can perform the necessary rename/move magic, or does it need to go to process...? -Quiddity 06:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed "Bullet list" and "Numbered list" in this table--regardless of where ever it came from--are not formatted right. "Two point one" is supposed to be indented, like the first word in the paragraph of a book. If you don't believe me, try it in a sandbox. If anyone knows how to get it to indent in this table go ahead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chuck Marean (talk • contribs) .

It seems Opera8 (and possibly other browsers) were misinheriting the column title's centering. (It appeared properly in ie5, and firefox. hence the confusion) Simple text-align:left fix. :) -Quiddity 01:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It took me for ever to find out that you can use html tags instead of just wikiformatting, allowing me to alter the ever elusive COLORS of text! I run a wiki, and I imported the chart from this article to my Help page, with the below information added above the "Internal link" section. Perhaps we could add this in to the Wikipedia one?

(I dont know why "<span style=color:green>...</span>" is being wrapped on this page, it's fine on my Help page.)

--HantaVirus 21:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to keep this page ultra-short/simple, and html is required very little in most wikipedia-editing scenarios. So this isnt really appropriate here. Also:

• you need a space in those linebreaks, before the slash. Not <br/>, but <br />
• bold and italics are better done in wikimarkup, to avoid a confusing mix of systems
• strikethru/sub/sup are all available via the mediawiki:edittools box under the "show preview" button.

Thanks anyway though :) -Quiddity 21:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the MediaWiki software converts both <br> and <br/> to <br /> automatically, so it doesn't really matter which of these you use. - dcljr (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but that encourages poor xhtml habits outside mediawiki. Better to aim for accuracy in tutorial materials, and let the error-correcting mechanisms catch the legitimate errors. -Quiddity 21:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... What if wikipedia used binary xml ... ;> (24.99.192.9 05:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

It's really annoying to try and find this sheet - which the rest of the world would call a reference card.

Surely Wikipedia is open to all! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.31.216.212 (talk • contribs) .

Where would you suggest additional incoming links need to be added? There are already links to here, from a large number of help pages. --Quiddity·(talk) 20:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

this page needs to be more easily accessed from main page with the same format used to explain other functionalities of WP the help pages are so bad

Pursuant to the 2 "make it easier to find" requests above, I'm going to move this page to Wikipedia:Cheatsheet, to mirror that at m:Cheatsheet, and also add a redirect to here from Wikipedia:Reference card. --Quiddity 02:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to propose we add a link to Wikipedia:Cheatsheet, in the editing-mode layout, next to the "Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)" links. eg:

Cancel | Editing help & Cheatsheet (opens in new window)

Proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). -Quiddity 06:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re-Proposed update at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Replace "Editing help" with "Cheatsheet" link. -Quiddity 06:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Done - This page is now linked from "Editing help (opens in new window)" in editmode. --Quiddity 21:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There's some special way to do it, otherwise if you put in the code as if it were a regular page, except with "Category" in it, it'll just categorize the page you're trying to turn into a redirect. --Sycotherejekt 01:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please ask help related questions at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Thanks :) --Quiddity 06:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page

(Note: this page, Wikipedia:Cheatsheet, was made the main "Editing Help" link around three days ago, on December 13th 2006.)

OK, I consider myself an intermediate user as far as wiki-markup goes; I have all the syntax on Wikipedia:Cheatsheet down pat. What I (and I assume a lot of other editors) have a problem with is the weirder stuff: tables, formulae, etc.

When Help:Editing was the main editing help link, all was well; one could clik on "Editing help" and then on the relevant topic. Now that Wikipedia:Cheatsheet is the main "Editing Help" link, one needs an extra page load for the same, which is hell on a slow connection.

Thus Wikipedia:Cheatsheet page should have links to the main editing topics, its status as a beginners' page notwithstanding, since it is now by default the main editing help page. EdC 10:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm know of the change - see the topic above. This page has evolved with a consistant guideline to keep things simple. May I suggest Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia. There was a link from here to this page but it has been removed. I think the idea behind the decision to change the link to this page is that newbies don't know where to go for help (they also don't want the more technical stuff that more experianced users want). It should also be noted that the original proposal was to put a link to the cheatsheet in addition to the link at Help:Editing - this was apparently rejected on technical grounds. Your problem is worth keeping an eye on, but for now I think we should leave the page as it is. After all the link was changed to point to this page because this page was thought to be a better target than Help:Editing. --Gareth Aus 10:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I know the various places to get editing help; however having to type in page names, bookmark URLs, or go via extra pages negatively impacts usability. The change to Wikipedia:Cheatsheet as main editing help link imposes a burden on editors; what I'm asking for is that it should be possible to get from the editing interface to the syntax guides for tables, formulae etc. in no more than two clicks. This used to be possible; that it is no longer is a loss of usability. --EdC 11:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a common mistake in usability to think that hiding information makes what's left more valuable. I agree that new users won't know what to do with intermediate markup, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't link to it here; this page is not just for new users anymore, so if links can be added without confusing things for new users then we should do that. This page might be better for new users, but at present it is far worse (at least 50% worse) for people who need to look up non-beginner markup. --EdC 11:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why this hasnt progressed to action now. Seems there are no objections. I will add a few and see if we get any reactions. Facius 13:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I just came here looking for cite php templates but don't see a link. If we want articles to be better referenced wouldn't it be good to provide all the help we can for people who want to add references? A link to the clean-up resources page would be good too. I still can't remember which links to click on for the cite php templates, so off I go on a journey round the encyclopedia - wish me luck. Itsmejudith 19:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

wp:cite ;) -Quiddity 19:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. This time I found it quite quickly anyway but my memory is not what it was and a link would help. Itsmejudith 23:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Linking everything generally useful is more what the main Help:Contents menu (linked in sitewide sidebar) and it's submenus are for; it contains a link to wp:cite under the links subheading. -Quiddity 01:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we please have links giving the markup for requesting citations to dubious facts? I can never remember what they are!! Asd28 03:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pleased that "Editing help" now redirects here. The previous page had more links to more features and I don't know how to find them now. (Table help, for one thing.) There is such a thing as over-simplification; does the page that used to appear at this link still exist? I'll create a shortcut to it myself. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk 08:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This change was discussed at WP:VPR#Replace "Editing help" with "Cheatsheet" link, if you'd like to express your opinions there. Tra (Talk) 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a closed discussion; is there a more current link? --EdC 00:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That link seems to work for me? It's currently the 5th discussion down at the WP:VPR though.

But things can be changed here too. We could move the "See Help:Editing for more detailed explanations." line that's at the bottom to the top (done). Or other updates/clarifications as needed. --Quiddity 01:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My main problem with the Help:Editing page is it breaks at 1024x768 because of the long navbox (see image). This all comes back to the massive problem of the overlap/redundancy of the meta-help page copies vs our local help pages (both of which have pros and cons); I don't know what to do about any of that. --Quiddity 01:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I see what the problem is there. I'd still like to see some of the navbox info on the Editing help page, esp. links to table and formulae markup. (Perhaps at the bottom, inline?) Incidentally, if this is a beginners' cheat sheet, what's nowiki and dl doing here? --EdC 09:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem shown in the 1st screenshot is the left-hand table column is highly-compressed, making the information hard to glance through and understand. Here's another screenshot of the Unordered List markup; see how hard that is to mentally parse, because of the bad linewrapping?

I agree that the nowiki and DL code is not needed here (nor included in the meta-cheatsheet version); I've removed it. --—Quiddity 20:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Couldn't that be fixed with {{Template:-}}? --EdC 01:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That would result in a variably sized whitespace gap, which is an imperfect compromise. (even worse if the user has "ToContents" boxes in hidden-mode), however, it's better than nothing, so I've done just that :) I'll see if there are any complaints.. -—Quiddity 11:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that this page should have a piece explaining how to put up notes in the editing box that will not come up in the actual article? G man yo 10:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess that comments are better left on the article's talkpage, and that we shouldn't advocate placing hidden messages within comment tags in the article. Especially to the newcomers this page is primarily targeted at. But I'm open to persuasion if you can think of a legit reason they'd need to know :) —Quiddity 18:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should, because i remember seeing it somewhere, and I wanted to put a note to other editors on a stub i had written. So I looked at the cheatsheet, but it wasn't there. isnt it <<! type here >> or something? G man yo 21:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

<!-- comment code --> But I still think notations are best left on the article's talkpage; that's why it exists :) —Quiddity 00:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

See Help:Editing for more detailed explanations and advanced syntax

Or not. Help:Editing has more detailed explanations but little if anything about advanced syntax. Trial-and-error required. I suggest:

See Help:Editing for more detailed explanations and Help:Editing tips and tricks for advanced syntax.

I also suggest changing name of the latter page to Help:Advanced editing syntax. And it seems strange that the main Help page doesn't link to an explanation of advanced syntax. As for the current page, IMO it would be improved if it had entries for time stamp (~~~~~) and nowiki. --munge 06:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we really need a description of templates! I had a really hard time finding the templates page and it was really annoying! Peter 22:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I noted that the format for Internal Links:Internal link(within Wikipedia) = Text to display seems to be inaccurate. What worked for me is [[page url]text to display]. Sync350 (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Quick reference made into a redirect to WP:CHEAT. Archive of discussion can be found here. //MaraNeo127^talk 05:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing the change is something to do with this: Template:Linksearch, but I don't have time now to dig deeper. Just a note for anyone else wondering what was going on. --Quiddity 20:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue is back in Firefox 2.0.0.1. The numbered list item for "two point one" is only showing 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.189.137 (talk)

(Different issue, indents vs numbering.) Actually I think that's the way it's meant to display, as it's the same in Opera9, Opera 6, and IE5.5.

The "Table of Contents" boxes however, do display the "2.1" in the way you suggest (e.g. on this page). Possibly the source of the confusion? --Quiddity 20:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look on the Cheatsheet I tried Firefox 2 and IE 7 with the same results.

Why does this:

# one# two## two point one# three

appear like this:

  1. one  2. two        1. two point one  3. three

I do not think there is any confusion about how it is intended to look. The spelling of "two point one" shows what should appear and it is not appearing as "2.1". The Cheatsheet looks broken to anyone with this same problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.155.189.137 (talk)

I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Numbered lists. We'll see what they say :) --Quiddity 20:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just started copy editing and for safety's sake I've been copy->paste-ing the HTML for the COPYEDIT IN PROGRESS and PLEASE PROOFREAD tags, also when and where to put them. Could those be added to the cheat sheet for convenience? Right now I search around the various editing help pages until I find them and then open a new window to work in, leaving the page with the HTML open. ~ Otterpops 16:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the wikicode is not HTML, though they are both markup languages. The best place to put notes for things you want to refer to often, is on your userpage. I see you already have a handful of templates there; I'll add the copy-and-pastable code versions there for your convenience :) --Quiddity 19:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You're wunderbar Qiddity, thank you! <3 (I wondered where those came from...)~ Otterpops 20:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see more info on how to write properly threaded comments in the cheat sheet. * alone without double linebreaks works, but it would be good to see some examples

• like this

1. which has inner content
2. and stuff

• • and replies
    • just in general a lot of nested stuff to show how to do complex stuff
• all in a one or two very small comprehensive examples

I think a lot of people start running into issues when they try to write comments and replies in discussion. I myself dont know how to write a multi-line comment in reply to someone else. The examples can be really short, and I think they'd be capital for aiding Talk pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rektide (talk • contribs) 22:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

This cheatsheet lacks the "endings blended into the link" and "hide stuff in parenthesis" cheats, that I find useful. 89.129.167.171 23:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Editing help" link on every Wikipedia editing page links here. The help on this page is directed at very beginners, more experienced users have to go to Wikipedia:How to edit a page for their questions. Therefore, I am considering this the most important link on the page and it should be highlighted on top of the article and be repeated in the "See also" section to prevent frustration and/or confusion. It is beyond my understanding why the link has been completely deleted from the article recently (diff). Cacycle 02:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone with permission to edit the cheat sheet add the following format for references (in the same section as links perhaps?):

A reference is inserted in the text for the first time with the markup:^[1]and every subsequent time with:^[1]

where all the capitalised items need to be inserted:

• REF_NAME is a name for this reference, used to refer to it after first declaration
• URL is the URL of the reference, if applicable
• REF_LINK is the text to appear in the link to the reference
• REF_CAPTION is the text to appear after the link to the reference

At the end of the article, add a REFERENCES section like this:== References ==

<references/>

where all references in the text will automatically appear.

For example: It was reported by the BBC [1] etc... The article [1] also said etc...is achieved with: It was reported by the BBC ^[2] etc... The article ^[2] also said etc...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.222.189.102 (talk) 10:25, June 6, 2007

I don't know if this has been addressed earlier, but it seems like an important feature so I'll take a moment and add it in. it might get reverted as too complex, though...--Ludwigs2 (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a serious problem with the third introductory paragraph, specifically the part that reads:

When the war ended in 1783, special interests conspired to create a new "merchant state," much like the British state people had rebelled against. In particular, holders of war scrip and land speculators wanted a central government to pay off scrip at face value and to legalize western land holdings with disputed claims. Many of the participants in the closed Constitutional Convention were scrip and/or land speculators.[1] Also, manufacturers wanted a high tariff as a barrier to foreign goods, but competition between states made this impossible without a central government.

While this may be acceptable in a section presenting alternative views, it does not represent factual information which is agreed upon and should not be portrayed as such. I'd love to hear what others have to say, but I feel quite strongly it should be removed, I'd never let a statement like this go unchallenged by my students. Mrrandal 00:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Mrrandal's statement above entitled "Merchant State" refers to the Wiki on 'Articles of Confederation' of The United States

See: Revision_and_replacement

Orchus2 (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm Currentlly Using this template on another site, do i just have to put a reference link up in order to use it? Xiaden 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone think that adding the wikicode for making definition lists to the cheatsheet would be a good idea?

;definition term:definition

definition term

This is the definition of the definition term.

It can also go all on one line.

;definition term:definition

definition term

This is the definition of the definition term.

- LA @ 18:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

They're not a commonly used element in our articles (that I know of), so I think are best left off this minimal set of instructions. (Where are they used, aside from glossary pages?) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify for me. I made an addition to the cheatsheet page - I added a line about making internal links to subsections of pages (see diffs), primarily because I was looking for that information myself and had a hard time finding it. the change was reverted with the explanation that it was too technical. this is not a problem, but it leaves me unclear about the purpose of this page. is this page intended specifically for people who have little to no experience with wiki or html editing? I can limit myself to that level in future edits, if necessary (I had been thinking about adding references to features that I commonly forget how to use - lol). and if that's the case, is there an advanced user's cheatsheet somewhere that I can't find?

thanks, --Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right. This page is intended to show the bare minimum, in an attempt to not overwhelm newcomers with the more complete (but huge) Wikipedia:How to edit a page. (See also Help:Editing). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I get it now.  :-)--Ludwigs2 (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Gareth,

while I understand that this is only supposed to be a simple page for new users, I think that the changes I made were generally useful, as follows:

1. the added structure clarified things, and (IMO) made the page more readable.
2. the added elements (block quotes, basic images, and resized images, at least) are all elements that even new editors should be using frequently on pages.
3. nothing I added was excessively difficult or complex for a beginning user.

with those points in mind I am going to revert. I am willing to discuss what is and is not useful, however.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted a compromise edit, between the two. The indents for talkpages is useful information for complete newcomers, but the blockquotes and image-format-variants are unnecessary at this level of help. The green text is hard to read, and poor for accessibility.

As background only, this cheatsheet is based on meta:Cheatsheet, and Gareth has been helping develop and maintain it since its initial creation (not meaning to imply ownership, but rather that he has a good sense of our various target-demographics (everything from kids to retirees)). Further tweaks would be good, but growth should be avoided if at all possible. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

well, no offense, I hope. I'm aware that Gareth is a very experienced editor; I was just taking the "be bold" pillar to heart. maybe too much so... :-)

just to be clear, I made these changes because I was trying to imagine the problems an inexperienced user might face when building a page. quotes and images sprang out, since a large majority of encyclopedia pages are likely to have lengthy quotes, and almost every page on Wikipedia has visual imagery. the quote system struck me as fairly straight-forward and non-problematic. with respect to images, I'm almost tempted to say that the resized image format is more useful than the thumbnail image, since it seems to gives more control over the appearance of the picture on the page. I could be wrong about that, though (I'm not really all that image oriented...)

plus, I happen to like the dark blue bands. =D

at any rate, I'm good with whatever reasonable consensus comes out of this.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

while this page is helpfull for new users, I think something should be made that has tips and trix for more advanced users, like (__TOC__ __NOTOC__ [[: ] {{: }}). mabey also do a brief intro to parsor functions with a link to the media wiki manual page, etc.

click the "How to edit a page" links on the top or bottom of the page. that's where all the advanced editing docs live. I think the consensus will be that ToC commands are too advanced for this page. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Should say something to the effect of "don't put newlines between elements of a list"

• This

• is

• bad

(look at the source of the page)

• This
• is
• good

— Omegatron (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is more of a problem for numbered lists than bulleted lists, but I'll try to add a quick note about it. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The section on Footnotes/References should be updated to include the preferred standard for referencing external web pages: {{Cite web}}. Joeinwap (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I just used the old format currently on the Cheatsheet, and it's all your fault for not fixing it yourself, you lazy bastard. Have a nice day! 66.41.154.228 (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. But seriously, is there anything wrong with the version on the Cheatsheet? It seems simpler, which I would say is the objective for stuff on a cheat sheet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.154.228 (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Would be nice to include the syntax one should add to designate a (e.g., new) page as a "stub." I don't do this often enough to remember the syntax, but I do occasionally want to add a new topic to Wikipedia about which I don't have enough info for it to be a non-stub article... so I'd like to have a quick reference to this syntax. Anyone else think that, too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philiptdotcom (talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just add {{stub}} to any new stub. Or if you want to be more precise/helpful, find the correct stubtype at the (painfully large) Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types listing.

It's not a critical part of the wikimarkup, so I don't think it warrants inclusion here. This page is already getting a bit too large. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Could someone post the syntax for creating the current events box at the top of the page? Kb3mlmsk (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

See Template:Current for guidance. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no link to Wikipedia:Template messages on this page? --84.178.77.48 (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think because it was intended as a cheatsheet for simple editing operation, not for more sophisticated things like adding templates. just my 2¢ --Ludwigs2 08:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't use <nowiki> often enough to remember how to use it and have spent about 20 minutes trying to find some reminder. I think that

1. nowiki should be added to this table and
2. this table should link in a much more prominent way to other pages, especially the Manual of Style. I'm sure it ooes link there, but I've got 5 years of experience on Wikipedia and spend probably 20+ hours each week using and editing Wikipedia, and no link jumped out at me. If I missed it, other busier (or less curious) people won't see it either.

I could add nowiki myself but am reluctant to mess with this page since the formatting is a bit beyond my comfort zone. Interlingua 15:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's high use enough that it should be added, but I'm not really here about that. I just wanted to solve your problem with remembering the tags. You don't need to. All you need to remember is that the tags are provided automatically using one of the normal editing buttons appearing right above the edit screen. It looks like this: . Highlight any text, click that button and voilà, nowiki tags. By the way, it's also redundantly provided somewhere else. In edit mode look below your edit screen; just after where it says "Do not copy text from other websites...", you see the little box with the arrow next to it which has "insert" inside it? Click on the menu arrow and change to "wiki markup". Nowiki Tags are provided in there. There's quite a lot of other useful stuff in the other menu categories, such as fractions in the symbols menu and so on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I have added anchors to every separate secton in the list. This means that you can refer a new user to a specific section by providing a link such as Wikipedia:Cheatsheet#Bulleted list. All of the anchors use the same capitalization and format as the linked names of the section so the string at the end (i.e what you would paste after # in the link) can always be simply highlighted and copied.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

nice. --Ludwigs2 18:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

+1 - DiverCTH 18:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that this edit should remain. Here's a quick rationale to why I added the "Level 0 headers" with the strikeout through them: new users may feel tempted to use them on a page, but this shows that even though it's technically possible, it is not in common usage on this wiki. LobStoR (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, this page is for the most high-use formatting uses. There are tons of normative things we could say, many of them far more common formatting mistakes than your proposed edit (in fact I've never seen this particular mistake crop up, which doesn't meen it doesn't happen, but it's certaimly not common). For example, we are constantly seeing html in articles. If we are to include normative prescription material in this page, we would be far better warning against using html in place of wikimarkup than warning against this uncommon mistake. But providing such prescriptive advice does not balance with the purpose of this page. Almost every section could get it's own raft of prescriptions, but what we're here about is a cheatsheet for showing (and reminding) people of how to do the most common wiki formatting.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thanks for your response. LobStoR (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should include that text which starts with a space is put into the strange box thinglike this. And perhaps include blockquote which is useful. --BozMo talk 10:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The instructions for creating footnotes are far too brief. More clear explanation is required.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.140.4 (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2009

There are mid-sized instructions at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, but some of the referencing system was recently improved, so updates are needed in numerous places. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As this is a quick reference guide, I felt the links were unessecary. The intros are linked to in the header bar, so most their topics are covered already ( or easily accessible). Let's keep this to a simple 'cheatsheet' for starting editors!

Already familiar

• For a tour of features, see the Introduction to Wikipedia.
• To experiment with editing, use the sandbox.

linked at top of page

• For a guide to more advanced page editing, see How to edit a page

Irrelevent to a regularly used cheatsheet - only needed in an introduction page or on specific help:[[File:User contributions detail.png|thumb|alt=Screenshot of a "User contributions" page, with balloons pointing to various components|'''User contribution''' pages, '''article history''' pages, '''watch lists''', and '''recent changes''' are helpful in keeping track of what your fellow editors are doing. This graphic explains some of the features.]]

Advanced topics should probably link from advance cheetsheet if anything but best covered by help contents

• For a checklist of elements required to make a "perfect" article, see The Perfect Article and the Wikipedia Manual of Style.
• You might also find citation templates and Magic Words useful
• For help creating articles, see Wikipedia:Your first article, or try the Article Wizard

The following are Wikimedia specific ( alright - when it was the wikipedia help) but are now outdated this article is pretty much as good.

• For print cheatsheets, see the MediaWiki reference card or the poster-size cheatsheet (available in many languages).

irrelevent

• The encyclopedic article on cheat sheets</nowiki>

I have replaced the above with a link to the Wikipedia:MARKUP section as this seems relevant for finding further info. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 23:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget (or, be aware), that this page is linked to from the "Editing help (opens in new window)" link under the edit window (next to "Cancel"). (As used in MediaWiki:Edittools.) Just thought I should mention. I have no immediate thoughts about culling the see also section. Ta :) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Quiddity, I'll put a note at the top somehow. The rest of the help system is available from the navbar at the top, but I think a navbox would be beneficial at the bottom rather than selected links. Lee∴V (talk • color="#a3bfb1">contribs) 18:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to just outright revert this but it is a page which all editors can and many do access from the "Editing help" link. Additional helpful links are justified here. And many expect to find these links here. Since the link says it's help, let's not reduce the help it offers. Ikluft (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, that's my requested style, revert me if I've been too bold and bring to talk ! I still think the links can be improved, maybe one of the nav boxes being worked on might do the trick in the future. Do you have any thoughts on the balance between ease of use and level of detail for the shortcuts on this page , for example ? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 02:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the purpose of the Cheatsheet, it is factually incorrect, and confusing, to say that a heading with 2 equals on either side is Level 1 and one with 6 equals is Level 5; they are Levels 2 and 6 respectively. If you open an edit box in Wikipedia and ask for a Level 2 heading, you get 2 equals on each side (try it yourself). Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Headings says just what I am saying; I was trying to conform the Cheatsheet to that.

In addition to being correct, it is easier for everyone to remember that the heading level equals the number of equals. The wikicode for the heading levels corresponds to HTML heading levels 1 through 6. If you look at a Wikipedia page in HTML, I expect that you will see an HTML Level 2 tag for what the Cheatsheet erroneously calls Level 1, and an HTML Level 1 tag for the title of the page. If you don't want to show editors how to make a Level 1 heading, that's OK with me. That is the difference between my first reverted edit and my "second try"; I thought that leaving out the markup for Level 1 in my "second try" met the objection stated in Quiddity's edit comment when he reverted me. My "second try" did mention (without showing the markup) that Level 1 is reserved for page titles, just like it says at Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Headings: "A level-one heading is automatically generated for the article's title, which is not available in the edit box." Otherwise, if you start with Level 2 and don't say anything about Level 1, it looks like something is missing. But to say that 2 equals is Level 1, when the edit box and Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Headings correctly say that it is Level 2, is just confusing.

Would you please fix this, or let me fix it? Thanks. —Finell 05:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers/explanation. I've reverted to your last diff, but moved the footnote ("Level 1 is used only for a page's title, and is generated automatically.") to the end for clarity - now "level 2" in the middle column is beside "level 2" in the righthand column.

We could also move the footnote into the lefthand column (under "A Table of Contents will automatically..."), or to the very end as an actual footnote, if my attempt isn't satisfactory. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me the way you did it. The Level 1 explanation is likely to get lost in the lefthand column. Thanks! —Finell 23:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Aha! I knew I wasn't going insane. We do describe the double as ==level 1==, at the official printable banner/poster/cheatsheet m:WMDOC/Cheatsheet (which is what this one was originally based on).
It is more accurate to say level 2 (as there are 2 equalsigns, and it creates an H2), but we've historically called the highest heading that editors are advised to use, a "level 1". (I'm not saying we need to re-debate anything, just pointing out the discrepancy/confusion). Well, ok, a little insane. ;-) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I never doubted your sanity. The solution for inconsistency is to correct any other pages that are wrong. This page is now correct! I fixed m:WMDOC/Cheatsheet, but we'll have to see if it stays fixed. —Finell 03:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think External Linking should link to Linking#External_Linking, not Linking . RMasta (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've spent 10 minutes trying to find out how to escape square brackets, and still have not found it. When the cheat sheet shows the user how to use square brackets and other special characters for their special wiki meaning, it should also show how to escape them to prevent them from being interpreted that way. This is the obvious place where someone would look for this information. Thanks! -- DBooth (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The easiest way is to surround the markup with <nowiki></nowiki> tags. (As seen within the code for the cheatsheet itself)

However, there are at least 3 variations to attaining limited markup, explained at the "For more advanced details ..." link at the top of the cheatsheet, specifically this section: Help:Wiki markup#Limiting formatting [now at Help:Wiki_markup#Limiting_formatting / Escaping_wiki_markup]. Depending on circumstances/context, 1 of those 3 would be appropriate to what you need. It's not a commonly needed piece of information for editing most articles, hence isn't included in this concise cheatsheet. Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I spent at least another 30 minutes trying to track this down before I saw your response above, and there seem to be two contributing issues: 1. The cheatsheet doesn't show how to escape wiki markup. I realize that there will be different opinions about how often this is needed, but you have already seen evidence on this page that people -- not only me -- *do* spend significant time trying to find this information, expect to find it on the cheat sheet (the obvious place for it), and are puzzled why it isn't there. 2. Even on the Help:Wiki_markup it is not easy to find this information, for two reasons: (a) the word 'escape' does not appear on the page; and (b) square brackets are so common on the page that searching on the page for them is not a reliable way to find out how to escape them. I will try to fix the second of these problems, and I would urge you to relent on the first of these to allow brief escaping instructions to be included on the cheat sheet. Thanks. -- DBooth (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'm quite sure this is not the first time that I have tried to find this information either. As the poster above, under "Please add <nowiki>" states, I don't use it often enough to remember how to do it. That's why we rely on the cheat sheet. Thanks -- DBooth (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. I would guess that a very common need for wiki characters to appear uninterpreted would be in the use of square brackets, such as in quotations: "He said to put [the dog] outside." BTW, as of this writing that particular example also seems to work without the <nowiki> tags, but nowhere do I see documented that that is the correct way to do it, and I don't want to rely on an undocumented behavior that just happens to work today but may not work tomorrow because it wasn't ever intended to work that way. OTOH if that simpler way of writing it [like this] *is* officially sanctioned, then it would be nice if it were documented so that people like me didn't have to waste so much time trying to figure out the sanctioned way to do it. Thanks! -- DBooth (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no need to escape [single] square brackets, and that will never change as they are such a standard part of written communication. (Their function only changes if a url is the first content within, e.g. [http://blah foobar] creates foobar

Aha! That's good to know. I've now added that info to the Help:Wiki markup page. -- DBooth (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll stare at the cheatsheet a bit later, for possible places to mention nowiki. It's hard to squeeze in everything though! Perhaps someone else will work it in before I do, or offer further objections/support. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added information about the standard use of square brackets to Help:Wiki_markup#link-external, Wikipedia:Linking#External_links and Wikipedia:External links (which has been reverted). I do have to agree with Quiddity, that documentation of <nowiki> here is not warranted. The problem is that if everyone has their pet "I couldn't find this" feature added, then the Cheatsheet ultimately becomes a clone of Help:Wiki markup - at which point people will probably say "why not produce a simple, concise version". Truth be told, I think this page is already starting to become cluttered (particularly the See also section). Gareth Aus (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I agree this page is growing quite cluttered. If you're feeling familiar with the current state of the various sets of help pages, please feel free to gently prune, here. I'm busily gnoming elsewhere. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a link in the "See also" section to Help:Wiki markup. I know there is already a link to this at the top of the page, but I realized that the reason I didn't notice it earlier -- and others may not either -- is that one's first inclination is to scan the cheat sheet for the feature that one is seeking. If one reaches the "See also" section at the bottom without finding it, one then naturally looks in the "See also" section for a link to more detailed information. For this reason, I wonder if the link to Help:Wiki markup at the top of the page is needed. -- DBooth (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've completed a redesign of the cheatsheet with the goals of making it more streamlined and consistent. Here are the changes:

• Divided into "Works anywhere in the text" and "Works only at the beginning of lines" sections
• Added adding a category
• Removed references as these are quite complex and I don't think they work well in this format. Kept links at the bottom, as references are important and we want people to add them.
• Standardised notes on the left side below the command name. The exception is the category entry, which is in the "You get" column as displaying what a person gets in this situation is difficult.
• Removed some notes & added others.
• Moved Help:Wiki markup link to bottom - the thinking being that people look through the cheatsheet, reach the bottom, fail to find what they are looking for and think "what now?".
• Removed http://www.example.org as this method is not best practice.
• Removed many entries from the see also section and combined it with the main cheatsheet.
• Other minor changes.

Gareth Aus (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally, looks great. Much thanks. [Note: a 'before redesign' diff]

Specific fixes needed:

• Redirects only work at the start of the first line
• the SeeAlso section doesn't look good at most screen widths 800/1024/1152 (it has weird linebreaks due to the centering). Can we take that back to single column and left-aligned maybe?

I've also added two of the removed SeeAlso links to a tmbox at the top of this talkpage. I'm not sure whether that works well or not.

-- Quiddity (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks simpler now, but the trusty old <ref name="test">[http://www.example.org Link text], additional text.</ref> is now hard to find. It's the one I use most and has most of what we need, so I suspect others would use that too rather than external links within body text. I think it should be in the cheatsheet again. Perhaps with author included. TGCP (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the redirect entry down and restored the see also section to its traditional format. The extra see also links at the top of the talk page seems like a good compromise.

TGCP, I've added that information to Help:Citations quick reference (which is linked at the bottom of the cheatsheet). As mentioned above, I don't like including references here because the process is quite complex and there are a number of different ways to reference. Citations quick reference is basically a cheatsheet specifically for references, which I think is a much better format because it is more comprehensive and better designed for the task. You make a good point about external links not being included in the body text - this goes against the MOS too. I'm not sure what to do about this. One possibility is to remove external links here - both types of link are displayed at Citations quick reference. The problems are that changing the "References" section to "References and links to external websites" feels awkward and arbitrary, and there may well be calls to add external links back here. If anyone has any suggestions please speak up! Gareth Aus (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooo! Help:Citations quick reference is brilliant. (by gods we have a lot of pages on how to use Citations.) I'll ponder the rest... -- Quiddity (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed external links from the cheatsheet and changed the link to Help:Citations quick reference to read "Cheatsheet for citing a website or publication". I'll see how that goes. - Gareth Aus (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It occurred to me that we might want to add a quick bit about using templates and parameters - just enough so that new users can see how to use stock templates (of, for instacne, the {{infobox}} variety). I can add that myself, I just wanted to check in to see if anyone had strong objections to it. --Ludwigs2 21:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

On my keyboard, the key that types the vertical bar is shown with a broken bar, and I spent a good 10 min. trying to figure out how to type a vertical bar. I went through several links before I arrived on the 'vertical bar' entry, where something at the bottom gave me the clue I should try using the broken bar key, which worked. I don't know how common that is, but HOW to perform edits really ought to be the main thing addressed in these entries, shouldn't it? Then after that, people can get into the when, and the details of various cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briligg (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 April 2010

File:Gambar tanaman kakao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.222.203.220 (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

testInfiniteraja (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done- Not an edit request sorry. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

First one is a smaller image as the example image... when printing this will occupy less paper ...

Which leads on to the second .. do we really need 'For a PDF, printable cheatsheet, see m:WMDOC/Cheatsheet' in the 'see also' section? The print option is in the toolbox already? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The pdf version is designed to fit on a single printed page, and designed to look good when printed.

You should try viewing the "printable version" of the cheatsheet here, and even worse, try clicking your browser's "print preview" from there. Ghastly!

Hence, this one is not intended for printing. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}The statement that John Alite does not owe his 2 children from his ex wife Carol is completely false he is in arrears $28,973.38 as of october 2010 his child support amount now is $528.50 per month after emancipating his son. Did the source think to ask his ex wife for proof of his obligations? I think not, please don't be so irresponsible when reporting facts.

174.57.137.231 (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe your request is in the wrong place. Requests placed here should be about Wikipedia:Cheatsheet. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 328° 45' 45" NET 21:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This cheatsheet does not tell anything about templates. I think that it should at least tell the basics about template markups. Such as:

{{example}}

--Explorer09 (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}Chak # 89 NB, Sargodha

rao 17:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. ➜GƒoleyFour (GSV) 19:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What's going on? This page must be linked from some new user page somewhere.. why are so many people posting new articles here all of a sudden? -- œ^™ 03:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Welcomecreation tests - version 5 has a slightly questionable link to the Cheatsheet. Rd232 ^talk 15:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahh yes, that would be it then. I've noticed an increase in reverted new user edits at Wikipedia talk:FAQ‎ as well, which also is linked from there. -- œ^™ 22:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}

76.95.42.166 (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. This request is in the wrong place, but I looked at Ted Lange, and it doesn't say anything about not being married (divorced), so I don't understand how he could be remarried. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}I would like to add to the cheet sheet.I want to add to a section for signing name with three tides ~~~ as well as 4 tides ~~~~

• deleted contribs • summary • count • total • logs • block log • block • email)

08:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like that already exists. —GFOLEY FOUR— 16:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesnt there is a timestamp on that not a non-timestamp posting option • deleted contribs • summary • count • total • logs • block log • block • email)

This page should not be speedy deleted because I find it quite helpful looking up specific syntax for editing my lab's wiki website. If this cheatsheet doesn't have it, the links at the bottom lead to pages that do!— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoboticRiley (talk • contribs) 17:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh?! ¬_¬ -- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because I use it regularly when updating and maintaining the Wiki I run for my work project and helps in formatting pages. It's been a lifesaver.

It's not being deleted. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

the things I tried, from MW syntax to HTML, have not worked. Help please.

Help:Links states that "[[#top| <"current page", or any other text>]] always links to the top" (Meta angle braces and stuff added). Fair enough, but how about adding that here?

Yes it would be a duplicate, as all other entries seem to be, but the page seems handy for me.

--87.175.43.77 (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

possible to get it back? just the "payloads" part of worms. accidentally deleted a large paragraph or something outta there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.167.17 (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

References

I think a third example reference should be added which has linked explanatory text, as the w:REF for beginners page provides this information but is somewhat unclear and definitely not succinct. Arlo Barnes (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful to include the linkhttps://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Help:Wiki_markup#Formatassociated with the changing text fonts section.CasualVisitor (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually going to remove that bottom section, as per my edit summary, this page is intended to be non-overwhelming (newcomer and technophobe friendly), and just include minimum / core details. Changing the text's main/background color is very very rarely used, especially by newcomers. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What does link internal heading mean? I've never used that. And when I clicked on it, it took me to a big page, not a specific subsection. Biosthmors (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As in, a link to a within-the-same-page subheading.

Eg. You could link to the top section on this current page with either: just #Contested deletion, or the full Wikipedia talk:Cheatsheet#Contested deletion.

I've added a subsubheading at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Section links, and fixed the cheatsheet link to point there.

The description in the cheatsheet could possibly be improved/clarified though? —Quiddity (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Reworded it. Biosthmors (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Now do we need "Link to a section (another page)"? Biosthmors (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Well we definitely want to keep things minimal here, so it might be best to simply replace the #internal sectionlink example with a page#subsection example. I'll stare at it after lunch, or if you see a clear solution, go for it. —Quiddity (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Minimal is best. Biosthmors (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we don't even need to tell people how to link within a page. I don't think that is an important part of editing Wikipedia. I think a high priority of this page should be to keep people quickly reading down the page, all the while saying to themselves, "that sounds easy! i understand that!". tripping people up along the way over unimportant things seems to go against the intent of this page. Also, what is "change the text with a vertical bar: "? Biosthmors (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

So I was bold and made a couple edits. Also, I don't mind leaving "Redirect to a section of another page" because I think that is more important to the encyclopedia than linking within a page. Biosthmors (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed (and well explained), and good changes. :) —Quiddity (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad we're working on it. This page gets hundreds of views a day. I wonder what other beginner/instruction pages get lots of views. Biosthmors (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help Project is the place to join/read.

Wikipedia:Help Project/page statistics answers the specific question (mostly thanks to user: The wub, and his recent fellowship, and recent overhaul of Help:Contents). Good stuff going on, all around. :) —Quiddity (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Great to know, thanks! Biosthmors (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Instead of the smallcaps template maybe we could use {{cn}} as^{[citation needed]} is more familiar to readers. Biosthmors (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Good plan. —Quiddity (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Might not be formatted perfectly, but done. Biosthmors (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't we put a link to commons or wiki for uploading images? A feedback comment requested it. I know there wouldn't be anything in the "you type" or "it shows" columns but still. Biosthmors (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of the other things The wub made, was 3 new tutorials:

• Help:Introduction to uploading images/1
• Help:Introduction to referencing/1
• Help:Introduction to navigating Wikipedia/1

All could potentially be added (or used to replace something) here. Have at it, or I will on the other side of sleep. —Quiddity (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

But maybe we could include a tip that to edit a specific section you just click [edit] to the right of that section. That was a question on feedback too. Biosthmors (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd weakly object to that, as too much of a "1 of 100 tips that we could potentially include", type of thing. Eg. the opposite problem, that some people only see the [edit] links at the side, and need to be told "how to edit the whole page, and not just a section".

Not sure though. If anyone else agrees with adding it in, then maybe. —Quiddity (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah no problem. Probably doesn't belong after all. Biosthmors (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We could do italics, bold and both in one line. Biosthmors (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Give it a try - you can always selfrevert if it looks bad immediately, or link a diff on the talkpage, or leave it for a second opinion if it looks passable.

(Don't forget to test it (everything) with a smaller (non-maximized) window, if you have a large monitor. Most of the world still uses <17" monitors. Or laptops etc.) –Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I'm not sure how big the monitor is I'm using now! Biosthmors (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Open this image (and if your browser auto-shrinks it to fit by default, then zoom to fullsize). Then resize your browser window so that the entire window fits within the desired size. (Or, set the image as your desktop-wallpaper. Use "tiled" to get it aligned properly.)

I try to test pages at 1024x768, as a minimum target. That's what most old 15" monitors used. I'm not sure what the current worldwide stats are like. In the old days (late '90s), 800x600 was the standard minimum that webdesigners tested at. Notebooks/netbooks/tablets, and old monitors used by less-wealthy people, are why we still need to aim small. –Quiddity (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It says "when one sees something in the middle of {{}}, it's for a template (see below)" but I can't find anything below. Afterbrunel (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I added it back. I think it's important to demonstrate templates a bit for newbies. "Learn wikicode" links here. I think it's impossible to learn without at least introducing templates. Biosthmors (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I really like a lot of the changes you've been making recently. I am a little worried about density though (which you probably are too, hence the thread above). It's so hard to meet the balance/needs of all demographics who will be using this page, and to look at it through their eyes (rather than ours, who understand this markup thoroughly). Eg. the 8 examples in the "Link to another page..." section. All are useful and distinct, but it might be too much... Perhaps they need annotation, or just more leading between pairs? Or remove some of the piping variants? Not sure.

The only items I can see that we might want to remove entirely, are the "Strike your talk page comment", and "Hide text in an article" instructions, as those are both rarely used (albeit useful when needed, but then so are many things that we're not including currently). Not sure.

Thoughts? –Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. I think I got those ideas from the German and Spanish versions. Biosthmors (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The links look good. I liked the hiding of text and the striking of text though. Biosthmors (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good now. =) Biosthmors (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This page recently went up to 3500 page views for three days from around an average of 700. Any ideas to explain the increase? Biosthmors (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Asked here. Went back down after 8 days. Interesting. Biosthmors (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I just linked this page from Template:TAFI because I think that will help people who are interested in editing here. Biosthmors (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Now I've found it I'll use it a lot. Even after my fairly large number of years and edits. Is there a more modern version of template:welcome that points to it? If not there should be. Andrewa (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree. As a noob, it is invaluable. Is there a way to link it to the welcome template? We should all get to see this when we first try editing. I hate thinking of names (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. But I'm about to be away from the computer so I can't address this at this moment. =) Biosthmors (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I know talk pages aren't for anything but article progress, but after seeing this article (and having learnt everything the hard way),I just wanted to say thankyou to all thoses who worked tirelessly on making this page what it is. It is beautiful in its simplicity and succinctness, and a mighty asset to Wikipedia. :D--Coin945 (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. =) I've played a recent small role, but I was very happy to find this page myself. I was thinking about adding some more cheats to the bottom of the page in a third section for more specialized and less fundamental things. For example, I had a student editor ask me how to use Template:Efn. We could also show {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}} (next to examples of how to type it in manually to make it appear identical). And we could show some cool things like how to link DOI or PMID numbers. These things can be incredibly useful to editors who are adding sources, and I think they should go at the bottom of this cheatsheet. Biosthmors (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

And the tip that to link a category a colon is necessary. Biosthmors (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Done - Nabla (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wanted to get others thoughts on adding a wikitable help section with various formatting. I use a lot of wikitables but have had discover (copy/paste) them myself. If they had a page like this I would have learned so much quicker. Dabullzrule (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not keen on this, since I think the table markup is too complicated for the "cheatsheet". The page you are looking for is Help:Table. One way to find that page is to choose "Help" from the left sidebar, getting you to Help:Contents, and then to type "table" into the "search the help" box at the top right of that page. Another way is to expand the box of "Wikipedia help pages" at the bottom of the cheatsheet and look through the help topics there. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Yes thank you!! Dabullzrule (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

From reading the feedback for this page, people want to know about image uploading. We should include the following:

images with acceptable licenses can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons

Which is: <div style="padding: 0.7em .5em; font-size:0.9em;">''images with acceptable [[Commons:Licensing|licenses]] can be uploaded to [[Commons:Main Page|Wikimedia Commons]]''</div>

It would be to also say that sometimes fair use images can be uploaded to Wikipedia. But I'm not sure how to put these things it in the section. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the {{helpme}} tag. You should use {{edit semi protected}} instead, but only once you have reached a consensus to commit your proposed change. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 00:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Rather than insert that in the actual cheatsheet, which is rather outside its actual purpose, particularly if we try to explain the complications of fair use and WP:NFCC, I suggest adding to the "See also" list at the bottom:

• For how to upload images, see Help:Introduction to uploading images

which is the equivalent beginner's guide. JohnCD (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I can agree with JohnCD MGray98 (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I wish I had come across this a few months ago. Much of it I already figured out but it still had some information I didn't know, like about Article Redirects. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 02:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

For me the two links Edit source / Edit no longer appear. I only get [edit] and I do not use the icon which appears in the corner which is connected to VisualEditor perhaps. Does this mean the Cheatsheet needs updating?--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted. I've updated {{VE documentation}} slightly. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit but I meant to remove that earlier. I don't think we should be distracting people with that yet. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I always have found it difficult to find my way to the math display help page. I think the casual editor would benefit from having a link to it when they arrive here by clicking the Editing help link next to the Save/Show buttons in an edit session.

Okay if I add the following entry to the See also section?

• For a guide to editing and displaying mathematical equations and formulas, see Displaying a formula

The presence of the words "mathematical", "equations" and "formulas" would be useful when using the search function on the cheatsheet. - DVdm (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Per no comment/objection I went ahead - DVdm (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi I just what to know how to link my sandbox, thanks ClaraRoper (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A question for the Wikipedia:help desk really, but try User:ClaraRoper/sandbox. - DVdm (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The example of links to article sub-sections uses Frog Jumping which has been renamed Frog Locomotion. I suggest someone with privileges update that. 96.245.173.118 (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted! I've made the change. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

please give me rights to edit pages CMS:112 (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  11:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The example REFs shown on the Cheatsheet contradict the Manual of Style. The first example is just wrong; it won't even resolve into anything useful. The second example is a naked URL which is undesirable. Using these as examples of the REF tag on the Cheatsheet is contradictory and steers new editors, who are most likely to rely on the Cheatsheet, in totally the wrong direction. I suggest that:

Hello,<ref>Library of Congress</ref> World.
<ref>http://www.w3.org/</ref>

be modified, at the minimum, to show an example like the following:

Hello,<ref>[http://www.loc.org Library of Congress]</ref> World.

<ref>[http://www.w3.org/ World Wide Web Consortium]</ref>

But perhaps we ought to show a couple more parameters as well, like date and author:

You can also use the Citation Template wizard to produce a full citation like the following:

<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.w3.org/ |title=World Wide Web Consortium |first=John |last=Doe |date=June 2012 |accessdate=16 August 2013}}</ref>

— btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

@Btphelps: Hmm, I agree that we want to show best practices, but we also want to balance that with non-complicated directions, at least at this level. Additionally, we don't want to imply that only online references are valid (nor that root-urls are good enough). Hence, I'll suggest that we replace the current copy, with something like this:

Hello,<ref>[http://www.loc.gov/about/ Library of Congress]</ref> World.

<ref>''The Story of Philosophy'' by Will Durant (1926)</ref>

What do you (or anyone) think? –Quiddity (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand the desire not to overwhelm new editors with a solution that's too technical. So your idea is a step on the right direction. I'd like to suggest a slightly more realistic book example that's hopefully not too complex for new editors:

<ref>''[http://books.google.com/books/about/Guns_of_the_Old_West.html?id=6EMF4l14xbMC Guns of the Old West: An Illustrated History]'' Dean K. Boorman, (2004)</ref>

— btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 02:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hee! I'm curious, in what way are you considering The Story of Philosophy to be less "realistic"? (I chose it based on a glance at my bookshelves, looking for something non-fiction, with a short title and short author-name to minimize wordwrap). Ideally we'd use something without any links (internal or external).

I've updated the LoC example for now. –Quiddity (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Preparing for an edit-a-thon I find I having to advise my students not to use this cheat sheet. It is not explained that naked urls (while allowed by the software) should never be used in the text outside the #External links section. Secondly there is the issue of references- again it is the naked url that is shown in the example- no mention of using the four templates, and that a web reference is basically useless with out the date-accessed. Could this be passed to someone with a notable FA count for suggestions how current practice can be expressed. ClemRutter (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe the instructions for how to do a red link are confusing. The coding looks exactly like that for an ordinary link to another page. And I believe it is identical. I think the article should clearly explain that a link will display in red automatically if the article linked to does not already exist.
Richard27182 (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Thnidu (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"References and footnotes" says

References and footnotes (first use on page)

Hello,<ref name="LoC">[http://www.loc.gov/about/ Library of Congress]</ref> World.<ref>http://www.w3.org/</ref>

References and footnotes (subsequent uses)

Hello again,<ref name="LoC" />

"First use" and "subsequent use" are easily misunderstood as referring to position in the text, though they're really about chronological order of insertion: <ref name="LoC" /> throws an error message if there's no full ref. I'm adjusting the text to clarify.

--Thnidu (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel like doing an RM. I'd just note that I think this should be moved back to Wikipedia:Cheatsheet. The prefix Help: almost always flags a page that is for help with the topic identified in the following name or phrase, e.g, Help:Moving a page is for help with the topic of: moving a page. This is the Wikipedia cheatsheet (or even "cheat sheet" [as spaced]); a cheat sheet for editing Wikipedia. It is not for "help with Wikipedia's cheat sheet", but that non sequitur is what results when applying the standard convention to this title.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose as this is definitely a help page, and as such the Help: namespace seems appropriate. It can be seen as a highly condensed form of Help:Wiki markup, which is also in the right namespace. I always read "Help:Cheatsheet" as "Help page: a cheatsheet" and have no difficulty seeing it as appropriate. Project pages I feel are inappropriate for pages that directly help the reader to understand topics, and overused in this capacity in general. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

But we don't separate pages into help versus the Wikipedia namespaces by whether they are for helping or not, but by the convention I spoke of. You may see it the way you say you do, but actual use is otherwise. If followed, we need to move loads and loads of help pages that are at Wikipedia titles, e.g., Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, etc.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Well if you look at Wikipedia:Help namespace it says These pages contain information intended to help use Wikipedia or its software. Also why separate out the Cheatsheet when most of the other wiki markup pages reside in Help: namespace? Also I feel straight up help pages like "Your first article" and "Contributing to Wikipedia" would be better off in the Help namespace; project pages are too broad in this respect. Actual usage of the two namespaces is very inconsistent, but if help pages went in the help namespace this could be improved. This is a straight-up help page so it belongs in the help namespace. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

How I can draw a table to insert information in it? Kundan Ravindra Dhayade (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not the place to ask questions on topics, you'll be far better off asking at Wikipedia:Teahouse. But there are introductory pages at Help:Basic table markup and Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup/1. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I can see that you are confused! If you Edit source, you can find out how to do it by looking at User:ClemRutter/training where there are examples of quite complex tables- with the source code below. Just copy and paste that over, and start changing the data. If that is useful- tell be about it on my talk page. ClemRutter (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I want to rewrite it in Hindi language. Please guide me.

Rohit.jathlana (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Rohit.jathlana Thank you for the offer of translation. No doubt you'll be submitting the translated page to Hindi Wikipedia, as English Wikipedia only contains pages in English. The Hindi Wikipedia will have its own systems for accepting new project pages, so you will have to find out there how to submit your page. Here is detailed guidance about translating Wikipedia pages into other languages, and here is a list of editors who may be able to help with the translation itself: Noyster (talk), 23:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The details given here for surma is actually for kajal. I think writer doesn't have proper information about surma Perwez mb (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)