Talk:Cognitive behavioral therapy and Help:Editing: Difference between pages

(Difference between pages) Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:49, 6 September 2012 editWidescreen (talk \| contribs)993 edits →Text passage: herrgottnochmal		Revision as of 15:33, 26 January 2002 view source AxelBoldt (talk \| contribs)Administrators44,507 editsNo edit summary
Line 1:		Line 1:
			You might want to learn simply ], and you might want informal ]. If you want the details about how to edit a Misplaced Pages page, though, you've come to the right place.
	{{talkheader}}
	{{WikiProject Psychology\|class=C\|importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject Medicine\|class=C\|importance=High}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 2
	\|minthreadsleft = 1
	\|algo = old(30d)
	\|archive = Talk:Cognitive behavioral therapy/Archive %(counter)d
	}}
	{{Merged-from\|Computerised CBT\|2011-08-15}}

			It's very easy to edit a Wiki page. Simply click on the "Edit
	== Page is incredibly biased in favour of CBT ==
			this page" link at the top or bottom of a Wiki page to change the page itself, or click on the "Other Namespaces: Talk" link at the border to discuss it. This will bring you to a page with a text box containing the editable text of that Wiki page.

			Then type away, and press "Save" when finished! (You can also preview your changes before saving if you like.)
	There needs to be a lot more balance, and space for divergent opinions about and critique of for article to be considered valid. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			It is often more convenient to copy and paste the text first into your
	:While I agree with your sentiment that we should have criticism of CBT, you need to be aware that all references and edits must satisfy ] and ]. A news article is unacceptable here. As a starting point I would suggest that you read through the full-text of all the reviews used in the article to see if we are accurately reflecting the contents of the major reviews regarding the effectiveness of CBT and make sure we are not omitting any important caveats, then do a search on google scholar for other articles that look critically at the effectiveness of CBT and see if we are missing anything important (but bear in mind ] and ] - you can't just include any old criticism in the article). --] (]) 17:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
			favorite text editor, edit and spell check there, and then paste back
			into the browser to preview. This way, you can also keep a local copy of the
			pages you authored so that you can make changes offline and for backup purposes.

			In the left column of the table below, you can see what effects are possible. In the right column, you can see how those effects were achieved. In other words, to make text look like it looks in the left column, type it in the format you see in the right column.
	They’re should be much more critiquing of CBT particularly the INSERM meta-analysis which is allowed to go entirely unchallenged here and I don’t see how the opinions of Oliver James can be termed 'any old criticism'??? I haven’t the time to spend researching scholarly articles but at least adding the Oliver James ( a well known psychologist, journalist, author, commentator) quote at least adds some balance. Also to state without caveat that CBT simply is an effective for the treatment implies that it is incontrovertibly so. This does not keep with wiki standards of impartiality. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			You may want to keep this page open in a separate browser window for reference. If you want to try out things without danger of doing any harm, you can do so in the SandBox.
	:I agree. This is a pretty poor article overall. ] ] 22:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

	::Ditto. I'm unimpressed with the unqualified use of "effective". The world deserves an FA on this topic. --] (]) 08:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

			<h2>Sections, Paragraphs, Lists and Lines</h2>
	== POV-Warning ==

			<table border=1>
	The table about the effectivness of psychotherapy is POV. My arguments are . The tabel must be removed. I insist, to set one of these POV-warning boxes into the article, till these table is erased. --]<sup>]</sup> 18:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
	:That's a conclusion, not an argument. Please share your argument. ] (]) 21:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
	::My arguments listed, as I wrote, . It's easy. Turn your cursor on the blue fonts, and klick your left mouse-button (apple useres the middel mouse button). --]<sup>]</sup> 21:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::I saw that. I'm no more convinced than CartoonDiablo was. As he pointed out, this is a large tertiary source, hence highly reliable. ] (]) 22:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::A large tertiary source, like houndreds of others. You also think: I read one table in one source and now I'm a expert of psychotherapy reserch? It's not as simple as you think. Do you also think: Without knowing the hole field of psychotherapy research, you can make usefull alteretions? If you really do, it's not possible to conviece you. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::I looked through the previous discussion, and I agree with Noleander's comment that we should just have a text summary rather than the large table. I'm not entirely convinced that this study does have thousands of citations. If you perform that google scholar search that CartoonDiablo gives, most of the results are nothing to do with the study, and the ones that do mention the study call it a 'poorly designed and questionable study', so I'm concerned that we are giving a questionable study from 2003 with few citations too much weight. --] (]) 16:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::::ACK. And it's not only the study. You can't build a chapter about a hole research aerea with houndreds and thousends of studies, meta studies, reviews and summaries by know only one pure publication. Thats nonserious and got nothing to do with an enzyklopedic work. --]<sup>]</sup> 19:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::To Sciencewatcher, the only source that called it a "poorly designed and questionable study" was the International Journal of Psychoanalysis, which is a rather dubious source considering that it was cited . The point is it's the largest study in the article, there are no other tertiary sources so far as I can tell and I don't see why it the chart shouldn't be used.
	:::::::Unless someone can find a good reason for why 100+ meta studies would not suffice to create a chart (as apparently Widescreen and sciencewatcher are implying) there is no reason to exclude it. ] (]) 06:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::The bigger the better? CartoonDiablo were do you know they use 100 meta studies? They doesn't list the studies they use as basis for they results! If you want to be pooterish, it's not even a studie. It's a rewiew. But there are much more studies, overlooks and reviews. With different results. I show you. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::First of all yes it does list its sources and results and unless you (Widescreen) personally are a reliable source that can dismiss 111 meta studies done by a government panel then there is no argument. ] (]) 20:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::Your answer shows that you are not able to etimate the quality of scientific releases. Notably the fact it's a govermantal survey, don't create doubt at you. Thats why I always call it a survey, means not an scientific release but a helth policy survey. Thats perhaps the reason your study recieves so much critic? But that doesn't mean we can't use this superficial survey as source. But only in relation to other studies which have a better quality. But your study may not be the only study cited in the article, by ignore all the others. Thats POV. And POV is prohibited here. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I'd like to see other editors opinion on this. I don't think it's useful Widescreen and CartoonDiablo just arguing over this. --] (]) 15:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Other input would be helpful but I honestly don't even see an argument. Widescreen is simply asserting that it's not reliable which isn't an argument unless he himself happened to be an RS. ] (]) 02:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::1. What means RS? 2. I never say the study isn't totaly unreliable. It recieved a lot of criticism from other scientiffic authors Thats a good advice. My main argument is still: You can't write about psychotherapy research by citing only ONE table taken form ONE single, study, because there are a lot more overviews like that. The study CD trys to push in the article is minor relevant. Trying to describe the hole field of psychotherapy research even in only one treatment is a gigant task. You are wrong when you say, you can do good enzyclopedic work, when you use only one source, by ignoring all others. Do you really think thats quality work in wikipedia? --]<sup>]</sup> 05:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
	{{od}}I chimed in earlier in support of CartoonDiablo. I just don't see what Widescreen's reasoning is, other than an arbitrary rejection of a rather good meta-study. ] (]) 02:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
	:Yeah, I think the case is obvious here, the issue also remains in the ] article. For now I'll put into the research section since the study was not meant as a critique of any kind and, if anything, redeems psychoanalysis' claim to help with personality disorders. ] (]) 05:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
	::Regarding citations: if you do a search for the French title of the article on google scholar it gives 10 pages of results (). I think that is the most accurate reflection of the citations for the study, so it looks like it does have a good number of citations after all. The only question is whether it's taking up too much space in the article. One question I would ask is: does it agree with the other major reviews? If so then I don't think there is a problem with it. --] (]) 15:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::Sry Sciencewatcher. Google-Scholar includes a citatiation counter. Under the Studie, you can see the link: "Cited by 4". That means Scholar found 4 other scientific releases which cited the study you was searching for. But you found the study not once but triple! Unter the fist hit at scholar you see two futher hits. In front of it is the word . It ment the same study but another release. All in all we have 8 citatiations. For example a review releases 1994 has above . These are importend studies. Not this french survey. 10 or 8 citatiations are ridiculous in this embatted field. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::The one thing I'd suggest is seeing if we can make the chart smaller on screen, without cutting anything. ] (]) 15:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::::The chart is POV. We don't reduce the POV by making it smaller. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
	{{od}}The content is neutral, but the size is a bit much. ] (]) 16:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
	{{od}}Oh, really?! What makes you belive this? Your expertise of psychotherapy research? --]<sup>]</sup> 16:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

			<tr>
	:To Widescreen, that's not how the argument works. The study's validity is based on the fact that it's 111 meta-studies collected by a reliable source and abides by WP:MEDRS. Your assertion that it's POV or not a RS is based on your opinion.
			<td>
	:To StillStanding, I'll see what I can do with the formatting. ] (]) 18:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
			Start your sections with header lines:

			=== New Section ===
	::Widescreen, I'm aware of the '4 citations' that google scholar shows - it was me who first pointed that out after all. However google scholar isn't always correct in counting citations. I think the problem here is that the article is shown as an english transation, while all the citations are in French. --] (]) 18:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::You are right! But ther's a different between 8 or 10 citatiations and the above 1000 CartoonDiabolo asserted. It's also a different to other releases which recieved really above 1000 citatiations. My point is still the same. You can't describe the field of psychotherapy research by only one govermental survey. That's nonserious and non-enzyclopedical. That's why the survey have to be erased. --]<sup>]</sup> 18:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::No, it's not '10' citations, it's 10 ''pages'' of results (144 in total). Probably not all of those are proper citations, but even 100 is pretty respectable. --] (]) 21:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Hm? Strictly thats not correct. The Scholar searches the full text at the name of the release. The citatiation been counted by the software. But I checked the mentioned citatiations counted by scholar, and I found one source doesn't even really cites the survey! Thats remarkeble. I also think it's a problem on the french translation. But you can't count only the resuls presented by scholar. Beginning from result page 1 on you can't proove if it's really a citatiation or a dead hit. At ] I found . Thats makes the survey generally mentionable in my eyes. Of course in relation to others. --]<sup>]</sup> 21:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

			==== Subsection ====</td>
	== A offer for real ==

			<td><pre>
	After the table was erased, I thought maybe I can help you to phrase a chapter about the evaluation of efficacy of cbt. I can help you to find sources or classify them. I got a lot of knowledge about this special research area. If you want? --]<sup>]</sup> 18:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

	== Text passage ==

			=== New Section ===
	<u>Evaluation of effectiveness</u>

			==== Subsection ====</pre></td>
	According to a 2004 French government study conducted by ], <u>Cognitive behavioral therapy was the most effective therapy as compared to ] and family or couples therapy.
			</tr>

			<tr>
	The study used <u>]</u> of over a hundred <u>]</u> to <u>find some level of effectiveness</u> that was either "proven" or "presumed" to exist. Of the treatments CBT was found to be presumed or proven effective at treating <u>], ], ], ], ], ]s, ], ], ] and ].</u>
			<td>
			A single newline
			has no effect.

			But an empty line
	I just underlined all wrong statments. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
			starts a new paragraph.</td>
	:Widescreen, please stop edit-warring. ] (]) 00:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
	::Also I'm working on an image as agreed per the discussion. If you remove either the image or text here or on the psychoanalysis article it will be considered edit-warring. ] (]) 00:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::Nearly every statement you add last, was wrong. So I reverted it by quality management. --]<sup>]</sup> 04:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::You reverted against consensus and got reverted. ] (]) 04:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::::No, I didn't. see: --]<sup>]</sup> 04:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
	{{od}}With all due respect, I've been to ] so I know a few things about it. First, it's not binding. Second, it doesn't replace consensus. Third, it's often completely worthless. I suggest you try ], with the options being:
	#No chart.
	#Chart.
	#Small chart.
	#Prose.
	Try that. But until then, leave that part of the article alone. ] (]) 04:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
	:The table were POV but the prose is POV as POV can. The consensus dint't say: You can type anything you want. The alterations have to be confirm with our rules. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
	::The consensus was that an image be made in its place and this is blatantly edit waring as well as a violation of 3RR. ] (]) 05:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::Widescreen, stop edit warring. The prose seems to be a good summary of the study to me. If you have objections you need to explain exactly what your objections are. --] (]) 13:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
	I'm sorry about that, but I hadn't much time.
	What's wrong with the passage?
	#The heading. It's called "''Evaluation of effectiveness''". In fact it's about 1 single study or survey. The "Evaluation of effectiveness" would contain about 10 to 20 important studies. If anybody have the leisure for an detailed description it would contain about 50 stuies. A good heading would be. "INSERM efficancy survey" or "French govermental survey".
	#The sentence: "''Cognitive behavioral therapy was the most effective therapy as compared to psychoanalysis and family or couples therapy.''" Thats not true. If you want to describe a short approach it's rather: "The survey found that CBT is more effective as psa and ft in specific disorders and specific treatment conditions." (by ignoring about 70 studies in 2004)
	#"''The study used meta-analysis of over a hundred secondary studies''" This sentence doesn't have a source. The french survey got such a bad quality, they doesn't list the studies they choose for there review or even cited them. I know some meta-analysis contains only 8 or 10 single rtc's. What makes the author sure, that the survey evaluated over a houndred secondary studies? Further, the study also use rct's if no meta-analysis was found. Or, I wouldn't to rule out that possibilitie, I didn't found a list or citatiation of the used studies. But meanwhile I've read the study (compulsorily) in parts. Thats the reason why the statement "''of over a hundred secondary studies''" is completeley imaginary. (there are a much more quality lecks)
	#"''secondary studies''" This term is wrong if you ask me. I know, en:wp calls meta-analyses AND peer-reviewed articles ] (without a source!). But in de:wp you can read somthing different. In de:wp you can read secondary sources are overviews which based on so called primary sources. I saw how the anglophone Misplaced Pages works, just in this article here, an I trust the german more...
	#"''to find some level of effectiveness''" A bit fussy, but these are no "levels" of effectiveness but a statement if the treatment is proven (effective) or presumed (effectiv). Levels of efficacy are more differentiated. But, just as I said, a bit fussy if you see the other serious shortcomings of the text.
	#"''Of the treatments CBT was found to be presumed or proven effective at treating schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, post-traumatic stress, anxiety disorders, bulimia, anorexia, personality disorders and alcohol dependency.''" The main fault on this sentence is that he doesn't term the exact conditions of the treatment which was evaluated. E.g. "Schizophrenia (acute phase) with medical drugs" or "Depression, hospitalised on antidepressants" and so on.

			<td><pre>A single newline
	But the important thing is, you have to expain the reader, that this single study does't explain the hole field of psychotherapy research. And why, in gods name, we choose this study for our articles.
			has no effect.

			But an empty line
	Don't get me wrong. I know CBT got much more assured efficacys. But guys like CD doesn't know, becuse they only know ONE singel Study. --]<sup>]</sup> 17:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
			starts a new paragraph.</pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr valign=top><td>You can break lines<br>
			without starting a new paragraph.</td>

			<td><pre>You can break lines<br>
			without starting a new paragraph.</pre></td></tr>

			<tr>
			<td>
			* Lists are good:
			** they organize material
			** they look clean</td>

			<td><pre>* Lists are good:
			** they organize material
			** they look clean</pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr>
			<td>
			# Numbered lists are also good
			## Very organized
			## easy to follow</td>

			<td><pre># Numbered lists are also good
			## Very organized
			## easy to follow</pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr>
			<td>
			; Definition lists : lists with definitions
			; item to be defined : the item's definition</td>

			<td><pre>; Definition lists : lists with definitions
			; item to be defined : the item's definition</pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr><td valign=bottom>For mixing list types, you need to use HTML:
			<ul>
			<li>A numbered list:
			<ol>
			<li>First item
			<li>Second item
			</ol>
			<li>more bullets


			</ul></td>

			<td><pre><ul>
			<li>A numbered list:
			<ol>
			<li>First item
			<li>Second item
			</ol>
			<li>more bullets
			</ul></pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr>
			<td>
			:Lines can be
			::indented
			:::several levels</td>

			<td><pre>:Lines can be
			::indented
			:::several levels</pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr valign=top>
			<td>
			IF (a line starts with whitespace) THEN
			it will be formatted exactly as typed;
			in a technical looking font;
			lines won't wrap;
			ENDIF
			this is useful for:
			* pasting preformatted text;
			* algorithm descriptions;
			* ascii art;</td>

			<td><pre> IF (a line starts with whitespace) THEN
			it will be formatted exactly as typed;
			in a technical looking font;
			lines won't wrap;
			ENDIF
			this is useful for:
			* pasting preformatted text;
			* algorithm descriptions;
			* ascii art;</pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr valign=top><td><center>Text can be centered.</center></td>

			<td><pre><center>Text can be centered.</center></pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr>
			<td>A horizontal dividing line: above
			----
			and below.</td>

			<td><pre>A horizontal dividing line: above
			----
			and below.</pre></td>
			</tr>
			</table>

			<h2>Links, URLs, Images</h2>

			<table border=1>
			<tr valign=top><td>Link to the ].<br>
			(First letter of target is automatically capitalized.<br>
			Spaces are converted into underscores.<br>
			To create a new page: start with a link to it, then click on ?.<br>
			Check out the ].)</td>

			<td><pre>Link to the ].</pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr valign=top><td>Same target, different name: ].<br>
			Targets can only contain letters and spaces!</td>

			<td><pre>Same target, different name: ]</pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr valign=top><td>] is a page that doesn't
			exist yet.<br>
			You can start it by clicking on the question mark.<br>
			After creating a page, search for its title and make<br>
			sure that everyone correctly links to it.</td>

			<td><pre>] is a page that doesn't
			exist yet.</pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr valign=top><td>Redirect one article title to another<br>
			by putting text like this in its first line.</td>

			<td><pre>#REDIRECT ]</pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr valign=top><td>External link: </td>

			<td><pre>External link: </pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr valign=top><td>Or just give the URL: http://www.nupedia.com.<br>
			(Good idea since it makes a printout more useful.)</td>

			<td><pre>Or just give the URL: http://www.nupedia.com.</pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr valign=top><td>A picture: http://www.wikipedia.com/wikia.gif <br>
			E-mail the picture to jasonr @ bomis.com to be uploaded.<br>
			''Do not'' link to external files on other servers unless you<br>
			control that server space!</td>

			<td><pre>A picture: http://www.wikipedia.com/wikia.gif</pre></td>
			</tr>
			</table>

			<h2>Character formatting</h2>

			<table border=1>
			<tr valign=top><td>''Emphasize'', '''strongly''', '''''very strongly'''''.<br>
			Use also in formulas: '''F''' = ''m'' '''a'''.</td>

			<td><pre>''Emphasize'', '''strongly''', '''''very strongly'''''.
			'''F''' = ''m'' '''a'''.</pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr>
			<td><font size=+1 color=red>Funny fonts</font><br>
			But <code>== ... ==</code> is better for
			separating sections.</td>

			<td><pre><font size=+2 color=red>Funny fonts</font></pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr valign=top>
			<td>A typewriter font for <tt>technical terms</tt>.</td>

			<td><pre><tt>technical terms</tt></pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr valign=top><td>You can <strike>strike out</strike> stuff<br>
			and <u>insert new stuff</u>. Useful for editing.</td>

			<td><pre>You can <strike>strike out</strike> stuff
			and <u>insert new stuff</u></pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr valign=top><td>Umlauts and accents: (See ])<br>
			À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ<br>
			Ç È É Ê Ë Ì Í<br>
			Î Ï Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ<br>
			Ö Ø Ù Ú Û Ü ß<br>
			à á â ã ä å æ<br>
			ç è é ê ë ì í<br>
			î ï ñ ò ó ô õ<br>
			ö ø ù ú û ü ÿ</td>

			<td><pre>


			À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ
			Ç È É Ê Ë Ì Í
			Î Ï Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ
			Ö Ø Ù Ú Û Ü ß
			à á â ã ä å æ
			ç è é ê ë ì í
			î ï ñ ò ó ô õ
			ö ø ù ú û ü ÿ</pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr valign=top><td>Punctuation: ¿ ¡ « » § ¶<br>
			&dagger; &Dagger; •
			</td>

			<td><pre>¿ ¡ « » § ¶
			&dagger; &Dagger; •
			</pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr valign=top><td>Evil stuff: ™ © ® ¢ € ¥ £ ¤</td>

			<td><pre>™ © ® ¢ € ¥ £ ¤
			</pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr valign=top><td>Subscript: x<sub>2</sub> Superscript: x<sup>2</sup></td>

			<td><pre>Subscript: x<sub>2</sub> Superscript: x<sup>2</sup></pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr valign=top><td>Greek characters: α β γ δ ε ζ η<br>
			θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ<br>
			π ρ σ &sigmaf; τ υ φ<br>
			χ ψ ω<br>
			Γ Δ Θ Λ Ξ Π Σ<br>
			Φ Ψ Ω
			</td>

			<td><pre>α β γ δ ε ζ η
			θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ
			π ρ σ &sigmaf; τ υ φ
			χ ψ ω
			Γ Δ Θ Λ Ξ Π Σ
			Φ Ψ Ω
			</pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr valign=top><td>Math characters: (See ]) <br>
			∫ ∑ ∏ √ ± ∞<br>
			≈ &prop; &equiv; ≠ ≤ ≥ →<br>
			× · ÷ ∂ ′ ″ ∇<br>
			&permil; ° &there4; &alefsym;<br>
			ø ∈ &ni; ∩ ∪ ⊂ ⊃ &sube; &supe;<br>
			¬ &and; &or; ∃ ∀ ⇒ ⇔
			</td>

			<td valign=center><pre>

			∫ ∑ ∏ √ ± ∞
			≈ &prop; &equiv; ≠ ≤ ≥ →
			× · ÷ ∂ ′ ″ ∇
			&permil; ° &there4; &alefsym;
			ø ∈ &ni; ∩ ∪ ⊂ ⊃ &sube; &supe;
			¬ &and; &or; ∃ ∀ ⇒ ⇔</pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr valign=top><td>More space than usual, no line break: x<sup>2</sup>  &nbsp≥   0 true.<br>
			This is useful in formulas.
			</td>

			<td><pre>x<sup>2</sup>   ≥   0
			</pre></td>
			</tr>

			<tr>
			<td>Ascii art integrals (start every line with a blank):<br>
			∞ -x<sup>2</sup>
			∫ e dx = √π
			-∞
			The square root sucks though.</td>

			<td><pre> ∞ -x<sup>2</sup>
			∫ e dx = √π
			-∞</pre></td>
			</tr>
			</table>

			<h2>Tables</h2>

			<table border=1>
			<caption>An example table</caption>
			<tr>
			<th>First header</th>
			<th>Second header</th>
			<th>Third header</th>
			</tr>
			<tr>
			<td>upper left</td>
			<td>upper middle</td>
			<td rowspan=2>right side</td>
			</tr>
			<tr>
			<td>lower left</td>
			<td>lower middle</td>
			</tr>
			<tr>
			<td colspan=3 align=center>bottom row</td>
			</tr>
			</table>

			<pre><table border=1>
			<caption>An example table</caption>
			<tr>
			<th>First header</th>
			<th>Second header</th>
			<th>Third header</th>
			</tr>
			<tr>
			<td>upper left</td>
			<td>upper middle</td>
			<td rowspan=2>right side</td>
			</tr>
			<tr>
			<td>lower left</td>
			<td>lower middle</td>
			</tr>
			<tr>
			<td colspan=3 align=center>bottom row</td>
			</tr>
			</table></pre>

			If your table doesn't look right, make sure that all <tr> and <td> tags are closed with corresponding </tr> and </td> tags. It's best to start all lines belonging to a table in the first column as in the example above, or else you will get spurious space above the table or even a browser crash.

			----

			]

			]

Revision as of 15:33, 26 January 2002

You might want to learn simply how to start a page, and you might want informal tips on contributing to Misplaced Pages. If you want the details about how to edit a Misplaced Pages page, though, you've come to the right place.

It's very easy to edit a Wiki page. Simply click on the "Edit this page" link at the top or bottom of a Wiki page to change the page itself, or click on the "Other Namespaces: Talk" link at the border to discuss it. This will bring you to a page with a text box containing the editable text of that Wiki page.

Then type away, and press "Save" when finished! (You can also preview your changes before saving if you like.)

It is often more convenient to copy and paste the text first into your favorite text editor, edit and spell check there, and then paste back into the browser to preview. This way, you can also keep a local copy of the pages you authored so that you can make changes offline and for backup purposes.

In the left column of the table below, you can see what effects are possible. In the right column, you can see how those effects were achieved. In other words, to make text look like it looks in the left column, type it in the format you see in the right column.

You may want to keep this page open in a separate browser window for reference. If you want to try out things without danger of doing any harm, you can do so in the SandBox.

Sections, Paragraphs, Lists and Lines

Start your sections with header lines: New Section ==== Subsection ====	=== New Section === ==== Subsection ====
A single newline has no effect. But an empty line starts a new paragraph.	A single newline has no effect. But an empty line starts a new paragraph.
You can break lines without starting a new paragraph.	You can break lines<br> without starting a new paragraph.
Lists are good: they organize material they look clean	* Lists are good: they organize material they look clean
Numbered lists are also good Very organized easy to follow	# Numbered lists are also good ## Very organized ## easy to follow
Definition lists lists with definitions item to be defined the item's definition	; Definition lists : lists with definitions ; item to be defined : the item's definition
For mixing list types, you need to use HTML: A numbered list: First item Second item more bullets	<ul> <li>A numbered list: <ol> <li>First item <li>Second item </ol> <li>more bullets </ul>
Lines can be indented several levels	:Lines can be ::indented :::several levels
IF (a line starts with whitespace) THEN it will be formatted exactly as typed; in a technical looking font; lines won't wrap; ENDIF this is useful for: * pasting preformatted text; * algorithm descriptions; * ascii art;	IF (a line starts with whitespace) THEN it will be formatted exactly as typed; in a technical looking font; lines won't wrap; ENDIF this is useful for: * pasting preformatted text; * algorithm descriptions; * ascii art;
Text can be centered.	<center>Text can be centered.</center>
A horizontal dividing line: above and below.	A horizontal dividing line: above ---- and below.

Links, URLs, Images

Link to the Misplaced Pages FAQ. (First letter of target is automatically capitalized. Spaces are converted into underscores. To create a new page: start with a link to it, then click on ?. Check out the naming conventions.)	Link to the ].
Same target, different name: answers. Targets can only contain letters and spaces!	Same target, different name: ]
The weather in London is a page that doesn't exist yet. You can start it by clicking on the question mark. After creating a page, search for its title and make sure that everyone correctly links to it.	] is a page that doesn't exist yet.
Redirect one article title to another by putting text like this in its first line.	#REDIRECT ]
External link: Nupedia	External link:
Or just give the URL: http://www.nupedia.com. (Good idea since it makes a printout more useful.)	Or just give the URL: http://www.nupedia.com.
A picture: http://www.wikipedia.com/wikia.gif E-mail the picture to jasonr @ bomis.com to be uploaded. Do not link to external files on other servers unless you control that server space!	A picture: http://www.wikipedia.com/wikia.gif

Character formatting

Emphasize, strongly, very strongly. Use also in formulas: F = m a.	''Emphasize'', '''strongly''', '''''very strongly'''''. '''F''' = ''m'' '''a'''.
Funny fonts But `== ... ==` is better for separating sections.	<font size=+2 color=red>Funny fonts</font>
A typewriter font for `technical terms`.	<tt>technical terms</tt>
You can ~~strike out~~ stuff and insert new stuff. Useful for editing.	You can <strike>strike out</strike> stuff and <u>insert new stuff</u>
Umlauts and accents: (See Wiki special characters) À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê Ë Ì Í Î Ï Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö Ø Ù Ú Û Ü ß à á â ã ä å æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ñ ò ó ô õ ö ø ù ú û ü ÿ	À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê Ë Ì Í Î Ï Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö Ø Ù Ú Û Ü ß à á â ã ä å æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ñ ò ó ô õ ö ø ù ú û ü ÿ
Punctuation: ¿ ¡ « » § ¶ † ‡ •	¿ ¡ « » § ¶ † ‡ •
Evil stuff: ™ © ® ¢ € ¥ £ ¤	™ © ® ¢ € ¥ £ ¤
Subscript: x₂ Superscript: x	Subscript: x<sub>2</sub> Superscript: x<sup>2</sup>
Greek characters: α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ π ρ σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω Γ Δ Θ Λ Ξ Π Σ Φ Ψ Ω	α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ π ρ σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω Γ Δ Θ Λ Ξ Π Σ Φ Ψ Ω
Math characters: (See Wiki special characters) ∫ ∑ ∏ √ ± ∞ ≈ ∝ ≡ ≠ ≤ ≥ → × · ÷ ∂ ′ ″ ∇ ‰ ° ∴ ℵ ø ∈ ∋ ∩ ∪ ⊂ ⊃ ⊆ ⊇ ¬ ∧ ∨ ∃ ∀ ⇒ ⇔	∫ ∑ ∏ √ ± ∞ ≈ ∝ ≡ ≠ ≤ ≥ → × · ÷ ∂ ′ ″ ∇ ‰ ° ∴ ℵ ø ∈ ∋ ∩ ∪ ⊂ ⊃ ⊆ ⊇ ¬ ∧ ∨ ∃ ∀ ⇒ ⇔
More space than usual, no line break: x &nbsp≥ 0 true. This is useful in formulas.	x<sup>2</sup> ≥ 0
Ascii art integrals (start every line with a blank): ∞ -x ∫ e dx = √π -∞ The square root sucks though.	∞ -x<sup>2</sup> ∫ e dx = √π -∞

Tables

An example table
First header	Second header	Third header
upper left	upper middle	right side
lower left	lower middle	right side
bottom row

<table border=1>
<caption>An example table</caption>
<tr>
<th>First header</th>
<th>Second header</th>
<th>Third header</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>upper left</td>
<td>upper middle</td>
<td rowspan=2>right side</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>lower left</td>
<td>lower middle</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan=3 align=center>bottom row</td>
</tr>
</table>

If your table doesn't look right, make sure that all <tr> and <td> tags are closed with corresponding </tr> and </td> tags. It's best to start all lines belonging to a table in the first column as in the example above, or else you will get spurious space above the table or even a browser crash.

Old version

/Talk

Revision as of 15:33, 26 January 2002

Sections, Paragraphs, Lists and Lines

New Section

Links, URLs, Images

Character formatting

Tables