User talk:Towenaar

This user is a student editor in Univ._of_California_Santa_Cruz/History_101D_Topics_in_the_World_History_of_Science_(Summer_Session_2) .

This user is a student editor in Univ._of_California_Santa_Cruz/History_101D_Topics_in_the_World_History_of_Science_(Summer_2019) .

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Towenaar, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where to put your contribution[edit]

In your question to User:Shalor (Wiki Ed) on her Talk page (here) you asked about where to add your contribution about Eurocentrism in Scientific History; whether "to the article Eurocentrism or should it go under Scientific Revolution?"

My first instinct, would be to add it as a new section to History of Science; possibly as a new H3 subsection under section Impact of science in Europe, or possibly as a subsection under a new, Historiography section.

But I think this is actually a pretty good question, and you might want to get some outside help by experts on the topic. What I would suggest you do, is to ask your question again at WT:HISTORY, which is the Talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject History. Make sure to link your sandbox, so they know where to look. This doesn't appear to be a very fast-moving page, but maybe you'll get a quick answer. If not, feel free to take my suggestion, or perhaps Shalor will add her 2 cents. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidated footnotes[edit]

Are references 2, 4, and 5 all from the same volume? If so, you can reference them more efficiently, in a couple of different ways, either:

using named references to combine them, and the {{rp}} template to indicate different page numbers for each one; or
use short footnotes; this involves creating a bibliographic citation for the volume using the {{citation}} template, and then the "short footnote" uses the {{sfn}} template to refer back to the bibliographic citation, and renders the short footnote something like this: "Bala 2006, p. 21" and so on.

There are other ways, but these are perhaps the two easiest ones. If you are adding your material to an existing article, then copy the style they use in that article, to maintain consistency. Mathglot (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying in articles[edit]

Hello Towenaar. I recently noticed unsourced text that included the indication of copy-paste like non-working source references. I now see your sandbox. If you want to add it to an article, make sure to copy the wikisource, not the web page text, this should fix this issue. —Paleo Neonate – 02:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]