User:Historyday01/Projects
| Profile | Projects |
Telling stories about LGBTQ animated characters
|
|---|
Keeping up on my fav shows
|
|---|
Digging into my roots
|
|---|
Other fun pages
- Stevonnie
- Wormholes in fiction
- List of tomboys in fiction
- List of webcomics with LGBT characters
- Intersex characters in fiction
- Cross-dressing in film and television
- List of ISO 639-1 codes ("ISO 639 is a standardized nomenclature used to classify languages")
Keep in mind, below adapted from the Talk:List of fictional lesbian characters page.
According to the conversion factor (1 kilobyte equals 1000 bytes), and doing calculations here, and here is the chart reprinted from the Wikipedia:Splitting page:
| Readable prose size (kB/characters) | What to do |
|---|---|
| > 100kB / 100,000 chars | Almost certainly should be divided |
| > 60kB / 60,000 chars | Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time) |
| > 50kB / 50,000 chars | May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size) |
| < 40kB / 40,000 chars | Length alone does not justify division |
| < 1kB / 1,000 chars | If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub. |
Also remember, from the actor page, the following
After 1660 in England, when women first started to appear on stage, the terms actor or actress were initially used interchangeably for female performers, but later, influenced by the French actrice, actress became the commonly used term for women in theater and film. The etymology is a simple derivation from actor with -ess added.[1] When referring to groups of performers of both sexes, actors is preferred.[2] Actor is also used before the full name of a performer as a gender-specific term.[citation needed] ... With regard to the cinema of the United States, the gender-neutral term "player" was common in film in the silent film era and the early days of the Motion Picture Production Code, but in the 2000s in a film context, it is generally deemed archaic.[citation needed] However, "player" remains in use in the theatre, often incorporated into the name of a theatre group or company, such as the American Players, the East West Players, etc. Also, actors in improvisational theatre may be referred to as "players".[3]
Reprinted from the Help:Wikitext#Show deleted or inserted text page:
- When editing your own previous remarks in talk pages, it is sometimes appropriate to mark up deleted or inserted content:
- It is best to indicate deleted content using the strike-through markup
<s>...</s>. - It is best to indicate inserted content using the underline markup
<u>...</u>.
- It is best to indicate deleted content using the strike-through markup
- When editing regular Wikipedia articles, just make your changes, and do not mark them up in any special way. However, when the article itself discusses deleted or inserted content, such as an amendment to a statute:
- It is best to indicate deleted content using the strike-through markup
<del>...</del>. - It is best to indicate inserted content using the underline markup
<ins>...</ins>.
- It is best to indicate deleted content using the strike-through markup
Note: <s></s> and <u></u> (speced in HTML 3 & 4) are considerably more popular than <del></del> and <ins></ins> (speced in HTML 5) on Wikipedia.
| What you type | What it looks like |
|---|---|
|
|
You can |
|
Alternative markup:
|
You can |
How to indent stuff, as noted by @Mathglot:. The text from them, from their talk page is quoted for future reference:
By the way: you don't need to use a bracketed User expression, {{reply}}, or {{ping}} on a User talk page to signal that user; they get notified automatically, anytime the page gets updated (unless you turn that off in Preferences). If you're on my talk page, and wanted to notify another user, then yes, you need to use one of those three methods. (Which is why I had to use "{{re}}" so you'd know I wrote this.)...And for your next tip
, have a look at WP:THREAD to see how to properly indent a threaded discussion, to make it easier to find who replied to what. (I double-indented this reply, in case you want ot adjust your previous one, but it's not necessary.) Happy editing!
And here is what the WP:Thread says, which is reprinted here as well, for future reference:
Indentation is used to keep talk pages readable. Comments are indented using one or more initial colons (:), each colon representing one level of indentation. Each comment should be indented one more level than the comment it replies to, which may or may not be the preceding comment. For example:
| Code | Result |
|---|---|
|} == Header == The first comment in a section has no colons before it. ~~~~ :The reply to the first comment is indented one level. ~~~~ ::The reply to the second comment should be indented one more level. ~~~~ ::Another reply to the second comment is also indented one more level than the comment being replied to. ~~~~ :A subsequent reply to the first comment is indented one level. ~~~~ |
The first comment in a section has no colons before it. Editor 1 (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC) |
Some pages (deletion discussions, for example) use asterisks (*) rather than colons for indentation. Generally colons and asterisks should not be mixed; if you see asterisks are being used in a page, use them as well. Complex discussions may mix them (and numbered lists, too); in such a case avoid mangled list formatting with this simple rule of thumb:
Use the same indentation and list formatting as what you are replying to, plus one level at the end of the indent/list code. E.g., if you are replying to something in a complicated discussion that starts with #:::*, just copy-paste that and add a :, resulting in #:::*: in front of your reply (or use #:::** if you feel it is necessary for your reply to begin with a bullet point).
Avoid placing double line breaks between indented lines of text, since this can create problems for users of screen reader software (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Indentation).
If you practice these techniques, be sure to practice on a talk page, such as User talk:your user name/sandbox. The Cascading Style Sheets for talk pages are different from articles, and the visual appearance of list-formatted text can be different. Also, : should not be used for visual indentation in articles, as it is actually markup specifically for description lists.
Use to counter those pesky editors who remove stuff. First, WP:BURDEN:
In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable.[5] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.
If a tweet is challenged, and they cite WP:SOCIALMEDIA or WP:SELFPUB, cite WP:Twitter-EL, which says:
A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source. Twitter incorporates a "Verified Account" mechanism to identify accounts of celebrities and other notable people; this should be considered in judging the reliability of Twitter messages. As the "Verified Account" system has been on hold for years,[1] (since November 2017),[2] an alternative for people known for their Twitter presence is to use reliable third-party sources for their Twitter handle. It can also help to listen to interviews with the article subject, especially podcasts, as subjects often "plug" their Twitter accounts at the beginning and/or end of such audio recordings.
Also keep in mind, from WP:SOURCEDEF, which says the word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings, "the piece of work itself (the article, book)[.] The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)[. and] The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)." Also, see WP:RSCONTEXT, which can apply to self-published sources:
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.
Also, WP:SELFSOURCE says, "Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources."
About the wayback machine and its use:
- Using the same dates as the rest of the source is noted at MOS:DATEUNIFY, while use of WBM links is explicitly stated on MOS:CHARTS, MOS:NOVELS, WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:MOSVG, and WP:MOSFILM.
- Also recommended on WP:WBM where it says "editors are also encouraged to add an archive link as a part of each citation, or at least submit the referenced URL for archiving, at the same time that each citation is created or updated."
- MOS:LISTSOFWORKS says, "When a book or article is available online through a site such as Internet Archive, Project Gutenberg, Google Books, or an open access website, it may be useful to provide a link to the online content so readers can view it; the link should always be accompanied by the necessary information such as title and publication date. The link itself may be either a bare URL, or it can be embedded in a
{{citation}}: Empty citation (help) template. There is no requirement either to add or remove such links. A link to Google Books should only be added if the book is available for preview."
shortcuts:
also see:
- "So, Rad Sechrist (Kipo Creator @radsechrist) tweeted about an idea of creating streaming services creating a Young Adult's animation division. This would mean, instead of cartoons being aggressively marketed to 'kids' or 'adults', there would be a nice in between. Anime has been doing this successfully for years and I think streaming would do well breaking the norm in such a way. Not to mention, after seeing the work Rad and his crew did with Kipo (and his instagram filled with characters just waiting to be animated) I'd trust this man with creating anything he wants. Would yall be down to see more shows like Kipo?" https://www.instagram.com/p/CGqI5dhpmf0/
Use of self-published sources is acceptable per WP:ABOUTSELF in these instances:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources. This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook."
For SALEM page (S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters) if names change:
- ^ "actress, n.". Oxford English Dictionary (3 ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. November 2010.
Although actor refers to a person who acts regardless of gender, where this term "is increasingly preferred", actress remains in general use; actor is increasingly preferred for performers of both sexes as a gender-neutral term.
- ^ Pritchard, Stephen (24 September 2011). "The readers' editor on... Actor or actress?". Theguardian.com. Retrieved 22 October 2017.
- ^ Spolin, Viola (1999). Improvisation for the Theater: A Handbook of Teaching and Directing Techniques (3rd ed.). Evanston, Ill: Northwestern Univ Press. pp. Introduction to the 3rd Edition. ISBN 0810140004. OCLC 41176682.