User talk:TrudiJ/Adoptee/Nick Moyes

Initial Questions
@Nick Moyes: I would again like to say thank you for taking me under your wing and allowing me the opportunity to become more adept contributing to Wikipedia! I have looked over your userpage with and have a sense of how this worked between the two of you. (I don't believe I linked correctly, as per how it worked on your page with her.)


 * I would like to add the item about my adoption from your Talk page to this page, so that I will have your response and suggestions readily available. I am tempted to copy and paste, but suspect that there might be another way to do this.
 * I was going to insert my signature, but in the visual editing mode, the Insert option for this is grayed out. Is this because it is my userpage? (Well, when I moved this section to the Talk page of my user subpage, there was no problem adding my signature.)

I will have more substantive questions soon! TrudiJ (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Response to Bullet Point 1: Well,, you probably didn't mean to, but you kicked this off with a really challenging, 'deep-end' question, which I'm sure you  didn't appreciate you were asking. It took me a little while to work out how to achieve it. You asked about simply copying over this section of my userpage, so you could have access to it here. Although we normally have to be careful not to copy over discussion threads which contains signatures and timestamps of other editors onto a new page without their agreement (or make any changes to it so that it looks like they said something they didn't), that wouldn't have applied here. So, you or I could could simply have edited the section and copy/pasted the source code. Boy, that would have been easy. But...
 * ... I decided to take your question literally (purely as a learning exercise!) So, yes, there is another way. We have two ways of automatically copying text and other content from one place to another. One method is called WP:TRANSCLUSION; the other, WP:SUBSTITUTION. The latter is the most commonly experienced means of repetitively leaving text from one place into multiple places. A very good example are the various welcome messages we see, where a source template is used, and its contents is simply and automatically pasted in to the recipient page as the full code. Once it's there, no change in the donor page would influence what we see at the recipient page. It's pasted in, word for word, and for good. The other way - TRANSCLUSION - inserts a living copy of a donor page (known as a template) into a recipient page in such a way that any change in the donor page also appears on any page where that template is transcluded. So, by way of demonstration, I have transcluded the text from my user page into the section above this one. Until such time as that section is archived (and thus disappears from my user page entirely) any change there will also be seen above. To achieve this esoteric task, Ii had to read this section on how to do it, then inserted the following 'template':




 * But don't panic: I won't be expecting you to use this anytime soon! But do note the 'nowiki' and 'nocode' commands if you edit and look at the source code on this page. These commands lets me display live code as simple text, rather than have them actually acted upon. One should always leave them off if you want the template to function - the template as all that stuff between the double curly brackets.
 * And just below, if you edit the page and look at the source code, I have added a template. It doesn't start with the letters subst: so I know its source page will be insert live here.

In fact, you might wish to add that to your userpage to show that you've been adopted by me.


 * You must have laughed when I said I would ask more substantive questions soon! As you expected, I had no idea how much work there would be involved in formulating a response to my first question. I appreciate that you looked on this as a learning experience, though. I have now read your explanation 3 times, and I do think I get it. It also answered another question I hadn't yet asked, and that is the choice I am sometimes given as to how something is pasted in. I didn't understand the wiki code vs. plain text (labels may not be exactly right) option, and thought it less meaningful than it actually is.
 * Just to make sure I understand, if you archive the section from your page that has been transcluded here, it doesn't affect the section here, correct? This version isn't automatically archived? It is just changes within the section on the originating page?
 * I had no trouble adding the template onto my user page. However, I had no idea such a template existed. I have seen many templates on other users' pages, but didn't know how exactly they were developed. The ones I had on my user page I just copied from the source code on someone else's page.
 * I'm not quite sure what you meant when you asked: " I didn't understand the wiki code vs. plain text (labels may not be exactly right) option,..." Wikicode/markup/source code are all synonyms for the 'plain text' we're typing here. We wrap little things like three apostrophes either side of a word to make it appear bold, for example. If you highlight a word and click the Bold button in the editor toolbar whilst editing here, you'll see that it then adds those little bits of coding instruction to the text. Give it a try! Nick Moyes (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry for now about my long explanation of transclusion versus substitution. But, no, it's the other way around. If you went to my talk page and shoved an image into our discussion there, because it is 'transcluded' that picture would appear here, too. Had the text above us been added in by 'substitution' it would only mirror what the post looked like when I substituted it, but any subsequent changes on my talk page would not appear here, too. In a few months, when my talk page automatically archives 3 months old discussion topics on my talk page (that time period's an optional setting I've chosen) it will be moved off my talk page, and thus the transclusion that I set up here will fail, and the contents will not be able to be shown.
 * Whilst any page can be used as a template and its contents inserted into another page, those likely to be used by everyone are kept in what we might call Templatespace (as opposed to Mainspace (for the articles themselves) or Userspace (you can guess what we find there!). Give it a try by typing into the search box this text:
 * Template:Welcome
 * You will see various options of templates being helpfully offered to you. Take a look at a few and get a sense of how many welcome message templates we have. Later on, I can link you to other types of templates, such as those for warning problem editors or vandals. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Response to Bullet Point 2: Hmm. Interesting question. I should state right at the outset that I very rarely use Visual Editor, preferring WP:Source Editor, which is more powerful, and uses simple commands to create changes like bold and italics. It is however a lot less WYSIWYG. You can't normally use Visual Editor on Talk Pages, though you can on a Userpage. So that may explain why your signature was greyed out. You can change how you are presented with options for which Editing Tool to use by going to Special:Preferences and the 'Editing' section and ensuring you have 'Show me both editor tabs' selected, then save the changes. Within articles - but not on talk pages - you also can switch between editing tool by clicking the dark, sloping pencil icon on the upper right of your screen. Give it a try, but not on a talk page, and perhaps indicate what experiences you've had of each editor, and which you prefer to use most. I will try and tailor my guidance accordingly.


 * I have used both editors. I tend to work in the Visual Editor, and then switch to the Source Editor in those cases when I know I need it (for example, converting all the citations within the Bed hangings article (see bullet point about this switch in later list). However, frustration has also made me realize that I should check the Source Editor more--for example, placing images in an article. I wondered why I couldn't really control where they show up (not truly realizing it had to do with where my cursor was, but that still wasn't good enough when I did realize), so now I use the Source Editor for that. But I think because of my limited use of the Source Editor, I am less comfortable with it than I should be. So making me stretch a bit in this regard would be a good thing!


 * I reckon that'll do for now. I'll look at the next set of questions another day. But if you have any follow up responses, it'd be best to past them into this sectoin so things all stay together. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I've been working through all the helpful items/pages you've alerted me to. I'll slowly start to work in the Source Editor more, and I am using the indenting, as you will have seen. TrudiJ (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these most helpful answers! And I just saw what you've started on the User page to document learning from this conversation, this is wonderful. One more very practical question--I understand that a colon acts like a tab. Since you are using it, should I not, so my responses to your responses are more noticeable? (I think I know that answer, and that is yes.) TrudiJ (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, spot on with the colons. It would be helpful if you were to use those. One extra colon  indents your reply by one step. This allows a more visual structure of questions and answers. I've tried to relay your replies out as I might hoped to see them, as explaned at WP:INDENT. And here are two pages about the other little codes that allow us to format pages. The main one is Help:Wikitext (shortcut: H:MARKUP) and here's a quicker-to-use version: Help:Cheatsheet (shortcut: WP:CHEAT).  Most guidance pages have more than one shortcut to them - shown on the upper right of the page - so one can often make  a stab at what might take you to a help page. Would you like me to add them to the 'front page'? Or would it be better for you to do that once you've visited the relevant page and feel it might be helpful to you? I'd suggest the latter option, but it's up to you. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The Wikitext help page answered a question I was going to ask you (about diacritics) and I see that it will definitely help with other formatting issues I'll run up again. I added notes on the main page here to remind me some of the things I'll find there. I see you had added the items you'd talked about here, but I can start doing that as we continue. TrudiJ (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Conventions for Content
@Nick Moyes Here are several questions about items that have perplexed me. I will leave it at that for now, though a few other questions have bubbled up. I'll save them for next time. Thank you! I expect you will point me to some readings that will help me to understand these things, and that will be great, but I am curious about your experiences where applicable too. TrudiJ (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Links within Wikipedia: I believe only the first mention of another page is linked, is this correct? I've wondered about this, thinking that if something is linked in the lead section, and then is mentioned many paragraphs later, wouldn't it be helpful to remind someone there is a Wikipedia article on the topic?
 * When does one use bold within an article? I've seen it used, but have never been clear on this.
 * In one of the articles I worked on, Crewel (embroidery), someone added a "Further Information" note in the Deerfield Society section at the end of the article. When would you do that, rather than just link to the second article? Is this connected to the question in my first bullet above?
 * I am contemplating adding more content on the history of samplers, and breaking the history section down into a number of subsections (as I did with Crewel embroidery). However, is there a fine line between enhancing the content of an article, and putting in too much detail? Are there differences of opinion about this that affect the acceptance of new content?

More questions about article content

 * How does one add a User an Info Box? Are there standard items that such a box contains? (Is this the right name, even? It sounds like it would go on a user's page.) When would one add an Info Box?
 * How does one add a gallery to the end of an article? Is it just a matter of style (or number of images) that one uses a gallery rather than adding images that show up on the side of the written content? I think I've also seen images in User Info Boxes.
 * Content assessment: I am really pleased that the Crewel embroidery article that I worked on so much has been designated B-Class! However, I'm not quite sure how to work to move it to A-Class, although I've read over the page with info on the ratings. Would putting this question on the article's Talk page be the appropriate way to reach the people who could answer that? [I learned that there is an application process for an article to be considered, but would be happy to learn about your experiences/advice on the topic!] TrudiJ (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As an addition to this last bullet, might there be the opportunity to work on a Good Article nomination review together at some point, just for me to be aware of your thought processes in action? I would like to help the community by reviewing nominations a bit later on, but would need more self-confidence to do so. TrudiJ (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I've skipped answering the section above, as I started to draft a reply a few days ago on another computer, so will complete it and reply later to that.
 * Infoboxes: These are templates inserted into the tops of articles to rapidly summarise and present key content. I like them; not everyone does. There is no obligation to include them, and some article editors insists that certain articles should not have them. I disagree with view, but my voice doesn't count when consensus is how we work here. Yes, each template has defined parameters that can be used. Anything else will not be displayed, and appear as a red warning in Preview mode. Thus, a template for an article about a river, a mountain, a politician or a film will all have very different parameters in them. See MOS:INFOBOX for details about how they are used, and List of infoboxes for a full list of them, arranged by topic. If you type into the Search box : Template:Infobox followed by a space and then a probable keyword, it's likely that you'll get to see one you want. e.g. Template:Infobox library; Template:Infobox person; Template:Infobox settlement and Template:Infobox officeholder (for politicians, etc).
 * Galleries: Galleries of pictures are generally not encouraged. They should only be included if they genuinely add encyclopaedic value to an article. We can add a template in the 'See also' section to highlight that other images are available on Wikimedia Commons. See WP:GALLERY for further guidance on when and how to include them.
 * Content assessment: This is a very subjective area. I would say that Crewel embroidery is certainly worthy of a B-rating, perhaps an A- rating, but it's hard for me to say which without a more detailed look. But most quality grades are a personal assessment, best left to someone other than the article's creator. I would like you to read through Content assessment to appreciate that assessment is very subjective, except for WP:GA (Good Article) and WP:FA (Featured Article) level. These two categories of assessment go through their own review process, in which a major editor can submit an article for assessment, receive and act upon feedback, after which the article may be deemed as meeting or failing that assessment level. But to help them, a prior process called simply 'Peer Review' allows you to seek feedback on ways to improve any article. See Peer review/guidelines for how to do this. (I would suggest you consider this as a route forward for improving and reassessing this article.) The one bit of feedback I might give as 'peer review' for that article is to move some  content from the lead into an 'Etymology' section, as I don't think it's needed there in the lead. For any experienced editor interested in working with article assessment, I'd suggest they use WP:RATER - an semi-automated tool for grading articles, but don't bother with it for single articles. Just assimilate WP:ASSESS.
 * And, yes, I'd be at least happy to guide you through the WP:GAN process for an article. I would advise that you take an article through Peer Review first, or maybe even lurk through some of the nominations and give feedback yourself. (You will find that quite rewarding and encouraging) As yet, I have not achieved a Featured Article assessment for pages I've worked on, having failed at the last hurdle (ran out of assessment time) with Mont Blanc massif which I do believe is worthy of that grading right now. When I get time, I plan to try again.
 * Hope this helps for now. If I don't reply to other sections soon, do have a good and safe Christmas. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

And more questions!

 * When one adds an External Links section, does it appear before or after the references? I found information on one page that says it goes at the end of the article. But I could interpret either location as the end!
 * [I worked with the editor further on this, and will attend a WikiConference North America session on it today, so this can be ignored, other than my curiosity about your preferred style TrudiJ (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)] Another editor who rated my new bed hangings article said that he would have used a different style for the citations, one that included the page number in the reference itself. But then wouldn't one have to do a new citation for the source every time one reuses a source but cites a different page number? Should I not be using the rp template? The other editor did say that what matters is consistency.
 * I am finding that at times (all the time? I don't remember) I can only use Source editing on talk pages, not Visual editing. Is that a function of Wikipedia, or do I need to change a setting somewhere?
 * I enabled the "shortdesc" gadget in my preferences, but now don't know how to use it. Do you use it? What does it do for you?

Thanks! TrudiJ (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I now see what shortdesc does, but am still not sure when I would want to use it or how I would know what short description to use. TrudiJ (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * External Links go right at the end of an article. I always get confused, too. See this section of our 'Manual of Style' to remind you.
 * Citation Style: Personally, I totally and utterly hate the style of citation you've used at Bed hangings. I rarely ever edit an article that uses that citation style, as I can't get my head around it. It's not wrong; but we on Wikipedia seem to have a blind spot about referencing when it comes to our Manual of Style. We fuss about everything else, including the application of different hyphen/dash characters, but not referencing style it would seem. Personally, I would deprecate that approach immediately, if I were 'King of Wikipedia...which of course I am not. I prefer inline citations (see WP:REFBEGIN) and it's very easy to cite a source once, and then reuse that reference multiple times, pointing to different pages in each instance. Yes you would use the template to add the page number after the reference:
 * To reuse a reference you give the reference a name, then on subsequent uses you 'call it up' by that name, without having to reenter all the details again. See WP:REFNAME for a full explanation. You can then use the template to add specific page numbers immediately afterwards, like this: First fact found on page 29 of a book.  Second fact found on page 114 from the same book.  And so on...


 * Talk Pages: No, you can only use WP:Source Editor on talk pages. WP:VE does not work there.
 * Short descriptions: I must be honest and say I've rarely edited 'short descriptions' and certainly have never added one from scratch. I guess you'll need to investigate and persuade me to pay more attention in future! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Questions on 12/19
I think I am asking too many questions! Thank you, thank you! TrudiJ (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, my adding a second ping in this session leads to a question. Should I ping you for each response I give in a continuing conversation? I did once above, but not for the second comment I made shortly below the first. (Though that earlier one doesn't seem to be there now...)
 * How do you make the best use of your watchlist? Do you check it each time you start a new session on Wikipedia? I should go through mine and make sure I don't have items on it that I really don't need, I have about 50 now, but some are older items. I am sure cleaning it up with help, but also learning how you make it work for you would provide me with a best practice.
 * If I am working on a page that has been rated as Start class, how would I go about getting someone's attention when I've added substantially enough that I'd like it to be considered for the next level? I know about the guidelines for page ratings, but the only time I asked for help was when I went to a WikiProject Talk page, and someone did do an initial rating in response to that request. That is a project I am involved with, but is it ok even if I am not? What if there is no WikiProject listed on the Talk page?
 * And connected with this, how do various WikiProjects find out about new pages? One that I thought was a bit strange was for the Bed hangings article I started and WikiProject Technology was added to it! It now has a C rating, while the other 2 projects list it as B.