Wikipedia talk:Help Project

	Welcome to the Help Project!
	This page is intended for centralising discussions or comments related to the help system in general, please see the project page for more details. ( if you were looking to ask for actual help, the Wikipedia:Questions page is the best place to start).

Previous designs of Help:Contents
Selected examples: mar 2003 jan 10, 2006 jan 13, 2006 feb 19, 2006 mar 22, 2006 apr 8, 2006 apr 23, 2006 may 7, 2006 feb 13, 2009 jul 31, 2009 jun 5, 2010
Please draft layout changes here: Help:Contents/Draft and discuss changes here and at Help talk:Contents

{{WP help pages (header bar)}} overhaul

Help index · Help desk · Reference desk · FAQ · Editor's welcome · Tutorial · Cheatsheet · Glossary · Any questions?

From this thread at the help desk talkpage, it is getting pretty clear that the {{WP help pages (header bar)}} needs an overhaul, cleaning up currently fixed mainspace help in addition to updating help/info offered in said header template. Any suggestions on how to improve {{WP help pages (header bar)}}? JoeSmack ^Talk 18:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to define it's intention, for that I see two or three options:

• A navigation aid: reduce number of clicks to reach specific areas of the help system.
• A shortcut aid: provide quick access to the most commonly used areas of the help system.
• A combination of the above.

Also don't think it's necessary to duplicate links to anything already listed on the sidebar, i.e. Help:Contents L∴V 15:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be tagging pages with help project + forging links with other projects in the help domain for a while yet, but once that is done we can put the pieces together and form a representation of the help system in all its intricacies... L∴V 15:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, agreed. Here's something to start on, number of hits for each help page associated with the above header, simply to know what should be prominent: Help:Contents, Wikipedia:Help desk, Wikipedia:Reference desk, Wikipedia:FAQ, Wikipedia:Welcoming committee, Wikipedia:Tutorial, Wikipedia:Cheatsheet, Wikipedia:Glossary, Wikipedia:Questions...... JoeSmack ^Talk 16:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

After checking an approximating, we have this for Aug 2009:

Help index ~6.5k/day · Help desk ~1.1k/day · Reference desk ~1.2k/day · FAQ ~450/day · Editor's welcome ~45/day · Tutorial ~1.1k/day · Cheatsheet ~1.1k/day · Glossary ~275/day · Any questions? ~1.7k/day

...which makes me think we should bounce Editor's welcome and Glossary right out of the header bar. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with glossary - in these days of wikilinks it is old hat - anyone looking for this would use the old style contents system where it will still be found. Editor's welcome - all users are editors and we shouldn't have this differentiation yet. Tutorial : on a reread - and seeing the high number of hits - I am wondering if a lot of users are clicking 'tutorial' thinking it is a tutorial on _using_ wikipedia so should be renamed 'editting tutorial' at the least. If one doesn't exist we could do with a 'usin wikipedia' tutorial instead. ( Well not instead, but as a prelude to editting tutorial). So we don't really need both 'editors welcome' AND 'editors tutorial' in the header at the same time ... L∴V 18:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We should probably move this conversation to the header bar talk page (see following section ), but I am interested in how some of the issues sometime require the bigger perspective... L∴V 18:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I kinda think no one watches that template (the help header bar), but we can put a talkpage link to this discussion. Anyways, I think this is the best place to talk about full-on help environment reform. On a little digging I've found that some of these items, like Tutorial, are in many welcome talkpage boiler plate templates, thus the high visit rate. So chuck up the high numbers to other sources as well, but the lows are just pages people don't see and aren't linked to much. I for sure think Editor's Welcome could be chucked, although it is the most flowery seeming part and someone might be upset for killing kindness or something. Throw a draft down of what you're thinking and let's have a look at it. JoeSmack ^Talk 22:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops - sorry missed this reply! One way to check the number of clicks from the bar would be to create a redirect ( or use a less well trod existing one ) and point the links in the bar to the redirect for a while ... then one could check the page hits of the redirect to get a more accurate idea of which links are being used. I like the editors welcome too, but it seems a bit incongruous in the header bar - it's first line is 'we're glad you wish to help develop wikipedia' - but at this point the user may be just that and not been introduced / coerced / browbeaten into making this decision. I'll keep thinking ! L∴V 20:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you check out the bar out with Help:Contents things may start to look a bit more obvious, it is the first link in the bar so how much do we need to duplicate links on this page in the bar itself?

• First off 'help index' on the bar links to the 'help:Contents' page! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 21:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Adoption question

This is probably off-topic, but i want to know more about the adoption thing on wikipedia. i can't find any other information on the subject and i would like to know more on that. can anyone help me?????Professor Layton (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User has something on it. Otherwise ask on the Help desk :-)--Commander Keane (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Article complexity scale

Vandalism information

Moderate to high level of vandalism.

[view • purge • update]

---

149/13 on Huggle TBloemink _talk 17:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps some sort of scale, like this vandalism one, might be a good idea. I think this would help set a target audience for each page and potentially help provide a sense of a cohesive system - help here has always been a collection of interwoven yet fairly disparate pages. If it was on the "article" page (as opposed to the talk page) it may also help users feel more comfortable and assist their navigation around the system, albeit at the cost of adding clutter and the question of whether users would really find it useful. Gareth Aus (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I kinda like the idea, but would it be accepted to be placed on all the help pages ? something would be good to indicate the complexity though! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In which namespace should a page be placed, namely the Help: and the Wikipedia: namespaces

What should be in Help and Project (Wikipedia) namespaces? For example, we have both Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Footnotes. [copypasted from Gadget850s posts] L∴V 11:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Help namespace states it contains information intended to help use Wikipedia or its software and 'There is a large amount of overlap between the Help namespace and the Project namespace (pages with the Wikipedia: prefix). For this reason redirects and hatnotes are often set up between these two namespaces.'

• The Wikipedia namespace states it is 'a namespace consisting of pages with information or discussion about Wikipedia.' , and covers guidelines, policies and discussions.

That seems like a pretty clear distinction, but I am noticing a large amount of migration to mainspace. We need to track down the examples of Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Footnotes so we can go about this methinks. We need a coalesced and simple(r) helpspace! JoeSmack ^Talk 03:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's one, Wikipedia:Sections. Stuff like that should be in the helpspace not mainspace. 'Nother, Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners. And 'nother, Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page. JoeSmack ^Talk 04:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Aaarg there are thousands ... in the words of quiddity 'need more coffee!'. Ifeel a lot of these should be moved into help namespace ( less 'cluttered' wikipedia space and easier to search using help: prefix. This would be a big task and would require consensus ( there are several groups of editors happily working away in wikipedia space who might take offense if we start pulling carpets around). Hopefully once I've caught all the pages with the banner we can sift through using the hep project category? One more thing some of the guideline articles ( wikipedia space) are almost good enough to use as help, and the help pages should be congruous with the guidelines. It might be possible to have a lot of the help system merged with the guidelines which would reduce the complexity, give guidelines greater exposure and increase their application. After all help pages should be showing how to edit /use wikipedia within the guidelines rather than saying 'this is how you do it ( p.s. there are some guidelines) 'L∴V 12:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be a big task, but definitely doable. Who do you think we'll need to inform (other than the community bulletin) to get consensus so no one is jarred? Also, give an example of a guideline you'd want to move to help - this is where the controversy would be I think if anywhere. JoeSmack ^Talk 15:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we attempt to move policy pages - just noting, the example I found so far was Help:Vandalism which has no help but redirects to the policy which reads a bit like a help page? L∴V 17:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the help namespace should contain specific step-by-step instructions and how-tos, while the project namespace should focus on outlining and describing details surrounding Wikipedia and its guidelines, policies, and processes. Compare Help:Link and Wikipedia:Linking for example. Another question would be where would the MoS pages fit? -- œ^™ 02:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, forget the 'merged' idea! In fact we might actually have to duplicate some of the instructions in guidelines etc on the help namespace - since I am imagining if we get the system working correctly one could search the help nice and easy simply by only searching the 'help' namespace. Maybe we could have an infobox or something that links to relevant policies and guidelines to tie the space together. L∴V 00:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A single complete list of all the pages we intend to cover would be useful. Like a miniversion or subset of the Editor's Index. Essentially the links in Category:WikiProject Help Project pages without the "_talk", and with brief annotations. e.g.

• Help:Link (related to: Help:Contents/Links and Wikipedia:Linking and this Missing Manual section)

Re infobox/navbox, there might already be something in Category:Help namespace templates or Category:Wikipedia administration templates. More thoughts when I have time. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also agreed. I would land MoS in mainspace as it is more of an shaped/amended standard. It's actually a good dividing line. You don't have to hash out pros/cons of helpspace articles, they are tutorials. JoeSmack ^Talk 06:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Essays

OK we've got policies, guidelines, and processes in the project namespace, instructions, how-tos and tutorials in the help namespace. But in the main namespace we have essays some of which can be very useful for guidance of users - they are neither 'policy' or 'help'. How should we deal with essays? L∴V 00:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(Clarification: WP:MAINSPACE refers to articlespace. Wikipedia: is WP:Project namespace.

I'm also not sure that there is any clear division between what got added to helpspace and projectspace, over the years. There might be, but I wouldn't guess so.) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

In the same spirit as the intended distinction between Help and WP: namespaces, i.e. if it's merely helpful, technical, documenting uncontroversial practice, it's Help. If there a substantial policy element (stuff to argue about...) it's WP. Probably most essays fall into the latter category, as they're someone's view, but not all. Those are perhaps not really essays and might be adapted into Help pages, if the creator doesn't object. PS I recently edited Help:Edit summary quite a lot, wouldn't mind some feedback. Rd232 ^talk 08:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

how-tos

Category:Wikipedia how-tos are currently mostly in the Project namespace, shouldn't they be in Help? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

information pages

And now I've found another class of article : Category:Wikipedia information pages ! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And lots of untagged pages, which are partially explained by WP:NOTAG and WP:CREEP etc. Welcome to the rabbit-hole. ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ye- gads, hopefully we can crack this jungle with the various pincer movements .. will have a look (did I take the red pill or the blue - I can't remember) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Guideline for namespace

Does anyone mind if we place a guidelines section onto the project page, just to include some handy hints like the above placement of articles, here is a quick draft (please edit) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Namespaces
Pages that offer advice and guidance are found in several Wikipedia:namespaces according to their type:

Policies, guidelines, and processes firmly belong in the WP:Project namespace,

Instructions, how-tos and tutorials should be in the WP:Help namespace

Essays: If an essay is merely helpful, technical, and documenting uncontroversial practice, without expressing a particular point of view or defining policy, it might be adopted into the help system with the creator's cooperation.

If an essay is technical, documenting uncontroversial practices, it's not an essay. The {{essay}} template includes these words: Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. In short, if you find something labeled an essay that does not contain anything potentially controversial, you probably should relabel (change the template) so it is a "how-to" page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about a quick ref for project page, so how about :

Essays: If an essay is technical and documenting uncontroversial practices, it could probably be relabeled as a "how-to" page and adopted into the help system (with the creators consent). Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 12:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And should we move some pages acoordingly?

A second and more scary question is : should we add it to our tasks list to start moving pages to there rightful namespace - I know this will probably require bots and bits, but by limiting searches to the help namespace, searching for help would be made easier and it would clean up the WP namespace a little? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably wouldn't be a good idea to be doing any mass moves at this point. It could start a drama-fest and the project would receive undue attention. Best to just leave what's currently in projectspace (Including Category:Wikipedia how-to) for now, unless someone wants to write up a formal RfC? -- œ^™ 01:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i think that's what will have to be done methinks. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It did sound like I wanted to start today didn't it! Sorry I really meant is the hypothesis good. If it is we would tread carefully... Get a list of pages that could benefit from a move. Make sure pages are tagged with the help project first ( don't want established editors first contact to be a page move ). Build up an Rfc. If consensus found start with the obvious, and then build up to the not so obvious/controversial if the moving is actually beneficial and consensus remains... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 10:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this sort of thing is particularly controversial. I've moved or merged a few pages between namespaces in the past and I don't remember anyone objecting. Just be bold and do it (once you're sure you know what you're doing). Moves are reversible anyway.--Kotniski (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback pages

Hi, you might be interested in my proposal at WP:VPR#Feedback pages. Rd232 ^talk 16:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus, I created Template:Editnotices/Namespace/File (an editnotice for File: pages), if anyone has any thoughts on improving that. Rd232 ^talk 16:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be an idea to design a special header for talk pages that incorporates the feedback element - at present there are a myriad varieties of ' don't edit this page' 'use the sandbox' etc, , from a couple I have tidied up in the past - it seems the less aggressive, stikingly glaring and straightforward the header ( give the reader some respect) the more often its followed. There will always be some editors who somehow seem to not read any of the warning notices whatever you try, so might as well assume good faith and maintain clarity for the ones that do bother reading! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Draft of general guidelines

Ok, I thought about tagging project articles with importance and maybe quality, to do this we would need a system. I thought I'd try summarising some of the previous discussions and a few other ideas so we can form a general guide. I dislike guidelines as a strict ruleset, but in the help system think we should see if we can form some that may help all editors - rather than trying to take into account every aspect o whenever we encounter a new help article. I have made a first draft on Wikipedia:Help Project/guidelines, will add to the growing list of todos, but the good news I am feeling happy that most of the foundations are laid down, just a few tweaks here and there and then we should have a framework from which any new contributors or visitors to the project can find some solice or direction :) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 03:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikiprojects already have that measure of importance and article quality, we're kinda using that right? Their criteria is going to have to be something-ified to work with Help pages, cause it's normally for article space. But yeah, this is actually a good thing to start prioritizing, absolutely needed - using the ol' noodle! JoeSmack ^Talk 09:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure of the first part - I think we are on the same wavelength. I was working on using the importance and article scale built into the standard project banner/system. Importance for the help project would be visibility to the user and article quality would help figure out how much attention the page has had (i.e has it even been looked at recently! ) and then for future use finding pages to improve. I think the quality rating is defined by the project rating it so doesn't really have a standard definition. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 05:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

SIZE guidelines are hard to find and/or unclear for a newbie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photogfrog (talk • contribs) 08:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of interest started at the Village Pump

Hi! I honestly didn't know about this project before now (sorry!), but I started a discussion on the Village Pump which those of you who are active here would probably be interested in. Feel free to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Create a How-To namespace. Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Strategy

Although I keep getting sidetracked, I do have an overall plan which I'd better state ...it goes a little something like this... Goal: make using and constructively wikipedia as easy as possible

1. define help (overview and namespace etc discussions) and how to help help ( this project) ...ongoing and in progress
2. Provide most efficient help that enables new readers and editors get them into WP with minimum stress, whilst providing enough guidance to prevent errors, surprises and reduce stress for those that will become regular editors.
   1. Currently, help JoeSmack develop accessible navbox, associated pages and end up with something we are happy is robust to fulfill this purpose. (actively in progress)
   2. help:help - start point which describes help system as it is, and how it should be used
   3. Activate intro ( at this point some idea of structure and how to use help will be defined and we'll at least have some good examples)
3. Guidelines, namespaces, structure defined, Rfc for confirmation
   1. Tidying up moves / structure / update help:help

   (at this point we have a fairly clear structure and guideline to help page structure/links/contents)

4. Request a fortnight of help - get everyone ( users/projects) to look at help pages they are experienced at and check them vs guidelines and experience, a knowledge of structure of help system will help fix several issues of technical detail, links etc
   1. fix up any issues ( help system is now set in pixels and only requires updates )
5. Hold an annual Help event - same as above to refresh help pages and their use. This could be part of a bigger event, say a 'freshers week' where all experienced editors just take stock of the situation on behalf of newcomers - i.e the help, policies, maybe welcome all editors, anyhting to do with renewing the blood.
   1. Repeat ad infintum ( at this point the help system is fixed and self-sustaining )

Some say I'm a dreamer... but gonna log off before I have second thoughts :) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 03:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You're definitely a big picture guy, which is great cause I'm more of a details fellow. Even though we're obviously still in the beginnings, seeing the finish line like that is quite helpful. This is a great list! JoeSmack ^Talk 08:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I glad it is reasurring - I'm just throwing it down as a rough draft to work from, happy for it to change wiki-style. The beginning stages are the most important - The difference between someone who doesn't care,or even intends, their edits to break something and random good guy who wants to fix these - but doesn't want to break anything else. If we can reduce the learning curve for these simple edits to minimum it could hopefully tip the balance of vandalism, and of course wants an editor has the basics and has edited, they may catch the bug.. ok we'd have to tidy up the next stage of learning too. As you say - we are at the beginning, but that's usually a good place to start ;) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Note: somewhere in step 2/3, Help:Namespace needs to be brought into the picture. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Also note: [1] shortcuts need to be less sparse. JoeSmack ^Talk 06:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Where are we in all this presently? I've found myself wanting to link the intros to appropriate help pages (e.g help:talk pages etc), but I want to make sure to follow the steps... JoeSmack ^Talk 21:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Go for it! I guess the substages of point 2 are kind of interlinked now, a few little bits to finish off on the new pages, but we can start stiching the new organs in ... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty. I'm going to suggest (via its talk page) to lay the intro for policies/guidelines down on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines's see also, a well watched Wikipedia namespace. We'll probably get a message or 6 over here. Think of it as a step before a big ol' RfC. JoeSmack ^Talk 03:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Help:Redirect

I've just done some major pre-Christmas clearing out on that page - if anyone has time, please take a look and see if it can be further improved. And Merry Christmas to everyone! --Kotniski (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Holy moly...amazingly better. Thank you much Kotniski! You've got some talent! Mind if we rope you in for some future collaboration in other help areas when they come up? JoeSmack ^Talk 19:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...(blush)... Well, I'll be watching this page, so if anything comes up that I feel I can help with, I'll be sure to lend a hand. (I think I'm now going to take a look at WP:Redirect, which is a guideline rather than a help page, but seems to overlap a lot with the help page - wouldn't it make more sense to have all the (technical) help on the help page, and reserve the guideline page just for good practices?)--Kotniski (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do! Oof, redirect needs it bad. (I've never seen so many shortcuts and tables!) We've done some discussion about help space and wiki space (aka project space/WP:XXX), and that's pretty much what we're planning - info about how to use wikipedia to help space, policies/guidelines/essays stays on wiki space. Also there's a somewhat not-yet-widely-proposed plan to have a very basic kind of help page called 'introductions' for the very new editors. See Wikipedia:Help Project/Introduction to policies guidelines as well as Wikipedia:Help Project/Introduction to talk pages as examples. JoeSmack ^Talk 08:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A brilliant present Kotniski! And I see you've been working on one for the new year too (WP:redirect) :) They're both looking much healthier ! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Live intro pages

INTRO:TALK is now live... JoeSmack ^Talk 02:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As a member of the audience for which the Intro pages are apparently intended, I wanted to note that the text of the Intro:Talk page is very clear and helpful. However, when I clicked on the "discussion" tab on that page to say so, I was taken to the top of the Talk page for the entire Help Project. I had to read the entire Project page -- which is pretty hard slogging for a non-techie and low-level editor like me -- and then try to guess where I should insert my comments. (As is probably obvious, this is the spot I chose.) If you genuinely want noobs/dummies like me to participate in the discussion about the Help Project, I strongly recommend setting things up so the discussion-tab link leads directly to the spot where comments should be inserted. Otherwise, people who aren't as intrepid (or stubborn) as I am may get discouraged and simply give up. Languorous Lass (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a fine place to lead this kind of feedback. This introduction is kind of un-official-official at this point, so the little things like that haven't been settled. However, it is good to know that one who used it is going to inevitably hit the discussion tab during the introduction and we want to have something there to catch them. Thanks much for letting us know, and I'll keep you in the loop when the matter is settled. :) JoeSmack ^Talk 13:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

INTRO:PG / INTRO:POLICY / INTRO:GUIDE is now live... JoeSmack ^Talk 02:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright! Do me a favor and glance over it to make sure I didn't miss anything (don't think I did....). I made INTRO:PG intro 'Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines' (emphasis on the added), seemed more kosher. This all has been a long time coming, it feels good to get it out there. :) JoeSmack ^Talk 02:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sofa so good, feels good doesn't it :) I haven't made an in-depth analysis yet, but have made the overview live to ( as Help:Getting started ), changed link to next intro to point to tutorial for now (as it was recursive before). Help:Helps paragraph on first time users now points to this - although I note I'm not sure if we've covered navigation/searching yet. I have initiated discussion on Help talk:Contents on placing links to check for other views / ideas before we link it in to the live stream! my current comments thus far below Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Help Project/Overview/Accessible Nav Box need to make this live too couple of points to consider first
  • Firstly, do we want it at the bottom of these intros, should it be at the bottom of each tab?

-Honest, would prefer it wasn't, it is a bit more overloading for someone who wants to keep focused.

Do you mean not have it at all, or on each tab ? - maybe we could trim it down or ake a simpler one that just shows the consequtive progression though them ? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean at all, doesn't feel unified with the aesthetic unless it's like a one line footer or something. JoeSmack ^Talk 03:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind either, just wanted some indication to a new user where there where in all this, A one liner through the intros would be fine, or if it looks obvious about where to go and we use getting started as a first stop base camp then we could leave it out, whatever we decide it should be consistent across all the tabs in an intro. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Reckon we remove the 'five pillars' and 'FAQ' links, although then it is getting smaller ( but I seem to remember that's what you were aiming for! )

-I'm always for getting brutal, let's trim!

Have removed FAQ, created a new page- Help:Five pillars with intro paragraph, eye on remving cheatsheet Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • Have created Help:Five pillars so we can fit it in if we want - please have a double check of my intro paragraph, think I went a bit operatic!

I'll cut it up, let me know if it gets too drastic. ;)

• Think it might be an idea to redirect all talk pages to Help:Getting started as this theoretically covers all the intros?

Hmmm, let's leave it up for right now until RfC's etc happen to get specific commenting on the content should that be warranted.

Further to Languorous Lass's comment above, My intention was only for the basic introductory pages we are creating/converting, not ALL talk pages - in case that was misconstrued ... we could even have subheadings for each page which are the redirects? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 20:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've redirected subpages to there main heading for now, along with a lashed up talk page header specifically intended for help pages Template:Talkpage of help - yes needs a bit of work, but didn't like the tone or over complexity of others available ! (the name is based on 'talkpage of a redirect') Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• We might need semi-full page protection fairly quickish if they get linked in, I'm all for letting new users play, but believe the first few pages they see should be known to be safe (ish) !

Agreed.

I Have request indefinite semi-protection for the two new intros and gettingdtart/help, I omitted the tabs2 etc behind the scenes and only went for the bits with content, think that should do,.. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Which has been denied due to policy (not enough IP vandalism),, might have to make appeal on common sense grounds! copy pasting block here for pages denied..

• Help:Getting started (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Help:Help (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Help:Five pillars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/Content (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/Conduct (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/Summary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Help:Introduction to talk pages (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Help:Introduction to talk pages/User talk pages (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Help:Introduction to talk pages/Layout (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Help:Introduction to talk pages/Examples (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Help:Introduction to talk pages/Summary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Well that's silly. Blech. Ok, regardless once things are set in stone more, we need to do the same thing that Wikipedia:Tutorial did which was to template-ize the thing so when you hit edit on it, it comes up with a one line {{do not edit this template instead use talk page}} that refers to the real source. I'm not sure if semi-protection follows pages once they've been moved, but I thought this would be good to keep in mind. JoeSmack ^Talk 14:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Have done a little digging, policy and stuff doesn;t really mention help pages and their protection, might need to add this too the Rfc ( as several pages are indef protected without real reason), was hoping common sense was used. I never liked the tutorial templates, when I first wanted to fix them I got a little lost and a curious user might be fed some beans .. Hopefully, users reading these intros are going to be sensible, non-vandals and won't test edit ( hah-ha) . I suppose we just see how it goes, if we can get test edits to their correct destinations I'd say that was a sign that the intros are up to the task in hand!! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 15:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Need to categorize the pages

Also agreed, this will be important for the long-range structure of help/intros.

Category: Wikipedia basic information added for now, Categories discussion in following section.

Great work! I know you're better at the big picture stuff, and it all seems kosher to me. I'll make sure to give my attention to the other spaces we're talking about the help space re-start and all. I'm still here and watching, busy, but slower to respond to stuff (apologies). JoeSmack ^Talk 03:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Just found a suggested welcome message User:Drew R. Smith/Welcome, suggested on welcoming comitee a while back , but I don't see a response. It's a anothe 'concise intro to wikipedia', but its always a good idea to combine ideas. The part near the end about wikiprojects is the part I feel is missing from current intros. --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Have added the first page of the intro pages to Category:Wikipedia basic information, but I forgot I don't think we've cleaned up the categories yet ... theres another Category:Wikipedia quick introductions. I have just realized that we haven't had a cleanup of the categories yet ... oh dear! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We could use the categories to our advantage, if we tagged our all relevent intros as say 'Introductory help pages' then that would show as a link at bottom - ok format would be slightly different, but it is a way of presenting a list of them ( and a link in category description to suggested 'start page' ). We could develop this further and add a couple of further categories e.g. intermediate, technical. These could be used in addition to other help cats to show the technical level of that help page and would in a way instigate the 'traffic light system' - this could be further developed at a later date using the category for reference if so desired.. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 02:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Good thoughts. We need more substance first though! :) JoeSmack ^Talk 02:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Intro to MOS - Help:Introduction to the Manual of Style

Well, it made me found this: User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style - thats a start on a good MoS piece. Maybe that'll be the next intro, greatly simplified of course... JoeSmack ^Talk 01:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes that does look promising, ('quick introduction' doesn't really fit though ! it is worth hunting around - there are a number of pages I've found with lot's of effort that seem to stall, they should be adopted! Have been doing a little cat cleanup. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, I just need a place to start, and that's a big enough chunk for me to work down to a sliver of simple direct intro. Maybe I'll start cracking on it this weekend, coffee + free morning = intro goodness with me. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Planning on starting this tomorrow morn...I think having an intro on talk pages, policies/guidelines and finally MoS will be a wicked good trifecta of helpfulness. JoeSmack ^Talk 01:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking again at this, and wow, this may or may not work. We'll see, I'm trying to put together a draft on this. I think the problem might be that it's too subjective to include some things and not others. I'll keep you abreast on this which way it turns... JoeSmack ^Talk 14:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Draft: User:JoeSmack/sandbox. It'll get a bit bigger before it gets cut down to size, but the outline is there. JoeSmack ^Talk 13:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe your attempting another 'reduce large portion of Wikipedia to manageable size' mission :) Looks good so far, does this mean you would like others to start muckhacking in? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, me neither. Muckhack away, by all means! JoeSmack ^Talk 01:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Ok, I've put the skeleton over on Help:Introduction to the Manual of Style, and I've migrated my sandbox content there too. This time 'round I elected to just throw it in help space right away instead of putting it on this project then schlepping it over eventually anyhow. I've removed categories for now, as well as shortcuts etc. Those can be added when this thing is ready for prime time - as for now I don't think any new editor will stumble upon it and become irrevocably confused, so it's safe. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added some images, but I think keeping the audience throughout the guide will be the biggest hurdle. We'll need a joke or two to keep interest - this is going to be a challenge! JoeSmack ^Talk 16:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is probably the trickiest one yet, good work so far and a good idea to skip the interim pages! --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reader help pages

I have started a series of help pages for readers collected in Category:Reader help. They are short which is ok considering the readership and the amount of information that needs to be stated. However, I will be doing some expansion. I feel that it is important to keep a seperation between pages for the reader and for the editor. The former are by far the greatest number of visitors to WP. Having pages specifically for readers means the complexity of editing can be lest out. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! It'll be really useful having someone with a different focus around. I can't speak for others, but I have been intending the first few recent intro pages created to be relevent to both readers and future editors, Help:Getting started, allowing them to branch off as they progress. I feel it is importat to get a basic understanding of what wikipedia is and how it operates for readers to understand how and what articles cover. I see you have reactivated Help:Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Introduction which it used to redirect does need to achieve its tiitle a little better, doesn't it. Let us know of where we can join forces and any issues you find amongst the spaghetti of help! A word of advice - it's easy to get distracted so I recommend listing any extra problems you find during your adventures on this project's pages and remain focused on the goal you have in mind! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 11:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of Help and Wikipedia namespaces

I have not done much edit in the Help namespace until yesterday when I started creating a series of reader help articles (listed at Category:Reader help). The help namespace can be used for readers and editors and there seems to be a lot of help related pages in the Wikipedia namespace. I would like to see all pages targeted at readers only to kept in the Help namespace. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't we all ! - it starts getting tricky though ( see #In_which_namespace_should_a_page_be_placed.2C_namely_the_Help:_and_the_Wikipedia:_namespaces ), as reader help will almost definitely be pure help ( and hence no policy stuff) there shouldn't be a problem - although the FAQs I suspect are firmly lodged! Are the FAQ pages the one's giving you problems or are there further ones? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

starting at the top

I hadn't paid it much attention, but had a quick glance at Wikipedia:About, within a few lines I found some cruft '[wikipedia has no rules] the below information describes the policies and guidelines..[anyone can edit] [as long as they adhere to the rules]' the tone and information doesn't feel very consistent. This page is reaaly a one page summary of help, and then I checked the view count - about half a million a month ... oops! At first glance the page needs more attention .. Made a few minor changes and I'll have a more in depth look myself, but 123rd most viewed page on WP - thought I'd point it out! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 02:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, agreed, it could use some help. It's actually really long to sit through, and you know me, I prefer simplicity. I'll give it a good once over too this Friday or Saturday. JoeSmack ^Talk 12:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Template documentation

I noticed that Wikipedia talk:Template documentation has the WikiProject Help banner at its top, and I guess you guys might have some points of views on template documentation, so here goes:

We are planning to do some changes to the {{documentation}} template. (That's the template used to create the green doc boxes on template pages.) We are planning to add (create) links for the /sandbox and /testcases pages when they don't exist. And we are perhaps going to move the sandbox and testcases links and the "This documentation is transcluded from..." line to a small box below the big doc box, instead of as now inside at the top of the big doc box. See more about this and discuss it at Template talk:Documentation#Documentation/links.

--David Göthberg (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

barnstar

No project should be without a barnstar, I've had a look around - personally believe there's too many barnstars and not given often enough, but the Template:The Helping Hand Barnstar looks good - for helping others, only given seven times since its creation in 08, I have asked on page but don't expect an answer - the creator isn't around. --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

categories, categories

Have just spent a bit of time organizing Category:Wikipedia help, numerous minor changes (head hurts), but since the pages listed in this top level weren't consistent, thought I'd wittle them down to subcategories, then we can place what's necessary back in the top. Nowhere near done yet, but here's a couple of changes:

• Category:Wikipedia interface help ( containing Category:Wikipedia sidebar help A great idea I thought to cat all the buttons and links one see's on main screen into one place
• Category:Wikipedia link help and Category:Wikipedia article title help inspired by image help, thinking maybe we can categorize a lot of the help by overall function
• Category:Wikipedia help projects this and other related projects
• User:Alan Liefting has reappropriated Category:Help, is working from a different direction so should be interesting to see how things shape up

I am thinking that maybe we should combine the editing functions into one cat, any thoughts? --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 23:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh one other little thing (ha!) do we really need the prefix 'Wikipedia' for all the help cats. notably the ones ending in 'help' this seems superfluous? --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice work on the above. I do think it's important to keep the 'Wikipedia' prefix in to distinguish these categories as project categories rather than content categories. See WP:PROJCATS. -- œ^™ 04:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks! I think I'm somewhere near done now :) Since making the 'drop WP prefix' I've seen the consensus ! Was a little confusing since some project cats weren't prefixed and others were.. I think we can leave the top level 'help','readers help','editors help' as they are encountered earlier ? Note one major cat I haven't gotten to yet is the 'how to' one - I'm sure the pages can be better categorized ad not sure if 'how to' is actually necessary even! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 14:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Categorization and Help:Category

Please see WT:CAT#Purpose of this page: focused or all-inclusive?. The question is whether to divide information about categories between the guideline WP:Categorization and the help page Help:Category, or perhaps to put everything in the guideline and use the Help page as a beginners' tutorial, or...--Kotniski (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like consensus is keep separate. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding help links to Special:Preferences

See WP:VPT#Add help links to Special:Preferences. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Major editing problems to be solved

As far as I can see, usually articles are not very well edited. Usually link [edit] on a side of some Title don't help much. To insert some new text requires creating == new category ==, but the clicked link is that 'edit' near another section's Title. Maybe I write too complicated, so I'll try to simplify my idea.

What is to be done: 1. Easy way to contribute new text 2. Easy way to contribute references, especially for pages which ask: 'quotes/references needed' 3. Easy way to edit small portions of text. I see in a way that user simply selects a portion of text which he wants to edit (suppose there is misspelling), and clicks edit button. So only that part is opened in editor. It saves so much time for any user, and stops "vandalism", "articles wars", copyrights problems. The problem is that one can simply by mistake, not knowing very well about wiki technologies usage - to do something wrongly. But that must be taken care by wiki-editors themselves. 4. Easy way to edit categories, creating new articles, maybe even portals/subportals. Something related to automatic pages creation from list. It can be very time consuming to click many times on similar links like "edit", "save", especially writing comments like "I did this small thing - corrected a spelling mistake etc". It takes too much time. So making this new (now beta) wiki version is really good idea, so I decided also to give some my ideas. In short, one can see that there are already so many programs to work together on same documents, using different versions, so that should be done now in wikipedia. Otherwise this wiki would be outdated. It is very easy to make mistake because editing is made for the whole article and it is dangerous. Also it takes unnecessary traffic - for loading and saving. Why such waste of internet bandwidth? Even if it is text only, but so many users and so many texts...

Well, I think at least if this to be improved - that new wiki can be appropriate for this time.

Please, take this advices. it is not that I am saying this to make more copyright infrigements. But problem is that usually people cannot even express their opinions. While on other hand some nonsensical articles of minor meaning to culture are simply said to be "candidates for deletion". That's not very good. So introducing this system of simplified editing can help stop "editor wars". Copyright holder would also win, and users as well - both groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedicsciences (talk • contribs) 02:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for your thoughts Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 13:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheat-sheets/Reference Cards + Example Requests

I was thinking of doing cheat sheets related to different things to do with wikipedia such as a cheatsheet for Tables and a cheatsheet for general editing etc. These would include examples so as to show what wikitext does what in a more concise and detailed format.

Also I was thinking of making articles showing examples of Rfa's, RfB's, AfD's etc. etc. to explain them more and shoew different outcomes that would be possible to acheive such as for example: a unsuccessful RfA or a AfD that results in deletion. The examples would use User:Example as the username.

An example for the cheatsheet would be:

Description	You Type	You Get
Headings	=Main Heading= ==Sub Heading 1== ===Sub Heading 2=== ====Sub Heading 3====	=Main Heading= Sub Heading 1 Sub Heading 2 Sub Heading 3
Bold	'''Bold'''	Bold

Any other ideas on this topic are welcome. Paul2387 12:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of what your proposing is already in the help pages e.g. Have you seen Help:Wiki markup ? It would be better to concentrate efforts in one location - so recommend having a good scour of help files ( maybe some of the processes haven't been marked as help - a lot of administration type stuff is left out to avoid confusing an already scary wall of articles for newer editors! ). If you start at Category:Wikipedia help and travel around from there, you may find what your looking for ?! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 11:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of software screenshots in Wikipedia and Help namespaces

I've hit a snag in my attempts to improve Help:Searching from a web browser. Some of the screenshots have been blanked as they are non-free. I believe they add significantly to a reader's understanding of the page and conveying the instructions. I have initiated a discussion on allowing non-free screenshots to help pages in specific scenarios at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Use_of_software_screenshots_in_Wikipedia_and_Help_namespaces. Please share your opinions there. Gareth Aus (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm - tricky, I suppose we could request permission from the browser makers - would be good to get permission for using in standard mediawiki help so other projects don't get the same problem. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 13:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Categorization of help pages

In which categories does a page like Help:Macrons belong? The categories 'Wikipedia editing', 'Editor handbook', and 'Wikipedia editor help' seem to be relevant, but it not clear what the scope of each category is—a problem that is compounded by the fact that all three contain pages in the Help: and Wikipedia: namespaces.

In general, there seems to be quite a bit of redundancy within Category:Help. For instance, I can understand consolidating all help pages under a single Category:Wikipedia help or subdividing help pages by whether they are aimed primarily at editors or readers (see Category:Editor help and Category:Reader help), but I see no reason for doing both. I noticed that cleanup of Category:Wikipedia help and its subcategories is one of this project's open tasks, so I am hoping to get some clarification on the logic underlying the subdivision of Category:Help. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As you've spotted ... work in progress ... until fairly recently it was all under :Wikipedia help, :Reader help is a new initiative which we were waiting to see how it panned out, so at the moment we do have some duplication! Looking at Category:Wikipedia help ( which could be read as editor help for all intents and purposes) I thought I was getting somewhere on my last bash at it. splitting help pages into subcats based on the type of elements they refer to, i.e.

• Wikipedia page help (2 C, 16 P) creating, structure, moving pages etc
• Wikipedia article title help (7 P) anming of article etc
• Wikipedia image help (40 P) images
• Wikipedia link help (11 P) links
• Wikipedia categorization (17 C, 32 P) categories
• Wikipedia text help (9 P) displaying of text, special characters, formulas
• Wikipedia article elements help (5 P) other bits : lists, graphs, timelines, navboxes

This is a working draft and I expect many pages are not categorized yet, and maybe more subcategories may be needed. Does this make sense, and do you think we should add a brief description to the categories? Any ideas greatefully received :) --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this, and I do think that brief category descriptions would be helpful. I will try to offer a more detailed response tomorrow after I have had time to take a closer look at the category tree. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Help:Contents update

I've been working on a fairly minor update of Help:Contents at Help:Contents/Draft, which cleans up the layout a bit and somewhat improves the page's HTML/CSS. Here is a diff.

Quiddity has already picked up on this and left the following comment on my talkpage:

Howdy. I noticed your tweaks to Help:Contents/Draft. 1) Yes please! Rethinking this portal/hub is overdue 2) See this discussion for what led to the giant pink banner. 3) I think a main aim of any redesign, would be to make the fact that those headers link to subpages more obvious. Currently, it might look to the casual visitor as if there are only 3 links for each section.

Personally, I still vastly prefer the all-in-one Help:Contents/Site map (though its tableofcontents died/disappeared some years ago...).

I'll see you over at Wikipedia talk:Help Project for the rest :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding point 2, I wanted to consolidate the get in touch links in the one place and avoid placing undue prominence on a couple of pages which are rather peripheral to the help system. I kept the shouty text to make these pages fairly easy to spot. As for point 3, I think this was an attempt to provide quicker access to the most used pages in each subsection and provide a bit of an extra hint as to what each subsection contained. That being said, I'm happy to remove the 3 links (or try something else) if people think that is a good idea. - Gareth Aus (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks much cleaner and business-like! If you don't remove them maybe add a '...' to hint that there are more subarticles than listed ? --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So it is basically an editor help page? What about the reader? We are here to create a resource for readers. We should create a similar page that is targeted exclusively to the reader with a hatnote linking to this page. I have been filling in some of the reader help stuff that was missing. See Category:Reader help. It is imperative that we have dedicated reader help info since they are the most frequent visitors to WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to have a go a while back to set it up as an editor and reader page but I now think it is better to have separate pages for the two groups of users. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Help! Sortable wikitables count incorrectly

I made a table of gestational durations in different species at Pregnancy_(mammals)#Gestational_duration_by_species. However, in my browser, the sortable table seems to only go by the digit most to the left and thereby rate some three-digit numbers as less than some two-digit ones. How to correct this? Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Requests for help should be posted to Wikipedia:Help desk.
• Since you have non-numeric characters in the column, it is treated ans sorted as text. See Help:Sorting for information on sort keys. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Twice thanks! Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Help! Made WikiTable now rest of page is deleted

I made a wikitable on the Joey Jordison article, and now the rest of the information below it does not show up. I have no idea what to do, if you can help, please respond. CrowzRSA ^{20:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)}

• Requests for help should be posted to Wikipedia:Help desk for quicker action.
• I closed a ref, closed a table and fixed the rows`— you shouldbe able to fix the rest.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice of discussion re: Help:Contents

Hello all. Please join us in an important discussion occurring over at Help_talk:Contents#Old editor; new helper and Help talk:Contents/draft concerning a redesign of Help:Contents. -- œ^™ 13:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject Screencast

Hi, I just wanted to announce a plan to establish WikiProject Screencast. This would be a place to collect resources/knowledge/energy around the practice of making instructional screencasts about how to contribute to Wikipedia, and related concepts. If this appeals to you, please indicate your interest on that page -- or provide any feedback/questions etc. Thanks much! -Pete (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Discussion" vs. "Talk"

The tabs to get to the talk pages say "discussion".

If you look for help on "discussion" tabs or "discussion" pages, it is very hard to find. This could be fixed easily with a redirect from "discussion" tab and "discussion" page to the page for help about talk pages.

Or Wikipedia could change its code to make the tabs say "talk" instead of "discussion".

71.109.157.19 (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the redirects Wikipedia:Discussion page and Help:Discussion already existed and already point to Help:Using talk pages.. how exactly were you trying to find the information? and why was it hard to find the page you wanted? Your answers will help us improve. -- œ^™ 09:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Help:Talkspace draft

Anyone got any comments on Help:Talkspace draft, which I've just created? Rd232 ^talk 18:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I realize this is a late reply, but if you want my honest opinion I think it's unnecessary instruction creep. But that was just my first impression, and judging by the talk page comments, others would disagree with me. -- œ^™ 07:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

couple of help shortcuts up for deletion

Hi folks hope you are all keeping warm ! H:SHORT and H:E listed for deletion - Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_19#H:SHORT (crossnamespace redirects), checking links etc doesn't look like other help pages use them so I've supported the delete. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 11:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Image categories going haywire

I've noticed since last night that many image categories no longer show all their images in alphabetical order, and many of the subcategories are duplicating. Why is this happening, and can somebody fix this? ----DanTD (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:VPT#categorically random categories Happy‑melon 22:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Special characters help

I didn't get any new responders at Help talk:Special characters#Real help for newcomers, so I'll try here. Art LaPella (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

We now have a major revision ready for that page. Art LaPella (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Improve Referencing for Beginners to take into account the fact that reftools is now turned on for all users

Thought people here might be interested. See post on the talk page. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Help:Categories

Hi,

The page Help:Categories has been expanded to make it a simple useful article from readers point of view. Comments & improvements are welcomed. AshLin (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk navigation

I've created {{Wikipedia talk navigation}} for use on talk pages in the "Wikipedia talk" namespace. I've also created an edit notice for that namespace, which uses it too. Feel free to comment, and to use where appropriate. Rd232 ^talk 00:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit requests - new page

Wikipedia:Edit requests is a new page giving guidance on edit requests. Any input welcome. Rd232 ^talk 16:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Interactive tutorial help

Hi, I'm working on a project for an interactive tutorial for new editors and we're trying to mock-up the first units/levels (http://enwp.org/User:Ocaasi/The_Wikipedia_Game). I need a few good images of the Wikipedia interface, and some dialogue boxes and basic interface shots for the alpha version which will be done in Adobe Flash. Does anyone have basic photoshop skills and a few hours? Any help would be much appreciated. User:Ocaasi ^c 00:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Nutshell help

The concept of {{Nutshell help}} is to provide brief notes and help links at pages where newcomers are likely to enter, but that aren't geared to being welcoming to newcomers. Example: {{YGM}}, a template linked from the message shown after emailing a user. I'm not entirely happy with the template as is, but I think the concept is sound. Any input appreciated. Rd232 ^talk 19:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It has been suggested...

...that I find the places within Wikipedia to post the link to Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers, intended as a one-stop-page for the rank beginner. Any assistance in doing so would be most appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you done this yet? If so, where have you placed them? The Transhumanist 20:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not yet added the link elsewhere, but a few others have. Much like my essays WP:TOOSOON and WP:NAU, it is being spread through use and practice. Suggestions? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Please expand your project, and place {{tutorials}} wherever it is appropriate. I've added a link to the primer onto that template, and so wherever you place it, readers will learn about the primer as well. The Transhumanist 20:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Very cool... and thank you! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the tutorials sidebar is placed on all of the tutorials that are listed on it, and so if you place links around the Wikipedia and Help namespaces to any of those tutorials, those links will indirectly lead readers to the primer. So, please expand your project further to place links to the various tutorials, such as in the see also sections of corresponding essays, guidelines, etc. The Transhumanist 21:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Another thing you can do to look for places that need these links is surf the nav system. Click on all the links on the nav menus at the top of Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Community portal, and look over pages listed on each of those pages. You'll find plenty of pages that need these links. You should rack up quite a few edits on this project. I'm afraid to look at your edit count already! The Transhumanist 21:37, 10 December 2011 (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)

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

• I've started a discussion to add the {{Find sources}} parameter to the AfD template: Located Here.
  

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