Wikipedia talk:About: Difference between revisions
Seddon (WMF) (talk | contribs) |
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:About/Archive 4) (bot |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
Hey I think so too and thank you for that [[User:Kat strout|Kat strout]] ([[User talk:Kat strout|talk]]) 16:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC) |
Hey I think so too and thank you for that [[User:Kat strout|Kat strout]] ([[User talk:Kat strout|talk]]) 16:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
== Constant corrections == |
|||
Wikipedia is a great idea a way of tapping the worlds knowledge on countless subjects. But it is spoilt by too many vandals, busy bodies and no-it-alls. I am relatively inexperienced when it comes to writing these articles and it takes me an age to do so. I don't mind my English or formatting of articles being corrected so they conform to 'Wiki' standards. But I have lost the will for further contributions, as I have neither the time nor inclination to constantly correct factual errors, or argue about references with people who 'think' they know what they are talking about. |
|||
There was a long debate over the reliability of Ancestry sources, which I was asked to contribute, sorry I have a life, the debate was long winded, petty and trivial, there were too many people passing comments on things they don't understand. Yes there are errors in census returns, the 1841-1901 were filled in by an enumerator, however the 1911 census [primary source] was filled in by the head of the household [how many of our ancestors were fully literate?] and so it too contains mistakes. Just like there are in BMD certificates, how many illegitimate brides and grooms gained fathers, or married when they were supposedly single or widows [but were still married], names spelt wrong or swapped around and even wrong/conflicting dates, birth certificate says one date, death certificate another! BUT these are just as reliable as newspaper articles or books and biographies, its not like they don't make mistakes or offer conflicting information or go on to repeat the same mistakes in new articles. To prove relationships a family tree is the only thing we can reference sometimes. The GRO [a secondary source] offers a reference in order to obtain the certificates which you couldn't upload to WIKI as they would be copyrighted. I am a keen and experienced family historian and have a few 'notable' distant cousins in my tree for which I have provided facts/information to their biographies on WIKI. However facts keep getting changed and/or references removed, by people who haven't got a clue, especially on working out what is a bad or good family tree [more than one primary source to support the information] Suggest otherwise how you can prove family links/knowledge without the aid of these sources? OR how for example the family-tree for the Royal family on Wiki is acceptable but others aren't. |
|||
The article on Dennis HIRD is a case in point. Yes he is a distant cousin to me [1st cousin 3 x removed to be precise] he died 50 years before I was born, he was not known to me, my family or my grandmother [they were 1st cousins once removed]. I have been accused of expressing a bias [I wrote the article based on the facts I found and I referenced them]. I came by my knowledge after extensively researching HIRD for 10 + years. I have looked at countless newspaper articles, books, biographies, letters on him and by him and backed up these facts with census returns and BMD certificates. So I think I am a 'bit' of an expert on his life, yet the facts keep getting changed or references to his family discounted. He is also included in a chapter of a book I had published on his family [freely available on the internet and royalty free] This was written using the exact references/information as I had used for the WIKI article, BUT the book [a secondary source] is OK for reference purposes BUT some of the primary reference material isn't! |
|||
I would have liked to have added more facts, information and photographs to the numerous articles on here, to which I could have contributed further. However life is too short to waste it constantly correcting the same things, or spent on petty arguments. |
|||
[[User:MBorrill|MBorrill]] ([[User talk:MBorrill|talk]]) 09:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== A misspelled word == |
== A misspelled word == |
||
| Line 58: | Line 46: | ||
Ok [[User:Ayoyonetizen|Ayoyonetizen]] ([[User talk:Ayoyonetizen|talk]]) 21:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC) |
Ok [[User:Ayoyonetizen|Ayoyonetizen]] ([[User talk:Ayoyonetizen|talk]]) 21:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Reader feedback: Make the left hand side link... == |
|||
70.74.163.6 posted [[Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Wikipedia:About/04ff25482be02a992078782bcb08708f|this comment]] on 10 July 2013 ([[Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Wikipedia:About|view all feedback]]). |
|||
<blockquote>Make the left hand side links more eye catching. Or maybe run a little banner some time saying that this info is available, maybe saying something like "Interested in how wiki works? links on the left provide in depth explanations/information". I've always wondered and never even thought to look at the left hand side to read what was listed there because it never caught my attention and I just assumed it was for editors or someone other than me. I'm always using wiki focusing on the info I want so my line of vision is on the center of the page not browsing around the site but I would have read this a lot sooner if it was brought to my attention that this information is available. It's embarrassing to me that I didn't know this information was available and that I never even looked for it. I even commented on the fundraiser feedback page that it "should" be on wiki. Maybe it should be part of the wording of the fundraiser so people can assess the value of the information they receive but this page does brings attention to potential vandalism and false info so maybe it would hurt the fundraiser for those who believe the information is totally reliable.</blockquote> |
|||
Any thoughts? |
|||
[[User:Burningview|<font face="Ariel" color="orange"><b>BV</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Burningview|<sup>talk</sup>]] 23:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
==Reader feedback== |
==Reader feedback== |
||
Revision as of 00:25, 28 April 2017
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the About page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 4 months  |
 | Wikipedia Help NA‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | There is a request, submitted by Dstyles222 (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Requested by Cyclonenim as per comment.". |
Simple.
Simple thing about Wikipedia.
It is a great wiki/site. Its a wiki/site where people can share their knowledge with other people.
Agree Mtemar (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey I think so too and thank you for that Kat strout (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
A misspelled word
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This: "non-specialists" is misspelled. The word is "nonspecialists". Please correct this spelling.
In common nouns and common adjectives, the prefix "non" is never hyphenated onto anything, and we can find 100 correct examples. Here are a few: nonbeliever, nonconductor, nonfunctional, nongermaine, nonhuman, nonliving, nonmaterial, nonmetal, nonoptimal, nonparticipant, nonrural, nonsense, and nonverbal.
98.67.111.72 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Done - WP:HYPHEN seems to indicate that for this usage, this is correct, also wikt:nonspecialist. It doesn't seem to be one of the exceptions listed at WP:HYPHEN. Thank you. Begoon talk 02:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
for reference: - see also Wikipedia talk:About/New and anonymous editors#A misspelled word.
Ok Ayoyonetizen (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Reader feedback
It seems that a majority of people clicking on the link "About Wikipedia" are actually looking for contact information (phone # or e-mail), where to donate and about Jimbo Wales. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Disclaimers link
Per a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer, I would like to suggest adding a Disclaimers link at the end of the navigation bar at the top of the About page. It would add very little clutter and would give our disclaimers greater visibility.--agr (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- What I am suggesting requires changing a template which may be overkill. Instead I'm adding a mention to the end of the intro.--agr (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Open new browser tab for "discussion" ("talk")
When switching to "discussion" ("talk" for English readers, I guess), why not automatically open a new tab (target = "_blank" type)? I know that the reader can do that her- or himself with Ctrl-click, but as she usually thinks only later that she wants to refer to a detail in the main text, and she hadn’t been aware that the discussion will replace the main entry, she didn’t think about opening a new tab by Ctrl right away, etc. – Your are welcome to remove this entry here after reading. Fritz Jörn (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- To editor Fritz Jörn: You could open a new Phabricator ticket if you like; however, users will quickly learn that a right-click on the "Talk" or "Discussion" link gives the option to open in a new tab. Thank you very much for your suggestion! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 19:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Rightly. That may be a better idea, Paine. What I really would like: To be able to reference deeply into a referenced text and pre-scrolling to the proper location there, eg having the “receiving” browser automatically searching for some keywords I selected. Thus you could pinpoint deeply into a source text, even if it does not have name or div entry points. But I doubt that HTML offers that. – Fritz Jörn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- To editor Fritz Jörn: yes, that would be nice, but you're probably right about the HTML. The closest thing for me would be {{search link}} or just using my browser's "Find on this page" option in the "Edit" menu. Best to you! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 15:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Rightly. That may be a better idea, Paine. What I really would like: To be able to reference deeply into a referenced text and pre-scrolling to the proper location there, eg having the “receiving” browser automatically searching for some keywords I selected. Thus you could pinpoint deeply into a source text, even if it does not have name or div entry points. But I doubt that HTML offers that. – Fritz Jörn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Survey
Hey all,
I'm looking into doing some research about the things that users seek out help for. If noone has any objections I'd like to add a brief survey to this page to collect some anonymous data about what people are looking for and how we can help them better. I'd like to add this in the next week or so. Ping me if anyone has any issues with this. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)