User talk:ExploratoriumPI

Welcome!

Hello, ExploratoriumPI, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Exploratorium may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing hints

Thanks for the quick compliment; it's always nice to be noticed and appreciated! A few helpful hints follow regarding specific issues concerning the Exploratorium article:

Per MOS:ITALICS, specifically named exhibitions and exhibits should be italicized, similar to named works of art.

For reference citations, use Template:Cite, rather than hand-building non-standard citation formats. The "Cite" template is very powerful and general, with what looks like an overwhelming number of options, but any given citation only uses a small subset of the options. A very convenient method to build standard cites quickly is to use the "Templates" dropdown box at the upper left-hand corner of the standard Wikipedia edit window. This opens a web form with the most commonly-used fields for a particular type of cite, which you can cut and paste from another window, or type in as needed. Next, a single click allows you to preview the Wikitext before insertion, or even a preview of the fully formatted citation as it would appear in the finished article. Once the proposed cite text looks satisfactory, just click on the "Insert" button, and the cite will be inserted at the edit cursor.

Regarding quotation marks, Wikipedia recommends using logical quotation marks, per MOS:LQ. Instead of the obsolescent and rigid "American style" rule on quotation mark placement, the "logical quotation" or "British style" is preferred because it is clearer and does not alter the quoted text. Similarly, the use of italics should not include and italicize any nearby punctuation, simply because it happened to be near the text to be italicized.

Even though you appear to be relatively new Wikipedia editor, your efforts to meet standards of WP:NPOV and overall quality have been quite good. I encourage you to continue your contributions, and to continue learning more about the standards and tools for productive Wikipedia editing. If further questions arise, you can check the Manual of Style (WP:MOS), ask at Help:Helpdesk, or leave a question here at User talk:ExploratoriumPI. Reify-tech (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks so much. I did actually read and notice the Wikipedia guidelines on quotation marks, but I think I'm so used to adhering to the stringent American grammar rules from my time in academia that it can be hard for me to catch and change even when I'm actively trying. I really appreciate the corrections. The italicization of named exhibits makes perfect sense.

In regards to using Template:Cite, would you recommend I go back through and replace the formatting with the template? I had no idea there was a drop-down box; I probably would have used that if I'd known, since the hand-building took much longer than I wanted it to and I realize that not all my citations are correctly formed, but I didn't realize there was such a great shortcut. I've been reading the Manual of Style and doing my best to adhere, but I definitely still have a lot to learn. Thanks so much for the encouragement! ExploratoriumPI (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I took the liberty of indenting your reply, in the standard Wikipedia Talk manner). I encourage you to try the drop-down box and the web form; you'll very quickly be cutting and pasting from the reference source window to your edit window with great fluency. The 4 alternative web forms available from the drop-down show just the text fields most often needed, but if you click a button for further options, you can add extra information as needed. Be sure to give each cite a short mnemonic name, such as "Patton1978" or "NYT-ExplOpen", in case the cite is re-used by you or another editor.

I especially like the "Cite book" web form, because you can paste a book's ISBN (from a Google search on "[Book title] ISBN"). Then click the button next to the ISBN field, and the other fields will automatically fill in. There are occasional glitches, especially with multiple authors, but they can usually be fixed with a little cut-and-paste, or just retyping the corrected info. The "Cite book" web form can also be used to build book or journal entries under "Further reading". Just trim away the initial "<ref name="foo" />" stuff, and the remaining "Cite book" Wikitext is just right for the job.

For starters, use an old hand-built cite in the existing article to pop open a new window or tab with the website it pointed to. Try adding a redundant new citation next to the hand-built one, so you can compare them. Once you like the new one, just delete the old cite.

Wikipedia editing is loaded with techniques and tools to make the work more efficient. It takes a long time to discover and master just the right subset that is most useful to any individual editor; I'm still discovering new things every week or so. The hard part is realizing that there might be a better way, and then figuring out how to search for it. Very rarely I run into a dead end; the tool I need doesn't exist, or doesn't work very well (or maybe I just didn't find it). Then I resort to the "human search engine" at Help:Helpdesk. Reify-tech (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the help. That's super useful. I've gotten started with reformatting the citations, and you're right, it IS way faster and easier. I'll be coming back to take care of the rest, though it will probably take me a few passes (and I suspect I may miss some the first time around).

Your GA nomination of Exploratorium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Exploratorium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sp33dyphil -- Sp33dyphil (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Exploratorium

The article Exploratorium you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Exploratorium for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sp33dyphil -- Sp33dyphil (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]