Wikipedia talk:Cheatsheet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is for the discussion/improvement of the Cheatsheet only.
Please ask help-related questions at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Thank you.


[edit] Unformatted text

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)

[edit] Poster

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)

[edit] 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 Image:Cheatsheet-en.pdf. 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)

[edit] Quick guide needs work

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 (talkcontribs) .

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)

[edit] Adding HTML Tips

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?

Description You type You get
HTML scripts <br/>

<span style=color:green>...</span>

Line break

green text
strike through

(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 ... ;> ( 05:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Cheatsheet

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 (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)

[edit] This page is really good!

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

[edit] Page move

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)

[edit] Adding a link to the Cheatsheet in editing-mode helpnotes?

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)

[edit] How do you make a redirect to a category page?

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)

[edit] How do you change an article name?

See Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page

[edit] Links to editing topics for intermediate users

(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)

[edit] More links to pages you need for good editing

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)

[edit] Changes

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)

[edit] Notes to other editors

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)

[edit] Cheatsheet annoyances

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)

[edit] Adding a Resource

Wikipedia:Quick reference made into a redirect to WP:CHEAT. Archive of discussion can be found here. //MaraNeo127talk 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)

[edit] Numbered lists not showing correctly

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

[edit] Tagging

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)

[edit] Talk Examples

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 (talkcontribs) 22:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 2 cheats I miss

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

[edit] Wikipedia:How to edit a page

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)

[edit] References

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 ==


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 (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)

[edit] "Merchant State"

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)

[edit] How To Obtain Permission For Use?

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)

[edit] Definition lists

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

;definition term
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)

[edit] Editing policy question

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)

[edit] Last undo (by 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)

[edit] advanced users cheat sheate

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)

[edit] Lists

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)