Bulbapedia talk:A guide to Bulbapedia
Purpose
What purpose does this serve that a handful of other Bulbapedia pages don't already cover? I recognize the value in condensing it all, but...is there any demand for this? It isn't so much shorter as to be an easy read for every new user. -- evkl (need to talk?) 04:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I thought I would be good idea. So new users don't know how to use a wiki. --Clarky13 09:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's very true, but how do you convince those users to read an article that takes them ten or twenty minutes to muddle through? The main problem with these articles, as I see it, isn't that they exist (they serve generally good purposes) but that nobody un-serious about editing wants to read them. -- evkl (need to talk?) 15:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Should I shorten it. Or brake it up into little article--Clarky13 07:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have no problem with this. I was actually looking at developing my own, but I'd have put fancy green borders around the section headers, just to make it look like the welcome template. I can understand how that would annoy people though. I really appreciate the work you've put in Clarky13; this covers quite a lot. evkl, you know my opinions about the MoS, but I don't think this is too huge. Unlike the MoS, everything is broken up into small sections, and it covers everything new users would need to know. In short, it's a one-stop shop for all Bulbapedia conventions and policies. True, there is still work to be made to this, but it explains most of the things that new users find challenging to comprehend if they have no wiki experience. IMO, it would benefit from links to the MoS and CoC, and maybe a mention of the shortlinks and signature policy, as these are main problems I see new users struggle with, after our now defunct userspace edit cap. All up though, very nice, if I was a new user intending to contribute I'd give this a good look through. My biggest problem is that we'd have to reorganize the welcome template!! — THE TROM — 07:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, Trom. I first got the idea when my friend told me he didn't now how to work Bulbapedia. That got me thinking for a bit. You can make it better visually if you want. I hear your very good at templates. Thank for all the editing, you did with it , I'm terrible at grammar and spelling. Yeah, I was thinking about the Welcome template too. I'm sure it'll fit somewhere. -- Clarky13 08:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have no problem with this. I was actually looking at developing my own, but I'd have put fancy green borders around the section headers, just to make it look like the welcome template. I can understand how that would annoy people though. I really appreciate the work you've put in Clarky13; this covers quite a lot. evkl, you know my opinions about the MoS, but I don't think this is too huge. Unlike the MoS, everything is broken up into small sections, and it covers everything new users would need to know. In short, it's a one-stop shop for all Bulbapedia conventions and policies. True, there is still work to be made to this, but it explains most of the things that new users find challenging to comprehend if they have no wiki experience. IMO, it would benefit from links to the MoS and CoC, and maybe a mention of the shortlinks and signature policy, as these are main problems I see new users struggle with, after our now defunct userspace edit cap. All up though, very nice, if I was a new user intending to contribute I'd give this a good look through. My biggest problem is that we'd have to reorganize the welcome template!! — THE TROM — 07:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Should I shorten it. Or brake it up into little article--Clarky13 07:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's very true, but how do you convince those users to read an article that takes them ten or twenty minutes to muddle through? The main problem with these articles, as I see it, isn't that they exist (they serve generally good purposes) but that nobody un-serious about editing wants to read them. -- evkl (need to talk?) 15:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
...
Shouldn't this be locked? ht14 02:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Any signed-up user that doesn't think of this as a useful pedia could be a target as with Ash and etc. ht14 22:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
A minor error
In the "Your options" section, there are a few minor errors and I can't just fix them since the page is locked. First, the beginning of the first sentence reads, "When you log on, you may have alright found". I believe that the author meant 'already' instead of 'alright'. Also, I think that 'noticed' is a better word than 'found'. Second, in the second sentence 'allows' should be changed to 'allow'.--Klutz Lament 01:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done. — THE TROM — 01:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
There is another error under "Editing a Page": "If you want to add an image to an article, find one or add one in the Bulbagarden Archives, which can be accessed from the sidebar menu. Images look nicer in an article and make then look more colorful, msking it so that the entire article isn't all text." It should be making I believe. -MasterKenobi 23:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done. — THE TROM — 23:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Moving pages
Hi there :) On this page it says that you have to be a member for 4 days and make a minumum of 10 edits before you're allowed to move pages. I joined Bulbapedia about a month ago now and I had made eighty-something edits last time I checked. But the move tab still doesn't appear at the top of any pages. Had this rule been changed since before I joined? Thanks Moltres93 09:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- The time limit has been increased (this page needs to be revised to match up with the new usergroups.... I'll get to it... some point.... *slumps onto keyboard in exhaustion*...) but you should still be fine with those stats. Make sure the page you want to move isn't protected first - a lot of them are moveprotected because some people think that, for example, this should be here. —darklordtrom 10:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
An talk page
In 'Talk Pages', it says "an user's talk page". Shouldn't it be "a user's talk page"? -- Drlugia 16:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Question regarding "Recent Changes"
...What are those numbers in red (negative) and green (positive)?
I forgot to add, does that affect editing or so? ~ Blitzamirin ~ 21:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- If it is red, content is being removed, and if it is green, content is being added. :--SuperAipom7 (Questions?) 21:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- And the number refers to the number of bytes added or removed. Generally one character = one byte. —darklordtrom 08:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
More minor errors
- I don't think "italic" and "bold" are verbs (Editing a page).
- The dashes should be consistent.
- The part in bold has a comma splice, and Bulbapedia:Talk page redirects to Bulbapedia:Talk page policy (Talk pages)
~Enervation 20:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Mostly fixed; however, bold is verb. --SnorlaxMonster 10:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Skins
"On any article, click Edit at the top of the screen. If you cannot find it, it looks like a green-colored tab at the top of the page."
Should it be noted that this differs by current skin? 
~Bisumito~
Tell me something. How have i helped BP? 21:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Option Tabs#Discussion
I am not allowed to edit this page, so I decided to bring it to the attention of someone who may do so. In the Option Tabs and under Discussion section, the fifth statement says 'By editing an existing topic' while it should say 'For editing an existing topic'. Later it says ' you may click the [edit] button to the 'for right' instead of 'far right . Further it says, 'every time you respond to 'an comment' in place of 'a comment. Please make the necessary changes. On another note, I do not think 'Edit this page' option is used to respond to a given comment; it allows to edit the entire talk page of the article. So I feel that the entire statement should be removed, for it is clearly false, or changes made accordingly. Harryghost (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
