Talk:How-to

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 February 2021. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Education This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles

See: Wikipedia talk:How-to articles to discuss general policy

1. Should Wikipe dia include How-To articles?Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2. Why do you dislike procedural knowledge?

(I didn't redirect, because people may wish to discuss this article, rather than general policy)

See: Wikipedia talk:How-to to discuss: e.g.:

1. How should How-To articles be written?

CamelCase

Could a sysop please move HowTo to How to. --Ellmist Saturday, April 19th, 02003

According to

Wikipedia:Common words, searching for which is not possible

-list. --- User:Docu

This doesn't seem a valid arguent to me. Proper titling of articles should be more important than overcoming the technical limitations of the search function. -- Oliver P. 07:16 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

We could rename it to List of How-To articles, this keeps it in line with the titling of the general policy article -- User:Docu

List of how-to articles would be more in line with our rules on capitalisation. But since I'm actually campaigning to get rid of how-to articles altogether, there's not really much point in my considering that question at all... :) -- Oliver P. 07:45 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

:-) named in a similar way, they will be easier to eliminate .. (Not sure if this convinces you to contribute).

ok, if you want to rename the page. -- User:Docu

Hmm... Well, it starts off by saying, "A how to is".... (Actually, shouldn't it be "A how-to", rather than "A how to"?) So it starts off as a definition-type article. If I succeed in my quest to get rid of how-to articles, the lists will vanish, and we'll just be left with an article which explains the concept of a how-to. So I think the title should be how-to, in fact. -- Oliver P. 08:26 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Several lists have short introductions and several articles include lists ... thus you can make your choice. One could also argue that Wikipedia:How-to is the better article on the topic, but then it's also a "how-to" ;-)

--User:Docu

How to structure the page HowTo

I would like to reorganize this topic by categories. For example, all of the cultivation How-To wikis would be relocated to a new Cultivation_how_tos page. Categories would only be added for topics that already have several wikis on this general How To page, to avoid categories having only 0 or 1 wikis.

I will go ahead and do this in one week (about 3/13/03 (international 13.3.03)) unless there is a clear consensus that it should not be done. David 17:58 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

It sounds like a very good idea to categorize this page, but I personally prefer that if there are not too many of them, that the categorization at least begin all on one page. That way people can browse all that is available at once. An example of this kind of all-in-one-page categorization I am referring to is at:

I also think we should make sure its items are integrated within the main subject categorization pages as well (e.g., cultivation how-tos under "Agriculture" categorization section/page) as should all items be tied together (historical timelines by subject not only accessible under the historical timeline page but also in subject category views, etc.) Brettz9 23:46 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I changed it to be categorized. Again, I think it is nice to be all on one page, but if for some reason, people want it to be separated, you can of course use the categories as a base for making links to subpages (or make up entirely new categories). - Brettz9 08:32 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

(talk above moved from Wikipedia talk:How-to articles)

What was wrong with "Recreation and Hobbies"? "Extra-curricular Activities" seems to be related to items outside of a school curriculum? - Brettz9 22:34 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Howdy .... Just wanted to say that "how to" does work in google [1] ... reddi 18:22, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think that this page should be carved up and merged into Wikibooks. -Smack 07:51, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Wikibooks is a much more appropriate place for how to stuff now. theresa knott 13:05, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd support that too. The same goes for things like the cooking section. Angela 02:06, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Agree too - these articles does not belong in the encyclopedic section. I will be moving the "Bicycle repair" sections real soon now. Egil

It is now at Bicycle Repair in Wikibooks -- Egil

So whats the final word on "How-to" articles ? Every time I go to the VfD page I see a How-to getting deleted or moved out of wikipedia. So how is this page still on wikipedia and what makes the lists on this page valid ? Jay 19:02, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think they are all going to be moved, and this page will be here until they are all gone. It serves as a useful place to find the lists in order to move them, but it isn't really a valid page anymore. Perhaps it could be moved out of the main namespace now? Angela. 08:21, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

According to the general policy (Wikipedia:How-to) they are still part of wikipedia. The later page hasn't been re-written recently. -- User:Docu

About How-tos, which ones to include/move to Wikibooks for classrooms, how-to update Wikipedia:How-to, see Wikipedia:Village_pump#How-to -- User:Docu - 24 Feb 2004

Relationship to WikiBooks?

I've recently discovered WikiBooks and just today discovered this page. No apparent mention on this page of where one draws the line between a WikiBooks instruction manual and a WP one. Experts in either, please comment. Robin Patterson 22:13, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't all of these be at Wikibooks? WhisperToMe 22:02, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. A lot of the article seems like a remnant from the past. --Jonik 20:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Move to Wikibooks

In early Wikipedia history, a number of How-To's was added to the encyclopedia. Wikibooks is now considered the correct place for these howto's. The current list is really obsolete, and a remnant from the past. I have moved much of the list to How-to/Move to Wikibooks. All articles on that list should be considered candidates for moving to Wikibooks. By saying candidates I mean exactly that. For each article, it should be considered if it is suitable to retain it in Wikipedia. -- Egil 08:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I went through that list and the one on this article page, individually tagged any articles that still need to be moved, and removed the list. See Category:Move to Wikibooks for the current listing of articles that still need to be moved. -- Beland

Although the origin is not likely easy to prove, the linix origin seems easy to *disprove*. For example, the book (A Handbook of Weaves By Gustaf Hermann Oelsner, Samuel S. Dale Published 1952 Courier Dover Publications Crafts / Hobbies

In the Linux community it is spelled HOWTO, a single word, no camel caps and often in all caps. The recommended (though not required) format is laid out in the HOWTO-template for big HOWTOs and in the automated JavaScript driven The Linux Documentation Project HOWTO Generator. So while the Linux community through the Linux Documentation Project perhaps did not create the How To it did create the HOWTO and contuinues to do so after more than 10 years of activity. One could perhaps have two articles, one for How To and one for HOWTO though I believe it would confuse more than it would clarify. You might want to clarify the distinction in the article. --20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Simply removing all references to Linux, and perhaps even the internet, would not harm this article in the least. Huw Powell (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HOWTO files are a fairly widespread resource in computing and have a noticeably different character to a more traditional 'how-to' generally aimed at a novice audience, instead filling a niche between a lay tutorial and specialist documentation. Forcing the unspaced term often improves the quality of search results due to its prevalence on technical forums and wikis and absence elsewhere. The deletion of a space makes it simpler to access the file from a system without a GUI, a distinct advantage for computer documentation. The capitalisation also serves a findability purpose in that many programs (notably command line utilities and web browsers) sort lists "ASCIIbetically", where HOWTO will place above Howto, howto, and even aowto, thus ensuring that important documentation will be near the top of the list. Both the lack of a space and the use of capitalisation are seen, for similar reasons, in the naming of the README file. It seems pertinent to note here that the similarly informal README file receives its own wiki page, rather than being a footnote in (say) User guide or ignored completely. While HOWTOs are certainly less common than READMEs they are far from rare, are distinct from general how-tos, and at least warrant a mention here. --82.2.54.98 (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When someone want to put a Howto in Wikipedia he should be advised to write it in Wikihowto (http://howto.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page), the Wikia site offering open and free know-how, do it yourself guides, independent solutions and tutorials in a diverse range of subjects and languages (English, Spanish, French...). This place would be right. Would it be possible to create a template for that kind of advise and use it on howto articles ?--

I think that Wikihowto should be added to the ext links as it is a wiki style howto site and is (tobe) a proposed

Wikimedia

project.

Egads! Nothing personal against the Wikihowto project, but How-to books are also certainly welcome on Wikibooks, and repeated assurances that they will never be removed in the manner that the video game guides were culled. And Wikibooks *is* a Wikimedia sister project, unlike Wikihowto. I completely disagree that this non-Wikimedia project should ever be given the same sort of attention or be treated as a sister project unless the WMF has expressed substantial interest in adding that sort of wiki into the list of active WMF projects. --Robert Horning 17:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why we think, Wikihowto is a better place for howtos, is most howtos are a few little steps. Not a Book. But as of now, wikihowto should not be put in the sister project box[es], since it is not one. The goal for this year(2008) is to formally propose wikihowto as a sister project. ZyMOS (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest http://www.wonderhowto.com for inclusion in the external links. It was recently launched & reviewed by the New York Times, BoingBoing, Mashable, etc. It's the largest free how-to video guide for searching and browsing how to videos from all across the web (all major how-to sites seem to be in their index). Apparently it's Funded by General Catalyst Partners (though no one seems to know how much). I'd second the instructables.com suggestion too...

Jonathan Hatch here. My website: http://www.getridofthings.com is getting big and somewhat popular. Would you consider linking to it from this article? If so, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.38.196 (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to add http://www.websitetuts.com/ for possible inclusion in external links. Please consider it.

I was just browsing the site http://www.instructables.com and thought it might be appropriate/useful in our external links here. Yes/no?

I also refactored the older threads to make this talkpage a little clearer, hope that works for whoever's maintaining here :) --Quiddity 03:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding www.expertvillage.com to the external links, its the worlds largest how-to video site, its sweet! Its gotta be listed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.6.15 (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone nuked the whole external links section. As an active wikiHow editor, I'd like to add wikiHow back at least. wikiHow is a wiki with a decently large community and has been featured in NY Times and BBC. Other good how-to sites include Instructables (another good user generated how-to site), VideoJug (all videos), ViewDo (smaller video site) and even YouTube (has a large how-to section). There are others that should be included too. Thoughts? -- LighthouseSpider (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the following external links from the article since they obviously violate the Wikipedia no advertising policy. (When one edits "external links" one finds a message saying not to add any more links, so these links were slyly put under "See also" where they certainly do not belong. And when I try to see the root site http://1howto.com, my Kaspersky security program blocks it.) Redeyed Treefrog 10:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A "How To" Portal (A "How To" Portal)
• A "How To Do Business" Portal
• A "How To Find An Employment" Portal
• A "How To Use Well your Computer" Portal
• A "How To Be Heathy Everytime" Portal
• A "How To Travel" Portal
• A "How To Be Happy in your Family" Portal

How to get rid themHow to Get Rid of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.95.151 (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have modified the entire list of external links, putting it into more rational order, and adding comments to make clear what each link is all about. This may be a departure from standard procedure, but it helps to indicate the pertinence of each link. The smaller how-to wikis have been moved to the end of the list. Redeyed Treefrog 14:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems all external links were deleted. Their should be _some_ external links. Manybe the top 5 or so...., from indepedent sources(if posible). Perhaps it can be a template thats locked ZyMOS (talk)

This article is quite short. I'll give it a try to improve it... In case I should discuss it first: here is my attempt. Meursevent 16:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a number of edits concerning specific online websites because they were all sourced to their own websites, which don't meet

I suggest the list of websites should be limited to internal links to already existing articles. Flowanda | Talk 02:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article ought to explain the "101" acronym, perhaps by a reference to another lemma. The "101" disambiguation page does not list this use of the number 101. Besides: is it really an "acronym"? Acronyms afaik consist of the initial letters to a set of words.
• I thought the convention was to write HOWTO in capitals (and contiguous, like the article says)? Rbakels (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number 101 is in reference to typical

Course numbers

in American universities (or how many used to be numbered) where the introductory courses were usually labeled under the number 101, such as English 101, History 101, and so forth. The "100" indicates a freshman level course (no prerequisites) and the "1" is the first course in that department for that level. Advanced course numbers might be something like Computer Science 612, where the "600" indicates a graduate level course. Several "how-to" books have used the convention indicating that you don't need advanced knowledge to understand the content of the book, such as "Gardening 101" or "Plumbing 101".

As far as the spelling convention for the words "How to", I don't think there is any consistent standardization other than how one publisher to the next may care to deal with it. I have seen every possible combination including everything in lower case, with and without a hyphen or a space. Much of what appears in this article I think is more original research, unless there can be some more verifiable external source to cite for this information that isn't derived from this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just explained the "101" terminology in text in the article.

Also, this seems extremely overweighted with Linux - one paragraph mentions a single book, two paragraphs both bring up Linux. Where is the huge meaningful section on how-to books and pamphlets and newspaper columns, etc. on this topic? This skips straight from the 16th century to Web 2.0 with barely a dip of the oar in between! Huw Powell (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I engaged in a bit of both, attempting to bring the content of the article closer to the topic at hand, without throwing out any of the 'net and Linux related material. I even resisted the urge to refer to How to Steal a Million! Huw Powell (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1.As of 2009 A Google search for "How To" results in a comprehensive list of HowTo sites. It seems this has changed throughout the years. In the 1990's and early years of 2000, it was common for search engines to ignore these words, and even to notify the user that these words are too common for giving a comprehensive result. Currently, the Google features web page says: Google ignores common words and characters such as where, the, how, and other digits and letters that slow down your search without improving the results. If a common word is essential to getting the results you want, you can make sure we pay attention to it by putting a "+" sign in front of it." 2.^ . A search on Google for "howto faq" or for "faq howto" results in FAQs with HowToDo instructions in them, but never to a single HowTo page. This is probably due to the fact that FAQ pages are usually broader in scope, and therefore more commonly used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.69.24 (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else die a little bit when they see 'how to (something)?' It's that ? at the end that gets my goat. Grr 89.100.48.115 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These things are GREAT! I totally agree. Everyone should know how to do these things and so much more. Marc is so right. The list could grow because there are so many basic life skills to learn. There should be a class for this in our public schools. From first grade all the way through to graduation where our kids are taught age appropriate life skills so when they go into the world they are prepared. I would expand on number 8 though. Women sometimes can’t win or avoid a fight, especially if they are being attacked so learning how to purchase and use some sort of self defense product would be helpful. A lot of women don’t even know products like this are available to the average citizen. Good article. I especially appreciate the way you not only gave us the life skill but links to where it is taught. Great job!

http://how2todo.blogspot.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.69.24 (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the article lists Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People as a good example of How-to writing, which of course it is. However, the "For Dummies" and "101" series books were also cited as examples of the How-to genre, but many of the Dummies and 101 books do not instruct a person on how to do anything, they are merely "academic", giving an introductory survey or overview of a topic, such as philosophy or history. It doesn't seem to me that those would be examples of how-tos. Maybe it should be rewritten to say that MANY of the "For Dummies" and "101" series books are How-tos, rather than implying that, as a rule, For Dummies and 101 books are how-tos. I went ahead and made the change, but please feel free to change it back/comment if I was in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.53.140 (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should

• Support. That article is short, and would fit easily into this one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]