Wikipedia talk:Contact us

See list of subpages of "Wikipedia:Contact us".

Responding to threats of harm?

I notice that the WMF emergencies email address doesn't seem to be included anywhere. Should we at least link to Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm here? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, that would be great. Good idea. Ajpolino (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• OK, but exactly how? Its key should be If you see a threat of harm (including self-harm)... EEng 02:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  EEng and Ajpolino, I can think of two approaches: the first is to add a bullet point on the first page with something like If you see a threat of harm (including self-harm), please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. The other approach is to add a tab to the list on the side so that goes to a page that transcludes most of WP:Responding to threats of harm (or we could just move WP:Responding to threats of harm redirect to this page). Which approach do you think is best? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  How about if we create a scratch copy we can edit all together? But first... the structure of this page is quite baroque. Is there a reason for all the subpages and transclusions and stuff? Are these bits and pieces used elsewhere? If not can we just compile it all together? (I haven't looked closely so maybe I'm missing something.) EEng 02:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, I don't really have an issue with the overall structure. We don't want this to be a long page (that scares people away), so it's best to have the tabs, and readers can click on whichever one is relevant to them.

  Sandbox for the first page is at Wikipedia:Contact us/sandbox; let's have at it! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  I've got no problem with the linking, it's that even what's visible on this one page has the sidebars separate and I'm not sure what else. Why isn't this one rendered page on one source page? EEng 03:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyedit

Needs a bit of a copyedit. Like most thing's it's too wordy. For example, is it really necessary to say that the reason one might see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is that it offers avenues available to resolve disputes? EEng 02:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

EEng, agreed. Perhaps whip up a sandbox version and we can make an edit request? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Funny, just what I was saying above. We must be psychotic psychic. EEng 02:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

EEng, I've made some tweaks to the sandbox at Wikipedia:Contact us/sandbox. How does it look? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyway to fix the sandwiching of text? For those with reading disabilities the following is very hard to read. --Moxy 🍁 06:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
for your interest
in contacting Wikipedia
Before proceeding,
some important
disclaimers
Wikipedia has
no central
editorial board

Wikipedia:Accessibility dos and don'ts--Moxy 🍁 06:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Trimmed the text and reduced the size of the logo. EEng 03:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Following up from the discussion above (which seems to have stagnated, despite an invite from the help project talk page), please adopt the version at Wikipedia:Contact us/sandbox. This makes a few changes, including adding a notice about threats of harm, adding a visual, and removing the line about Jimmy Wales. Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't really see an active consensus for any of those changes. I personally have issue with the big red box and that has no specific discussion. The line removing Jimmy doesn't seem to have any discussion specifically to removal, and I also don't see discussion about a big image on the right, and one participant already concerned about scrunching (which this image makes worse). The only thing I'd be willing to implement right now is the slightly less verbose pair of lines. Please achieve consensus on each component. --Izno (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Izno, I made the edit request since EEng and I seemed to agree there's a need to address threats of harm, Ajpolino and I seemed to agree it's unnecessary to have a line on Jimmy Wales, and the image addition seemed uncontroversial since we have images of the same color/size on all the other "contact us" tabs after the intro (Moxy showed up after I submitted it).

I'm happy to have further discussion, but (as with many pages in this kind of space) it's hard to draw attention (I sent an invite to WT:Emergency as well as the one to WT:Help project), and I'd prefer we not all forget about it and get stuck with the status quo. As much as I try to limit the number of VPR posts I make, I may post an FYI link there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Ajpolino: Agreed that it could be rolled into item 1. Seems a bit silly as is. Ajpolino (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC). You removed the line but Ajpolino seemingly agreed to merging the line.

Regarding the image: Feel free to adjudicate Moxy's concerns then.

As for the red box: EEng agreed to a link. Please convince me a red box is necessary. (I don't think it is, again, personally, without my admin hat on.)

I am not particularly interested in forgetting the changes. I am interested in ensuring the integrity of a fully-protected, widely-viewed, page. As I said, please show consensus for each discrete change. --Izno (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Izno: That's reasonable. I addressed Wales above. For accessibility, I had opened a section on mobile accessibility below, which is inadequate in the current version and won't be made any worse by the image; for desktop it should display fine for any reasonable setting. Again, it's what we already have on the other pages. For the threats of harm, I went with the box to err on the side of caution, since it'd be tragic if someone came here after seeing e.g. a suicide threat and couldn't instantly find a pointer to the resource they need. That said, having never monitored the emergency@wikimedia.org address, though, I can't say whether that sort of thing happens here. Thinking about it, I think having a tab for emergencies that transcludes the main portion of WP:Emergencies might be the best option. I'll set that up; please let me know what you all think. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: the page is now set up at Wikipedia:Contact us/Emergencies. The tabs will need to be changed to what's at Wikipedia:Contact us/tabs/sandbox, and then the other pages will need to have the |this= parameter increased by one each. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• I haven't forgotten about this, just working my way back to it. EEng 22:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  OK, if it's not too late for me to help, where should I look? I've lost track. EEng 01:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, Wikipedia:Contact us/sandbox has general tweaks to the intro page. The main questions are whether it's okay to add the visual and whether it's okay to take out the Wales line. For threats of harm, I'd like to add a tab, Wikipedia:Contact us/Emergencies, which transcludes WP:EMERGENCY, so the question is whether that's an okay way to do it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Threats of harm redux

Okay, so now that we've got some of the technical aspects in better shape, I wanted to follow up about WP:Contact us/Emergencies, which transcludes WP:EMERGENCY. Does it look alright to you all? If so, I'll put in an edit request to add it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I kept meaning to get back to this whole effort, and my apologies for not doing so earlier. I've made some edits to WP:EMERGENCY. EEng

On the matter of the emergency tab: My understanding is that the Contact us page is meant to face readers, not editors. Since the issues raised by WP:EMERGENCY are going to be on user and talk pages, is Contact us a relevant place to include this information? But if it is, wouldn't a link to WP:EMERGENCY be better than a transclusion? --Bsherr (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Bsherr, those are good questions. This is definitely a reader-facing page, but I think there's still reason to have information about emergencies. That's partly because it is possible a reader might come across an emergency situation in mainspace (e.g. vandalism that includes a threat of harm), but also because someone who sees a threat of harm might reasonably click on the link in the sidebar and come here, and we definitely wouldn't want them to be stranded.

Regarding a link versus a tab, I think either could work alright. The important thing is that, since emergencies are time-critical, the information should be reasonably prominent and no more than one click away. I previously mocked up what a link from the first page might look like here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Sdkb's reasoning and think we should include the box. EEng 00:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand the reason to make it prominent, but may we place it at the bottom or side instead of the top? With placement at the top, it becomes the first thing a reader reads on the page, even though it won't be the reason most readers come to the Contact us page. Also, some context might be helpful, so as not to alarm readers who may not be familiar with the "anyone can edit" concept of Wikipedia. --Bsherr (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. You do have a point. I guess it might make the uninitiated think, "What kind of place is this?" But we want it prominent.On the whole i'd leave it at the top. If it's at the bottom it's like we're deemphasizing it, but then reemphasizing it with the box and red triangle and stuff. EEng 04:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Bsherr, sorry I never got back to this previously. The current approach is to have WP:Contact us/Emergencies as its own tab in the sidebar, rather than a box at the bottom or top of the initial page. Are you on board with that? (If you are, that'll be 3-0, which will hopefully allow us to implement.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I still think it would be better to just link to WP:EMERGENCY from the introduction tab instead of transcluding it on its own tab. If consensus is for the latter, however, I think Template:Transcluded section should appear at the top. --Bsherr (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

To me, the burden to overcome for transcluding over linking WP:EMERGENCY is whether we are putting the information in WP:EMERGENCY in context for readers. For example, like I said above, explaining that, because anyone can edit, and because Wikipedia has talk pages for discussing improvements, a reader may encounter another user experiencing a crisis. If we're just regurgitating WP:EMERGENCY, I don't see me why we wouldn't just link from the introduction page, which would involve the same number of navigation steps as a tab (one). --Bsherr (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

My mind is a blank but I'm behind whatever you guys come up with. EEng 03:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Bsherr, I think we definitely want WP:EMERGENCY to be part of the reader-facing area of Wikipedia, for the reason above that readers conceivably might have reason to use it. I think it's decently good at that currently, given that it doesn't have a whole lot of room for detailed explanations the same as a normal page would. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but my question remains: What is the purpose of transcluding the page instead of providing a link? --Bsherr (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Bsherr, I think it fits better with the overall structure, which is for the introduction page to serve as a portal directing you to different ways in which you might want to contact Wikipedia, each of which is represented by a tab. We could always have the tab link go directly to WP:EMERGENCY, but that then makes it harder to navigate if someone clicks on it and then realizes, "oh wait, discovering a defamatory allegation on the Wikipedia page about me isn't actually an emergency according to this". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Let's say we do go with the tab. Firstly, I agree with the notion that "Emergency" is a terribly ambiguous name for the page and tab. WP:EMERGENCY is a shortcut; the actual name of the page is Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. That's the only emergency that page and the proposed tab deals with, so wouldn't that be the better name for the tab? Secondly, if we are taking the time to make a reader-facing tab based on WP:EMERGENCY, wouldn't we take the opportunity to tailor the information for that audience? Specifically, I mean providing context for the information, as I described above, and also distilling the information to only that which is likely to be useful to the likely audience. The person who arrives at this tab is probably not going to be an administrator, is probably not going to know how to contact other administrators by email, and is probably not going to be on IRC, so that information should be trimmed. Then a link should be added to WP:EMERGENCY. If that all seems reasonable, those changes would justify not merely linking to the page. --Bsherr (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Bsherr, my proposal for the tabs is here; I use the description to make the page's purpose clear.

I'm hesitant to try to modify WP:EMERGENCY, since I'm not a crisis response professional, and I think writing that page is something we should be leaving to professionals (someone at WMF, presumably). But to the extent that that page is not appropriate for readers, I think the page itself needs to be changed, since it's possible readers or very new editors might come across it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Just for fun, here's what EMERGENCY looked like before some of us nonprofessionals took it in hand [1]. Imagine finding a suicide threat and then landing on that meandering bloat-monster. EEng 14:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:EMERGENCY was largely written by ordinary editors.[2] Obviously, it is not WMF taking the initiative to include this information in the "Contact us". Strictly speaking, we don't have any professional advice on the benefits of presenting the information in the "Contact us" hierarchy, and whether or not context, as I propose, is helpful or even essential. But we can look to other websites that host user generated content that are not volunteer run, like Facebook[3], Twitter[4], Instagram[5], etc. All of them contextualize the information, provide more in the way of resources, not just a notification process, and none of them have a top level link from their help/contact page to their page (rather, on all of them, it's a second-level link). Also, in contrast to concern about making changes to WP:EMERGENCY, the proposal already differs from the information presented on that page. It changes the title and truncates the sections on information for administrators and external links. The external links section might actually be essential, in that it links to WMF's crisis support resources page. So, again, if the intention is not to make any changes to WP:EMERGENCY, why are we not just linking to WP:EMERGENCY? If the intention is to create a more user-friendly presentation of the page, why aren't we doing that? --Bsherr (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Tabs sandbox

I've also gone back (and here again I apologies for being late to the party) and made some fairly extensive edits to the Wikipedia:Contact_us/sandbox (see [6]). Most should be uncontroversial, but there are three places (called out in edit summaries) that might bear further scrutiny:

• a change in the text about who's "responsible" for edits/content
• dropped the help desk as a listed place to go for help, leaving just the Teahouse and IRC
• dropped the bullet about Jimbo.

I hope it's not too late to consider taking this revised version live.

However, there's a lingering issue I want to raise. There are two different places telling what to do about content issues:

• In the main list it says If you disagree with an article's content, or are involved in a content dispute, see Dispute resolution.
• But in the "tabs" there's link Readers – How to report a problem with an article, or find out more information which takes you to a more elaborate discussion.

I don't think we should have both, and I think it's the dispute resolution that should be removed – the sort of person who lands on this page will be chewed up and spit out by Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution.

[Needs more discussion below]: Furthermore, in the Readers link I don't know what "find out more information" means – more information about what? What it really is is what to do if you're concerned about article content, but only if you're not the article's subject -- the next tab is for article subjects. I'll leave this point for now while people digest what I've already done, but I think this stuff needs rationalizing. EEng 00:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Ping. EEng 00:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This all sounds good; I'm still very much down to remove the Jimbo bullet point, which just doesn't seem at all appropriate in 2020. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, I removed the DR bullet. That still leaves my last point about the Readers link and so on. Thoughts? EEng 03:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Fully-protected edit request on 8 September 2020

Please change <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new leave a message on the help page]</span> to {{edit|Wikipedia:Help desk|leave a message on the help page|section=new}}. The latter is cleaner and more resilient in the face of possible API changes. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

While we're at it, that should probably read "at the help desk" instead of "on the help page", no? --Bsherr (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I've switched the link to use Special:NewSection and updated the text as Bsherr suggested. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Once upon a time in Hollywood

Moved to WP:Teahouse § Hollywood

 – {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Borpatrogohain page

The facts regarding the Borpatrogohain page has been manipulated and since I am related to him, this hurts my sentiments. Despite of my attempts to add valid facts and citations, my edits are being done undone. 11Anonymous1122 (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)