User:Rockycape/sandbox/CategorySquares and ball games
- Category:Ball games
- Category:Squares and ball games
- Category:Wall and ball games
Rockycape (talk)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Outreach
Category --> Subcategory etc
- Category:Sports
- Category:Sports by type
- Category:Sports by equipment
- Category:Ball games
- Category:Squares-and-ball games
- Category:Wall-and-ball games
Why do I contribute to wikipedia?
I contribute to wikipedia because it's one of the places on the internet without advertisements that anyone can create & edit articles. Wikipedia has guidelines and restrictions in place that are necessary so that anyone can create & edit articles.
As long as Wiki exists, part of its raison d'etre is to encourage people to play a part in it. This also means stressing the areas which are not adequately covered, in the hope of encouraging somebody to play a part. If all Wiki's weak areas were reduced to articles with no links to even stubs, then there is no incentive for knowledgable people to contribute - strangers may not even realise they have the opportunity to contribute.
Why don't I contribute to wikipedia more than I do?
"The few times I’ve touched wikipedia, I’ve been struck by how isolating it can feel. It’s a very fend for yourself kind of place for me. Anywhere else online, my first impulse is to put out feelers. I make friends, ask for links to FAQs and guides, and inevitably someone takes me under their wing and shows me the ropes of whatever niche culture I’m obsessed with that month. It’s very collaborative, and prioritizes friendships and enjoyment of pre-existing work over results. Wikipedia isn’t like that, as far as I’ve experienced. There’s no reciprocal culture; to just plunge oneself into the thick of things and start adding information can be highly intimidating, and there’s no structure set up to find like-minded people to assist one’s first attempts. Instead I just find lots and lots of links to lots of information-dense pages."[2]
citation needed[citation needed]
People who use WP expect when they look for an article, to find something.
Notability. All articles must be about subjects that are important enough. We call this notability. If the subject is not notable, its article may get deleted by an administrator – and sometimes rather quickly! For example, we have a lot of articles about bands. The Beatles were a very famous and important band because their songs left their mark on society forever, but the band that practices in your neighbor's garage is not likely to be ready for a Wikipedia article for a long time, even if they played at the school prom.
Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations
wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org
Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time
Wikipedia:Likely_to_be_challenged If, based on your experience, a given statement has a less than 50% chance of being challenged, then inline citations are not required for that material.
SandboxDraft
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
Wikipedia:Articles_written_by_a_single_editor/Articles_list
Wikipedia:Merge what?
wikipedialibrary
Special:NewPagesFeed
User:Snotbot/AfD's_requiring_attention
User:Cyberbot_I/AfD's_requiring_attention
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Australia
Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Joe_Lonsdale
Roundnet
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?
Operation_Phantom_Linebacker
Blow football stub
User:HouseBlaster/RfA debrief
Category:Game_stubs
category search tool
User:Dream_Focus
We need an option to inform us if someone is trying to delete an article we like(in its entirety or just a significant percentage of it) without having to get constant notifications every time one thing or another is edited in it. Not something decided in this particular election, but just wanted to get that out there.
Suggestion: Add the not-yet-created AfD page of the article you like to your watchlist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron
Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
Depth of Coverage: The sources should cover hopscotch in a substantial way, not just in passing. This means the sources provide detailed information, such as its history, variations, cultural significance, rules, and impact.
Sustained Coverage: The coverage should not be fleeting or trivial. It should demonstrate that hopscotch is of lasting interest and importance, not just a temporary fad.
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Downball 2011
Talk:Four_square#Downball 2018
Blue_yodeling
Kin-Ball
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed deletion patrolling
- Category:WikiProject_proposed_deletion_patrollers
lifecycle of "Down-ball" wikipedia page:
Look up
downball in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles
Tool to find active admins on recently
What am I supposed to think when you unceremoniously delete every single thing I've added to an article without so much as a discussion?
Category:WikiProject Categories participants
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All
User:Lowercase_sigmabot_III/Archive_HowTo
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Australia
Autoconfirmed = baseline trust (automatic, low bar).
Rollback = tool for fast reverts (requested, for vandal-fighters).
Autopatrolled = recognition of article-creation reliability (granted, reduces review workload)
 | I am not an admin. Please do not ask me to delete, restore or protect pages as I cannot do so. This also means that if you are here because you think I deleted an article you created, you are mistaken--I just tagged it for deletion. Instead, check the deletion log to find out who the deleting admin was and contact them. You are free to ask me why I tagged it, though. On an unrelated note, if you want to put a template on this page, read WP:DTTR before doing so. |
