Wikipedia talk:Help Project/Archive 3

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


Overview discussion

The discussion page from WP:Help_Project/Overview redirects to this section so we don't have to hop about.

I don't know if I mentioned this elsewhere, but I started a subpage. I find the structure and navigating the help system quite a headache so am trying different ways of visualising it. I should probably be doing this sort of thing in my userspace, but if I put it here it may help the future if my head explodes! JoeSmack and rd232 (and others), I know you are both into this sort of thing as well,so please feel free to have a look/edit! Currently Wikipedia:Help_Project/Overview#Possible_Nav_Box is looking hopeful - I took help:contents main page, stripped the links down into sections, and have added a few directly related FAQs to order - it is currently in a left-hand info box style, which might work but the structure breakdown is the essential element (as it could be converted to a different format). Have a look, you'll get the idea... Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 00:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the structure to the recommended structure, inspired by rd323's nav box for wikimedia references, its still very early, but maybe it could be developed into a full blown help navigational aid ? Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 22:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, is there any way we can cut stuff down? I think simpler is how we need to start leaning, because as it stands now that template overwhelms even me, a multiple year veteran of the wiki! Get brutal, I want to see the other side of the coin.... JoeSmack Talk 18:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Its like topiary - you have to let it grow to have enough to prune back into a solid shape! I get your drift - but I think what we need to do is have a two stage nav system - A simpler one providing links to core subjects and a nice progressive path that new users can follow, giving them some idea of where they are. Another might be very useful for experienced editors to check out specific pages e.g template say, which would probably need links to most things - but could cut the intro/basic pages with maybe a breadcrumb for new users that accidentally stumble across this page. I am also toying with the notion of a help introduction, which describes the type of help pages that will be encountered, the various ways of using the help and a recommended path for newcomers, could even be a portal, but I think that's missing. I shall split the nav box so you can run in and chop to your heart's content :) Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 19:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I like the snipping ! :) Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 02:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I have played with the 'accessible nav box' on Wikipedia:Help_Project/Overview#Possible_Nav_Box, got extremely drastic which I like to do sometimes. There isn't an overwhelming amount of things to read now, which I feel is important. The result of whats left was determined by picturing I was very very new as well as:

  1. link leads to something no more than 2 pages long (broad overview link was 3 pages)
  2. link leads to something that wasn't scary technical
  3. link leads to something that looked nice

I also removed links that seemed fairly redundant. The notable exception from all this was Wikipedia:Talk_page. I really really would like there to be a better intro to talk pages. Note, before the link was Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines, which was somehow even worse, making me both laugh and cry at the same time. What do ya'll think? JoeSmack Talk 03:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good at first glance, will look further after some tasks. The WP:talk page has now been migrated to the Help: namespace, There is WP:Look it up but not sure about it's future as quiddity has suggested merging that with wp:searching with some others. Maybe we should start a new article e.g /Introduction to talk pages where we can be as newbie friendly as we like, then like articles we could have 'for a more detailed see help:talk page' and on help talk page 'for a introduction to talk pages see 'introduction to talk pages'. Another crazy idea I had was have a subpage of each help page, which is mostly the lead, maybe with a few other lines to make it readable on its own.this can be transcluded as the lead of the main help page and keep them synchronized in the same place. Your basic premises seem pretty good and I think we should draft a rough /guidelines at some point.Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 22:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I would loooove to see a refactoring of 'talk page' help content. We know any mavericks who do the design on the prettier help stuff? JoeSmack Talk 02:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
us? ;) Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 03:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Crap! Ok, lemme see what I can pull off. JoeSmack Talk 17:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I was just about to suggest the tutorial section on talk as another option /start point when I see you have already got there ! Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 23:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Help_Project/Introduction_to_talk_pages - not quite finished but you get the picture. Thoughts? JoeSmack Talk 04:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks great! I think I can see a few tweaks here n there ( excluding anything obvious ) but the picture is good - will get back soon, but am hitting the sack in 3, 2, Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 04:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Linking to Introduction of...s

I have added Wikipedia:Help Project/Overview/Introductions and Help:Help onto the project page in a suggested structure for incorporating the new 'introduction to...' pages, I think it makes sense now. Maybe introductios could be incorporated into help but I think the trade off between extra clicks and simplicity is ok. Another thought is to have a review page listing basic facts that should have been picked up if all the intros had been read - for speed freaks and those wishing reassurance they got it all... Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 01:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


I am coming to the conclusion we need a page that describes how to use help, Help:Help, this could describe the basic types of help pages that will be encountered, where to go for each detail level and how to use the pages, part of this ( or the next page ) should be an intro to intros page where we could explain things like what happens when you stray from the path. This might allow for my next idea..Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 03:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC) ....Next idea. At the bottom of each intro page, we could include links to the next level of detail relevant to issues on that page. We should point out that they shouldn't be followed first time through and are there so a user who has completed the intro can come back at a future date - to familiar territory and gain more in-depth help. Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 03:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally, totally feel an in depth level of help material. This is a great idea, but let's start with getting the basics out there. I think reclaiming Help:Help is keen and a good way to start moving back into Help space - give it a go. JoeSmack Talk 17:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Reclaim Help:help is on the cards ... I'll knock something up soon, just got to clear up a few things, but relevant to this it will have a big pointer to 'if you haven't used wikipedia/help before, it is strongly recommended you browse the briefest overview we can provide that will get you aquainted with wikipedia's workings and able to make comments, ask questions, or contribute to articles with some sense of confidence (link to accessibility intro/navbox)' Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 02:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Help:Help Reclaimed! have written a draft using current best links - which we can update as better ones are found, its basic, but its basically there and can develop Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 03:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

new talk page help tutorial

Much in the same light (well, i stole the code) of Help:Tutorial and WP:INTRO, here is Wikipedia:Help_Project/Introduction_to_talk_pages, basically a prettier tutorial for talk page use. The current ones suck, and suck hard. This is a draft, there's even a couple of jokes I put in, but really I want other people to poke and prod too. Make it more interesting, the layout look more appealing, whatever. Pretty please! JoeSmack Talk 07:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Short and sweet is definitely easier to understand and more likely to be read (cf WP:TLDR). Needs a decent shortcut, and we need to figure out how to link it with the existing Tutorial / Intro, and where else to add (there must be some related user warning messages - WP:UTM). Perhaps {{talkheader}} too. Rd232 talk 09:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Shortcut - maybe we should start a new category of shortcut up, maybe starting with TUT for tutorials, or INT for intro pages? Haven't looked at talk page help in depth yet. Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 05:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
With an eye to where to link it for perspective, here are the pages related to talk page help that I could find Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 22:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I should also point out that development of a simple introduction to wikipedia navbox - Wikipedia:Help_Project/Overview#Accessible_Nav_Box started the development of this tutorial off, and maybe the question should extend to cover this navbox...Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 22:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm for a TUT shortcut. I don't want to abandon H as a shortcut though either. I'm for a mini intro on the nav box. Lee, i made a similar list as the above in my User:JoeSmack/sandbox! Great minds think alike. JoeSmack Talk 00:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Cheers - I have added links from your sandbox to the list above! Is the H an adopted prefix, then, maybe we should go HT ( tutorial) HI (introductory page) etc ... ? Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 02:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Have gone for H:TALKINTRO, as there may be many INTOs but not many TALKS? Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 03:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
INTRO:_____ is starting to feel more intuitive if we start developing a lot of 'introduction' material... JoeSmack Talk 22:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
H is, well, I thought it was established but I think so few help pages even exist that it doesn't matter. H, TUT, INT - I'm thinking now we should go with just one and work with it, not have many separate abbrevs. JoeSmack Talk 17:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Now its sunk in. INTRO:TALK looks best for this ( and similar ), as for the others .. shouldn't H: get extended to HELP: automatically, this would make other shortcuts automagic?Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 02:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, INTRO: just feels right. As per the H: ---> Help: automagic, from my testing the courtesy hasn't been extended to help space like WP ---> Wikipedia:. JoeSmack Talk 07:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Just made a few edit/suggestions a couple more thoughts before I sleep..Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 05:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we should include something about remaining civil in there somewhere.
I'm going to make a simplified ruleset intro and civility will be in there. I think also it is granted not to be a dick, and we shouldn't have to spell it out in the talk page intro. JoeSmack Talk 18:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • We should try to make each page have roughly the same amount of content, nay make them the same length so the bottom border doesn't jump around.
  • I really like the way the 'new messages' screenshot overlaps the text box.
  • Another thing we might talk about is the things that appear on a talk page, that won't have been seen browsing normal articles - notices, archives, project banners for example...
I think that generally a new editor can see those exist without needing to know where they belong or how to edit them, it's not simple enough. JoeSmack Talk 18:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
We should really keep text and information to a minimum, and resist the temptation to explain everything. Notices, banners, archives should be self-explanatory enough. It might be useful to clearly separate the behavioural guidelines from the technical; the behavioural stuff can be added to the first tab I think, it doesn't need a lot of text, maybe just a sentence in the first paragraph. Rd232 talk 08:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I have just moved the pages to named pages ( so that it appears titled correctly when browsing). In the process I picked a new name for 'indenting' as 'layout ( was toying with 'formating' but might conjure up a hard drive!), my theory being bullet points aren't purely indenting and incase we extend coverage in future. Let me know the preferred name and I'll fix if required. Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 03:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, good call. I was thinking the same about bullets, so that fixes that nicely. JoeSmack Talk 18:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I am having secong thoughts on the title of these pages- i.e. Tutorial, when we don't really get the user to do anything, I am wondering if it should be called an 'Introduction to...' ? Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 20:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, maybe we should say we're drawing a line about this now. Perhaps an 'introduction' is the new new editor stuff? Can we make this distinction from now on? JoeSmack Talk 22:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite get it, do you mean this and other bits in the offing ( like the simplified ruleset) are introduction ? or did you want to clarify the distinction further ? Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 23:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
If we are reclaiming/organizing the Help space, and eventually if we're making tiers (a beginner & advanced form) of help pages, then as we make the beginner stuff it might help to say 'from now on, all super-green-new-editor stuff is called introduction'. JoeSmack Talk 22:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 15:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

cutting corners

  • I am toying with making the corners of the tabs and pages rounded, not sure if its possible but initial experiments ( not committed) looked visually appealing.
Let's see it, i'm interested. JoeSmack Talk 18:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Have successfully rounded the top of the tabs - phew templates/translclusions : future reference/reverting added '-moz-border-radius-topleft: 1em; -moz-border-radius-topright: 1em; -webkit-border-radius-topleft: 1em; -webkit-border-radius-topright: 1em;' into style statement on:
Now rounded the 'next' button and bottom of each page - this is in style of each actual content page. Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 21:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Other bits I played with need more work - or didn't work, so I'll leave for now pending further thoughts ... the little line after the last tab appears to be a pre-existing 'feature' ( it appears after each tab but is only a problem on the last one ) 22:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I like it, even that one corner that won't round - makes it feel like a page corner for turning or something. JoeSmack Talk 22:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Cool, I think I've worked out a way to align the last tab with the side of the page ( thus removing the corner ), it requires some playing with the templates - but is possible. But if you like the corner then I won't! Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 23:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, this breaks under IE6 (im using a friend's computer)...the corners just dont appear. JoeSmack Talk 14:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm - I've seen a few issues dotted around with wikipedia and ie6! Do you mean the corners are missing altogether - or do they revert to square ones ? Also shouldn't they be running a more up to date browser - I would've thought there were many security issues that have been fixed since it's release ? Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 20:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
They just don't exist. IE6 is old, and we dont have to support it, but it's always better to do so (if possible). I think it's just good to know. I've already updated them to firefox for safety though. ;) JoeSmack Talk 13:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Feel finished?

Well, how do we feel about Wikipedia:Help_Project/Introduction_to_talk_pages now? Does it feel pretty final draftish? JoeSmack Talk 20:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It feels good enough to move on to finding a place for it and over bits, further tweaks may be just minor, I still have to test out these rounded corners, will see if I can create some time ... Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 21:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it looks great with the tweaks you recently did! Now I think we just have to worry about the conclusion e.g. where we want to lead folks after the last talk page guidelines? help desk? experiment page? where? JoeSmack Talk 22:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
A novel concept for wikipedia - but how about nowhere! We could end the page with something like 'You now have enough information to get involved with any conversations, if, in the future you would like further information start Help:talk pageshere' and remove last 'next' button. Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 00:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Or return to the place from which you would encounter this if read in order.. i.e. the simplified navbox overview, this would allow users to browse similar level intros - once we've made them ! Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 02:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess I don't care that much one way or the other, but I would say whichever is simplier/less likely to break is better. JoeSmack Talk 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

JoeSmack, I went over it as you asked and I changed a few minor things, but I was wonder about:

  • {}
  • {}
  • A user talk page example as well? I know that would be hard without explaining talkbacks and stuff, though

Anyhow, great job!-- fetchcomms 00:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the changes, i like em! Much more warm. Generally, {} and {} are intermediate talk page devises, and ideally we want the tutorial to be as simple as possible for the very new. Although, if you'll see Help:Talk could certainly gain from such bits of info... We might be able to include a user talk page as well, but again preference should be on the simple. JoeSmack Talk 00:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Very well, I was assuming that would be the case. I hope the project continues well! If you want me to look over stuff some more, talk page or IRC is fine:)-- fetchcomms 04:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

New editor feedback

So I'm slowly getting family to comment on the guide this thanksgiving break, and the first was a classic Mom test (which SHOULD have an article, heh). She's 55 and hasn't edited more than a couple of pages (but uses a computer a lot), so she's a target demographic for the introductions. Some of her feedback included that she missed that there were multiple tabs/pages to the intro. She wanted a 'next' and 'previous' tab at the top and bottom so she wouldn't miss that there was more than one page. She wanted to 'close the guide at the thing that looked like code' (wikisyntax) - perhaps something at the start that said it WASN'T programming code she thought would help. She wanted the last tab changed to 'summary', which could be skipped to and stood alone. I'll bring it around to my aunts around to it next. Helpful? JoeSmack Talk 13:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Aunt's feedback - uses wikipedia, never edited, 'in my 50s', uses an iphone but didn't know how to use a trackpad on the laptop. Asked where the 'new section' tab was on the first section. Missed the next tab (then shown it), skipped the 'user talk page' section by accident. Understood layout, but wanted it to be said it wouldn't be like microsoft word (WYSIWIG). Liked the examples section ('ooh, thats nice to see'). At the last section wanted to know how to 'get out', looked for something that said 'done' or 'finished', ended up logging out of my wikipedia account. 'Now I can comment on XXXXX subject on Wikipedia, because i've always wanted to when i see bias on XXXXX'. JoeSmack Talk 14:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like we're getting nearer the target! so we have:
  • Add another next button to top.
    • Add 'previous' button to match. (maybe just a simple 'back')
  • Last tab to 'summary' - skippable -sounds like what is required is a mini 'cheatsheet' for talk pages?
  • The wyswig / wikisyntax has been niggling me - I to believe we should have another tab to introduce what is going to happen (i.e. the edit window )- they might be one already for how to edit, but I don't remember one, so we could write this in a style that can used for both intros.
  • Where to go next - hopefully we can resolve this when we have decided on how and where the intro's fit together.
  • Sounds like the tabs might be a problem - dare I say it - after all the tweaking - but shouldn't get too attached I suppose, but we could drop them and rely on prev/next tabs and a 'this is a five part introduction to...'. This would reduce text on the page.
  • Another possible remedy is supplying an 'all on one page' link - this could be achieved by moving text to a further subpage and transcluding it into both destinations.
Like the Signpost perhaps? That might be nice... JoeSmack Talk 15:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm ok with applying any/all of the above options. Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 01:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, wonderful, let's try it. I'll get something drafted by Wednesday (im on holiday right now, comments are easy but hacking up code takes too much time). Feel free to mess around with it too until then if you'd like. I'll try and get some more new editor feedback as well. JoeSmack Talk 15:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sister-in-law, late 20s. 'I use wikipedia lots, i've never edited or seen a talk page' (also, 'whats a wikipedian?'). Thought the first paragraph of the first page 'didn't say a lot', skimmed the next paragraphs and forgot the info when asked about it later. Navigated just fine using the next links (no tab navigation even when it was closer; missed it). 'I liked seeing the examples', 'i understand colons and bullets', 'what happens after the conversation gets really skinny?', 'will i see the colons later?'. At the end said she would probably just close the page or navigate away. JoeSmack Talk 03:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Cousin, 15 years. 'I use wikipedia, but ive never seen a talk page'. Didn't have any trouble navigating, understood indenting and the purpose of a talk page. 'Felt like the right length.' JoeSmack Talk 17:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Simplified ruleset refactoring

Hi ya'll. Before this idea slips out of my brain, what if we made a WP:simplified ruleset that looked like the talk page tutorial etc? I don't think it'd be too hard. JoeSmack Talk 00:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think a better introduction to several areas of WP would be good - policies and guidelines is one of the must haves! ( I always quite like the Wikipedia:Trifecta myself - if only someone had come up with a more positive way of wording 'don't be a dick' ! )Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 03:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do! You know, I might try to sneak in not being a WP:DICK somewheres - wikipedia isn't censored and all that. ;) JoeSmack Talk 20:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Here we go! Wikipedia:Help_Project/Introduction_to_policies_guidelines. JoeSmack Talk 20:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Aha - not happy with just several things at once, eh :) Just like to point out User:Pseudomonas/No-links beginners' guide to Wikipedia which they seem to have started with same goals in mind. Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 21:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
His is more like editing policies/guidelines. I guess the simplified ruleset is more content/behavioral, more five pillars -ish. Basically a combination of 'this is an encyclopedia' and 'don't be a dick'. It really is that simple, but I guess that'd be too short of a help page. ;) JoeSmack Talk 22:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I should say that my motivation in writing it was not identical to what was going on here; I have found myself asked by (intelligent, computer-literate, sensible, but unfamiliar with WP-editing) friends what they can get away with and how. I'm no way going to refer them to anything that'll take them half-an-hour to read through, or that links to pages which link to pages which..., cos either a) they'll get bored and give up on adding to WP, b) they'll get bored and edit anyway without reading the material, c)they'll conclude that the whole procedure is too complicated - in any case they'll think I'm being stupid asking them to plough through that lot. I don't think that what I have is in any way optimal, but I strongly believe that we urgently need a document that can give an intelligent person a quick guide to getting started assuming they have a couple of facts they want to be adding (rather than assuming they want to embark on a career of editing). Something akin to blog-commenting-guidelines - a friendly couple of paragraphs. The rest is commentary :) Pseudomonas(talk) 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
...we urgently need a document that can give an intelligent person a quick guide to getting started assuming they have a couple of facts they want to be adding (rather than assuming they want to embark on a career of editing). Fully, fully agree about this. This in essence is what we're working on right now with 'intro to talk pages' and 'intro to policies & guidelines (simplified ruleset)'. JoeSmack Talk 22:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
If I can boil my essay down further:
  • This is an encyclopedia - don't write about yourself, your friends, your band, your personal opinions. Stick to objective facts.
  • Always say where you got each bit of your information from. Books, newspapers, journals (online or offline) good; random websites OK; blogs/wikis bad. Give more details rather than less!
  • Copyright is important; don't add anything you didn't personally write yourself.
  • Use the edit-summary box and the talk pages to explain why you're doing what you're doing.
  • Other editors want to help; talk to them, and ask at WP:Helpdesk if you have problems/uncertainties.
  • You can edit other people's work, they will edit yours, anyone who undoes what you've done doesn't hate you though they may misunderstand what you were trying to do - communicate.
  • Don't stress too much about formatting at first, focus on getting the information clear and sourced.
(these are not bullet point headings to be expanded on but a suggested beginners' guide in toto.) I think this should provide most of what people need to have the confidence that they're making WP better and not worse - and that's pretty much all we need. There are lots of wikignomes prepared to add links and formatting and all the rest, and new editors will undoubtedly learn as they go. Pseudomonas(talk) 15:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a great boil down. In fact, this should provide most of what people need to have the confidence that they're making WP better and not worse is something I think should be emphasized a lot. JoeSmack Talk 22:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Also, just to put this out there, for explaining WP:IAR I would love a picture of cutting a corner in a grass field, kinda like this [1] but better. I remember this from college and I'd see it all the time - a well manicured grass field with a wiggly cement path through it, but a trodden stomped down grass trail cutting across it all in a pragmatic way. That is a perfect metaphor for IAR, and I'm wanting it for the guide. Anyone happen to be near one of these who could take a picture? (Does this make sense?). JoeSmack Talk 22:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. the path that ignores the preconceived constructs can be better, and by accepted use becomes the most used path ( unless its raining! :) )' will keep an eye out...And will try to make sure your points are covered in these first few intro pages Pseudomanas... Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 00:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Phew! That's _exactly_ what I mean, glad it didn't sound weird. I really want to find that picture! Also, I'm thinking of adding an 'editing' policies/guidelines tab, as three tabs seems kind of strange for some reason, and we might as well unless anyone objects... JoeSmack Talk 02:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I also tried to distinguish policies/guidelines by bold/italics, or even baldly stating if they were policies/guidelines - is this an odd convention or is it reasonably palatable? JoeSmack Talk 02:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you thought it was helpful. I think as a starting point, we should answer the question How much time is it reasonable for a new casual user to have to spend reading guidelines/rules before doing any editing?. I'd guess the answer is maybe somewhere between 30s and 2 min. After that, I'd bet most people will give up and either edit without reading the rest or just go away. As a corollary, I don't know whether most people read links breadth-first or depth-first, so giving up after 2 minutes may well mean they've read 2 mins through the first page linked, rather than 2 mins through the front page (so a reader might get no further than the first few paragraphs of WP:SR before getting bogged down in WP:NPOV, WP:POLICY, WP:PERFECT - or even WP:SELF). Hence the no-links approach. Pseudomonas(talk) 11:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree on the no/reduced links there are plenty of pages in the future for readers to get led astray, ( by the way check out the work in progress at Wikipedia:Help Project/guidelines - it's only just started so if you have any suggestions...). The link at the end of introductions could link to the next level of help,back to the introduction / next introductory topic. Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 15:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I like those. I pretty much like the Simplified Ruleset apart from the linkiness of it, come to that. Pseudomonas(talk) 13:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Note: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-12-07/Discussion_report#Policy_Report. JoeSmack Talk 06:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, we're getting there. It is basically full, but the aesthetic needs to be prettier and simpler. JoeSmack Talk 18:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep, your recent edits were definitely in the right direction! Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 00:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm still molding it, but I just wanted to say I took out the bit on the MoS. I think it is a bit too complicated to be summarized so quickly; perhaps its own intro sometime soon would be best. JoeSmack Talk 18:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm having doubts about the editing page, namely in that it feels too glossed for a one-pager (perhaps should have it's own guide, but theres overlap with WP:INTRO and WP:T...). There certainly are editing policy/guidelines that are important, and it was included in the original WP:SR this intro is based off of, but as it stands I am feeling weird about it. Thoughts? JoeSmack Talk 17:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
It does seem a bit descriptive compared to the other pages, maybe if we leave the ins and outs of editing itself to the further editing tutorials and make it briefer as a very basic review... Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 19:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright, i've nixed it. Right now it kind of looks like the talk page intro's summary page, but uglier. I'll start prettying it up though. I'm liking how the rest of the intro is a lot at the moment. JoeSmack Talk 19:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Help:Patrolled edit

Help:Patrolled edit needs some significant copy-editing and clean-up. (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that was pretty old hat, thanks! It had little info that Wikipedia:New pages patrol/patrolled pages so have redirected to there... Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 13:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to talk pages ready for next phase

Ok, I think i've addressed the Thanksgiving feedback I got from non-editing user samples (my fam, awww). We can mess with a single page format later if we want to go down that path. I'm not sure about that nav box sitting down there, but as per the introduction itself i feel like it is out of alpha and into beta. JoeSmack Talk 22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Very well done ! I think it is nigh time we let it loose into the great outdoors for it's continued development! As for the navbox, you may remember that ramble I made a week ago, but if you look at Wikipedia:Help Project/Overview/Introductions you'll see my proposed way of getting to it .. and the navbox may make more sense. I suggest having the very final buttons as 1. Next Introduction, 2. Return to Introductions index, and 3. Further information - which we can duplicate on any other articles of this class ?. --Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 22:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I have added example buttons to the Summary page, a link paints a thousand keypresses! Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 22:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey now! That's a far better ending. I like it. Whats next? Should we wait until the guidelines/policies is more refined and present them as a pair? JoeSmack Talk 02:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I hoped it would make sense :). You initially started this wanting a simple group of articles you could point new users to. The Overview/Introductions hopefully covers most of this now - just have to work the order of progression through them and if double check all basic topics have been covered. Looking at the 'Introduction to wikipedia' page I not that it needs work, e.g. the 2nd and 3rd pages are merely lists of links, the fourth is the tutorial. So we could convert the other basic help to fit into this framework, which would require :

  • split the tutorial apart from the intro - and maybe reduce its size ( a couple of pages could be removed if we assume previous intros have been read first )
  • Change 2nd and 3rd tabs of the intro to wikipedia - to provide a better overview rather than lists
  • Confirm the best order that intros and tutorials should be read, and add navigation buttons (next/next tutorial/further info) to make this obvious
  • Add 'a tutorial/introduction is available' to each of the relevant help pages.

That would be leave us with an intro system that fits together.. Have we missed any intro pages that couldn't be covered in 'about wikipedia' ? I can think of one are that's sorely missing 'introduction to wikipedia community' - bureacracy, what to do, projects, gnoming, where to find it etc.. Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 03:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I especially like a 'simple tutorial available' idea that floats at the top like a disambig link, and I think pacing the general tutorial et. al. is the right thing to do. We can start an 'about wikipedia' - totally handle-able; putting it in the first tab of 'about wikipedia community' would be an interesting leg of Wikipedia:WikiProject_community_rehabilitation (i'm sure we can get collaboration from them). I'm firstly going to work on making the policies/guidelines a little better, then i'm all game for making that the next stepping stone. JoeSmack Talk 18:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds a good plan - I'm right busy and travelling about right now - but should have some spare time again soon to catch up properly... Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 23:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem, no rush. JoeSmack Talk 05:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I've now made the last page the 'summary' page, much like the talk page intro (it even looks/feels identical except for the different pithy summary points). I've added the nav box to the first page. It feels kinda done. Thoughts? JoeSmack Talk 20:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
They look pretty funky and smooth to me, will have a double check with some fresh eyes tomorrow, my only thoughts at mo are - I'm not sure about navbox now, but then again it will help to tie in other pages in the series without having to drastically change their current style. Good Job ! Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 00:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we could leave the five pillars out of the nav box now - the policy guideline covers it pretty much. Maybe we should either remove the wikilink in the first tab or send it to a help:five pillars, with less confusing caveats and links, but I think the 'introduction to wikipedia' could easily have one of its tabs just list the five pillars. Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 23:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy with content - just the five pillars thing above and not sure about having links and denoting (policy) (guideline) on the conduct page, but then again. In summary looks good to me ( allowing for a few reverts to my recent edits - which are as always merely suggestetory ). next stage I think! Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 00:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, been a bit slack - skidding/getting stuck and playing in the snow! in the next week I'll sort out a proposed rewrite of the second,third and forth tabs of the 'introduction to wikipedia' and continue intro intregation, may need to step back and look at all the ideas and proposals, but I reckon we can put the intro's into 'live' space now and we can start adding links etc as we go ...I would've done it myself, but I believe the honour should be youes JoeSmack! Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 01:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I have too, but it's time to get things moving. Let's try leaving out the five pillars, I'm for simplicity and if it's in the policies/guidelines intro in essence I think thats fine. If we can figure out a way to smoothly get (policy) and (guideline) outta there that'd be best, but I couldn't wrestle it out. I bet if a few more pairs of eyes hit this thing it'll help. I'd love the honor of making this live, thank you Lee! :) Here we go! JoeSmack Talk 02:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

OpenID at Wikipedia: near future?

While not yet a topic for help pages, OpenID support at Wikipedia is a topic of accessibility, of making easier the process of registration and login.

A while ago, the WP:OpenID Proposal was made, but never really took off. I have expressed my feelings at User:B Fizz/OpenID and invite you to all to join with me in discussing the ups and downs of the proposal. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

radio car

hi. this is radheshyam gupta. actually i am not able to understand the meaning of radio. some times we say the am receiver a radio. i saw a number of cars in jaipur which are having a board written RADIO CAR. radio wave, radio transmitter radio receiver and so many words. if radio means transmission of any wave having frequency less than visible light frequency then what is the radio car, radio receiver? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radheyg (talkcontribs) 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello radheshyam gupta, you should ask this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk, but you nearly correct, radio refers the actual wave (having frequency less than visible light frequency). radio transmitter is the device which creates or emits this wave, radio receiver converts this wave into another form - information ( for radio - controlled devices, or commonly sound ). In everyday use the term 'radio' is used as a shortened form of 'radio receiver' (of the sound variety) and can refer to the device itself, or the channels of information sent on it ( radio stations). I do not know what a radio car is, maybe it is short for radio-controlled car? Hope that helps! As said before Wikipedia:Reference desk is the best place for factual questions, all the best. Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 16:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Replacing images on foreign Wikis

A few minutes ago, I tried to replace and incorrectly named image(File:P1010049.JPG) on an "Ido" Wikipeida article on Champaign, Illinois. The image I tried to replaced was of the File:Champaign, Illinois Municipal Building.jpg, and had originally shared it's name with the file above. Now when I tried to add the correct image, I created a redlink that I can't fix. Can somebody else fix this one instead? ----DanTD (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You're question would be better suited for the Wikipedia:Help_desk, or alternately the help channel for live help here. You'll get quicker, more nuanced help at either of those places. JoeSmack Talk 02:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Help:Editing - Rethink and rewrite

I've placed the following comment on Help talk:Editing. Please reply there.

This page is too large and poorly structured. It doesn't meet the needs of new users. The lead section is waffly and too detailed. The image doesn't add value; it increases the visual clutter. The material in the section entitled "More information on editing wiki pages" could be put into a navbox; anything that is important for new users to read should not be in this section. I think this page needs a total rethink and rewrite. Comments would be welcome. Rubywine . talk 15:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with the previous comment. I am trying to find a way to discuss a topic in one of your wikipages and I do not seem to find any clear way to do so. I think I need more help... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

New discussion occurring: add the Find sources parameter to the AfD template

Northamerica1000(talk) 03:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions/Comment on project

  • My user name is MarkFilipak. I received a message from Peter Coombe asking me to participate in a survey ( I was asked to rate various predetermined properties on a 5-point scale from Very Dissatisfied to Very Satisfied. Like all such surveys, this survey is worthless ...please read on.

1, The place for this is while a visitor is using Help, 2, What is needed is a free-form space for visitors to enter whatever they want to enter, 3, There was no provision for me to contact Mr. Coombe. Honestly, if WikiMedia is paying qualtrics for this survey, it's money wasted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkFilipak (talkcontribs) 19:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I've been trying to figure out what Wikiproject WP:Workshop and WP:Workshop for Women most logically belonged with. Both encourage people to do workshops and offer helpful outlines, resources for doing so. I just finally found this one through a category on the bottom of a help page. I couldn't find it in the past searching in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory and Category:WikiProjects. So maybe it has to be more prominently displayed in those.
  • So do people feel these are part of this project and it's ok to put the Templates on their talk pages? (Already put them in Category:WikiProject Help Project pages.)
  • What's the difference between Category:WikiProject Help Project pages and Category:Wikipedia help forums??
  • As I asked on Template_talk:Help_navigation: Is it appropriate to have a separate workshop section on the template? Also one for WP:Videos - an area that needs more work and organization.
  • Before finding this I thought we needed something like WP:Wikiproject outreach and/or training for those interested in bringing more people into En.Wikipedia. Did find this pretty much dead project - WP:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Outreach - focused narrowly on outreach smaller wikis and asked about possibility of changing it to a broader project. But seeking others thoughts since don't want to do it unless a few people actually are interested.
  • Comment on this project: I do feel rather strongly that Unconventional 'WikiProject' structures is a very confusing topic heading. Other Wikipedia project pages or Relevant Wikipedia project pages would be simple and accurate, since that's what they are. Can I change it? ;-) CarolMooreDC 16:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I have had a couple crazy weeks and not able to review thoroughly or comment on your many changes. Looks good visually! YEAH!!! Have big real life writing deadline in next few days but will try to fit in a more thorough look during that time when taking a break. CarolMooreDC 16:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Carol, more changes and news from my fellowship work coming soon! In response to some of your questions (sorry I overlooked them before)
  • The workshops are really cool, but I wouldn't say they fall within the scope of this project. As you can see we have a lot on our plate here already with just the help pages, I'm not sure it's a great idea to take on outreach work as well. Although of course there's always going to be a lot of overlap of interests.
  • Category:WikiProject Help Project pages is generally for static pages and how-to's, whilst Category:Wikipedia help forums contains places for people to ask questions of other humans.
  • I'm wary about adding more to {{Help navigation}}, it could do with a serious cleanup as is. I gather that Wikipedia:Workshop is really aimed at more advanced users aiming to run workshops, perhaps the Community Portal would be a better place to promote it? Videos could be a good addition though.
  • An overarching Outreach WikiProject could be cool, if only to keep track of all the efforts that are going on in that area. There is the Outreach wiki though, which seems to be doing a similar thing. Making that more visible on en.wikipedia would be great. the wub "?!" 18:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I do understand your concerns above and Outreach Wikiproject help collect the straggler projects/essays/etc. would be helpful. Let's find a volunteer to do it :-) More when get a chance. CarolMooreDC 19:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Introduction to Wikipedia

The order of sections 2 and 3 in the introduction seems wrong to me. Currently, section 2 is "Learn more about editing" and section 3 is "Explore Wikipedia". I'd say it would make more sense to invert this order. You want to know how to explore the Wikipedia before you think about editing it. Elendaíl (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Where is this introduction? I don't see it either on the Project page or in Wikipedia:Introduction. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It's apparently about the second and third tab in Wikipedia:Introduction. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. Elendaíl (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Community fellowship

Hi everyone,

As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has been sponsoring a number of fellowships to work on projects aimed at improving editor retention and increasing participation across Wikimedia Projects. One recently proposed fellowship was a drive to improve help pages on the English Wikipedia. I'm sure as fellow members of the Help Project you realise how important this is. So I'm delighted to be able tell you that proposal was accepted, and that I'll be working in this role for the next 6 months.

The Help Project have been doing great work in this area, and I'm really looking forward to being able to devote more time to supporting this. My work is mainly in the research stage at the moment, but you can read a bit more about the plans for the fellowship at Wikipedia:Help pages redesign project. Your comments and ideas on the talk page would be very welcome. the wub "?!" 15:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote on your talk page, I just added this project to its "Open Tasks" list. One of first things this project should do is help re-organize and promote that page, with this as a subproject of it. What are your thoughts on how to do that? CarolMooreDC 14:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention was just started, evidently not realizing all the good work you are doing here in case you want to go over and see how these can work together. I've also told them to come here. CarolMooreDC 20:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Copyright

This proposal relates to copyrights. Feel free to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Centralised comments box, and proposed new gadget

There are currently a few help pages (such as Help:Searching) with links at the bottom for users to leave feedback. See Category:Wikipedia feedback pages for more examples. However these are rather scattered and hard to follow, and don't seem to attract many useful comments as it is. In addition the comments that are left indicate the interface may not be clear to users.

My plan is to create a new centralised feedback page, perhaps at Wikipedia:Help Project/Feedback, which would be easier for project members to keep track of. This would also provide important data to inform my fellowship work. In addition, I want to deploy a javascript gadget to make the feedback process much simpler for n00bs and readers - basically popping up a simple form instead of taking them to an edit page. The gadget proposal is here, comments from project members are welcome. the wub "?!" 21:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thumbs up Good idea. benzband (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Community portal discussion

There's a discussion taking place about the purpose of the Community portal, and the possibility of redesigning/revitalising it. Might be of interest to people here. the wub "?!" 21:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it any help to have a "Noob's progress" to look at? -

as an example of how the learning-your-way-in process looks / has been looking in one (not-so-typical?) case? An example of the kind of context where the various Help facilities may get used?

SquisherDa (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia IPA

Category:Wikipedia IPA is currently considered to be an administration category and most of the member articles are in Wikipedia namespace. These articles are actually of use to readers so they should all be moved into the Help namespace. and the category should be renamed to something like Category:IPA help. It should than be made a subcat of Category:Reader help. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

User:The wub/sandbox/1

Re User:The wub/sandbox/1 (comments requested here): sorry, but I'm not really convinced that it's better than the existing design at Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines. Vertical tabs is a less familiar approach, and the whole design feels a bit old-fashioned and less clear. Rd232 talk 14:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I like the vertical orientation, for these reasons: 1) tabs are currently used in Wikipedia's design, to separate things (page/talk/edit/history), not to link things. 2) The vertical tabs are more akin to a Table of Contents, which is what they are - tabs are fundamentally a way of splitting lots of content from a single page, into a less-overwhelming "set" of pages. 3) The subheadings are very useful (if kept minimal and insightful). The 9-tab Wikipedia:Tutorial and 6-tab Wikipedia:Article wizard could both benefit from this. 4) see this progress of top-tab usage and then abandonment for an interesting background. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The vertical tabs are more akin to a Table of Contents, - exactly - and that's not what tabs are for. Arguably tabs aren't for horizontal navigation either, but at least that's a design people are very very familiar with. See Jakob Nielsen on tabs. Rd232 talk 23:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Nielsen's page was last updated in 2007 if I'm not mistaken. Things may have changed since? Anyway, the Wub is going to do usability testing. If there is really a problem, he is going to notice during usability testing. No worries. Dodoïste (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Needs a fix, for the changing location (height from top) of the side-tab block. eg in User:The wub/sandbox/3 they're a lot lower. I'm not sure what to tweak, to fix this properly. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally think there are several new ideas in this design that are worth trying. Usability testing will decide it all. There is one sole thing I would suggest to improve: the links in the side tabs. Why black links? I can't emphasize this enough: on Wikipedia, links are blue. According to mw:Wikimedia Foundation Design/Color Usage that you aim to conform to, links are blue. There is no indication that this is an interactive tab. On hovering the tab, there is no change either. When hovering "Content policies" that looks like a H3 header, it becomes underlined like a H2 header. ;-) I'm pushing a little too far, it's only in order to clearly insist on something I believe to be important. Please don't take it personally, I think you've made a good design overall. Dodoïste (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the blue links point. I'll change the subpage's css to show that in action. (Done. And I believe that makes it a lot clearer.) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Quiddity, that's a start. But I think these tabs will have to be refined further. It would make sense to have the whole tab clickable, and have a refined interaction. Dodoïste (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful feedback everyone. I've made a few tweaks today, one of which fixes the tabs so they remain in the same position from page to page. Also the change to use blue links is a good one that I agree with on further consideration. Making the tabs highlight on hover would be a simple one-rule addition to MediaWiki:Common.css, but unfortunately I can't figure out a way to make the whole tab clickable within the constraints of MediaWiki. the wub "?!" 16:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Feedback tool

Thanks to the WMF developers, we now have the option of using version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool (AFT) to collect feedback on help pages too. By default it has been deployed to all pages in the Help: namespace. It can be disabled on any page by adding Category:Article Feedback Blacklist (I've already done this on Help:Searching as it was receiving way too many useless comments).

Since there are also many "Help" pages which are in Wikipedia: space, you can also apply the tool to them by adding Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles. I'm planning to do a batch of these at the weekend, but if you're keen to start finding out what people think of a page feel free to add the category yourself.

Once a page has AFT applied, you can add feedback using the form which appears at the bottom of it. Feedback can be seen by clicking "View feedback" in the sidebar, or the "Feedback from my watched pages" link at the top of your watchlist. (Being able to filter the central feedback page by namespace has also been requested as a feature, but it may be some way off.) For more info on the tool generally see this FAQ. the wub "?!" 16:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Redesign of Help:Contents

A new design has been proposed for Help:Contents. Please join the discussion at the talk page. the wub "?!" 11:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done (discussion is closed and changes implemented). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge#A quick link

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge#A quick link. Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Finding the Help pages

If a search fails to find what the user is looking for, and the user accidentally lands on the Special:Search box page, he or she will see links below it. One of the links is called, "Help and Project pages". Clicking on any of the links does not display a convenient hierarchical list of items in that "category" (or more information) as most users would expect—it simply does nothing. This Special:Search page (which is almost completely blank) is a fabulous opportunity to entice the user to ask questions and explore, to invite the user to register and to learn more about Wikipedia and to choose somewhere to participate—but it simply does nothing except let the user retry a failed search. Google uses search results pages to "advertise" related stuff along the right-hand side of the page. Wikipedia could "advertise" the Help system, the Project pages, and offer the opportunity to learn more, but instead... all the user sees on the Special:Search page (or on the right of a search results page, for that matter) is a nearly blank page and/or links that don't work. (Unfortunately there is no History tab or PageView Stats link (that is usually under the History tab) on this page either—but surely the Special:Search page gets a lot of visits from lost users). LittleBen (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Help:HTML in wikitext

I have rewritten Help:HTML in wikitext. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Stirling effort Gadget, that took some dedication! Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 01:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Nice work! the wub "?!" 09:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. My intent here was to attract other editors who can fix any of my gaffs. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to make a table in Wikipedia

I have rewritten Wikipedia:How to make a table in Wikipedia and proposed a merge to Help:Wikitable, which is next on my improvement list. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia - Page needs some repair

Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia - Page requires apparently some repair.
Currently this page starts with:

"Satyam Roychowdhury, Managing Director & Founder, Techno India Group...
... leading life that is based on deep-rooted moral values and is guided
by qualities like honesty and integrity."

This item obstructs the view of the text of:

Who Writes Wikipedia

The item should therefore, in my opinion, be moved to an appropriate location.
The information contained in the obstructing piece, should be retained, moved and further edited.
T2a (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A new user had saved an article in the wrong page. I have reverted it. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Help:Wiki markup

I am proposing major changes to Help:Wiki markup. See Help talk:Wiki markup#Rework. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Help:Reset password

Help talk:Reset password Help:Reset password is set up as a reader help page. Since readers, who could be defined in part as those who do not log in, do not need to know about logging on to Wikipedia the page should be part of Wikipedia editor help instead. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I have removed {{reader help}} from the page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


Help:Wikitable is up for deletion. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Wikitable.

Help:Table/Introduction to tables was started as a copy from one of the other intros, but was never completed. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Revamping by Moxy

Template:Help navigation

After seeing so many complaints from Wikipedia Education Program editors that our "Help" stuff was all over the place (in that they have to go to page after page) - I have taken the time to update and consolidate {{Help navigation}} to a one stop navigational tool with many of our main help type pages. I have also added the template to appropriate pages - in a few cases like here I posted a note to ask if others are ok with it and its placement on a particular page. Have gotten a few request like here - thus far all looks good. -- Moxy (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fake Portal redirect for project banner

New portal redirect now seen on 500+ talk pages by way of the {{Wikipedia Help Project}} template.-- Moxy (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Main interactive user help pages

Ok I have taken the time to consolidate the templates on our main interactive user help pages. They all had multiple templates in them with different colors and were not uniformed in there presentation. Pls review make sure all is ok..spelling, layout etc... Now that I have completed the above mentioned changes I will be moving on to my next project I have lined up (build a disruptive index). Thank you all for the suggestions about Template:Help navigation - since its upgrade to a one stop help template now seen at the bottom of 250+ related pages - articles like Wikipedia:Plain and simple and Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers have seen a huge upsurge in traffic -this is good. All the best my friends.-- Moxy (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


Ok I am done the descriptive index pls review the page for typos and missing info - see Wikipedia:Help index. pls add the page to your watch list ,,,,,,Moxy (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

WP namespace dab page

I am trying to improve the accessibility of the numerous WP pages. To this end I created this dab page but it was reverted and reestablished as a redir to Help:Files. I welcome any thoughts on it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia how-to

The contents of Category:Wikipedia how-to could do with a clean up. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Resolved: Moved to Help:Contents/Directory

Moxy (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Could we get a few eyes to look at Help talk:Outline of help resources#Requested move.Moxy (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking for help updating The Missing Manual

Finally read the whole Missing Manual and realized there needs to be an update to the page Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Appendixes/Learning More..... that still talks about the old Help:Contents page. I am simply inept at images and wondering if anyone here is willing to tackle this update with me.Moxy (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


I found Special:GettingStarted today - its this active (live).Moxy (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's still being tested; some new contributors are being shown this page, but not all of them. Village pump threads. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Connecting with the Open Help world

I got invited to attend Open Help Conference in the US in June, and thought some people here might be interested in attending. The conference looks like an open format type event, focusing on open source help support and documentation. WMF has Participation Support Grants that could potentially support people's travel - might think about getting a Wikipedia team together from this project as well as Teahouse? Just a thought! Siko (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly sounds interesting, thanks for pointing it out! I've sent you an email. the wub "?!" 18:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Awesome! There is now an odd little signup page on meta for anyone interested in joining the team :-) Siko (WMF) (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming

There is going to be lots of work to do soon. To quote WhatamIdoing "Screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new." See Wikipedia:VisualEditor (Wikipedia:VisualEditor/FAQ) for more info.Moxy (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the details, and I need to go track them down so we'll know what's happening, but there may be some testing in the next week or two with some brand-new accounts. As a result, we might need the docs to be updated ASAP, because it's possible that we'll soon have a few thousand accounts that have never seen a page without both [Edit] and [Edit source]. WhatamIdoing (talk)

Help:Labeled section transclusion

Help:Labeled section transclusion has been started. --  Gadget850 talk 17:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


As we are all fully aware we have many pages that overlap the same information. Thus I am creating this section to talk about some mergers....will start small and work our way up to big pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talkcontribs) 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

First debate

Merge request - Wikipedia:Questions -> with Wikipedia:Requests - pls indicate the name in the end that is best for the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talkcontribs) 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator - keeping the title as Wikipedia:Questions but with Wikipedia:Requests layout of a comprehensive director. --Moxy (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - where are these pages primarily linked from, aside from the two headernavbars? I think "WP:Questions" is in many welcome-templates, and other talkpage templates? I'd be very hesitant to make it overwhelming (comprehensive) for newcomers/noneditors. I'd be more inclined to leave WP:Questions as it is, and merge WP:Requests into one of the other Directories (eg Help:Contents/Directory or one of the Help:Contents/Browse subpages).
    Note Also: WP:Contact us (linked in the side-wide sidebar) is somewhat related to WP:Questions; I like its recent clarifying overhaul. –Quiddity (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with Quiddity's suggestion. Wikipedia:Requests is too much for new users. the wub "?!" 03:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment — most of the links on Wikipedia:Requests are to action departments rather than help desks/pages, and many are focused on fixing specific types of problems rather than merely answering questions. A link to Wikipedia:Requests might be appropriate in a "See also" section on Wikipedia:Questions, but merging the two pages together would make the resulting page daunting to beginners. The Transhumanist 20:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Second debate

Merge request - Wikipedia:How to help -> with Wikipedia:New contributors' help page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talkcontribs) 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


Other language interface solutions

Add anything interesting, and worth looking at to potentially adapt ideas from, here:

Current collaboration (and the next)

I've been bold, and started a project collaboration to encourage focusing on particular tasks for a time. The first one is assessment of help pages, this will help us deciding where to prioritise work, and may also uncover pages which should perhaps be merged or deleted.

This will probably run for a couple of weeks, although it depends on how much progress is made. Suggestions for what to focus on next are welcome. My idea would be updating help pages to take account of the VisualEditor (in fact that was my original plan for the first one, but I decided to wait since the interface and setup continues to be in flux). the wub "?!" 04:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


I've just created Help:Screenshot as a very rough an ready dab page to Wikipedia:Software screenshots and Wikipedia:Screenshots of Wikipedia. It would seriously benefit from the attention of someone who knows how to write help pages better than me! Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

feedback wanted on draft rewrite of "Welcome to Wikipedia" print brochure

The Global Education Program team at Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on a new version of the "Welcome to Wikipedia" print brochure, which is used for many in-person outreach events like edit-a-thons, as well as for education program courses. You can see the feedback we collected on the previous version, and now we have text for a draft rewrite ready for review and editing. Please take a look and leave comments and/or make edits, as this rewrite will probably be in print for several years (the previous version was developed three years ago, with only minor text updates for subsequent printings in the meantime) and it typically reaches a few thousand people per year in English (plus a lot more in translated versions, as an online PDF, and in local printings for specific events).--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)