Jump to content

Help talk:Contents

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.107.131.23 (talk) at 07:44, 9 December 2012 (→‎If this is not the correct place, why do you take me here when I search for help: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is not the page to ask for help.
This page is for discussion of the Help:Contents page itself, and its subpages. You may be looking for one of the following pages:

See also:

WikiProject iconWikipedia Help NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles
NAThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Template:Active editnotice

Article Feedback

Almost all of the 250 feedbacks for this page are related to other pages. Removing it will cause less confusion (about 250 less confusions). jonkerz ♠talk 17:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to leave it up for a while to check if we got any useful feedback, and also what the confused comments told us about the design. But yes, there are far too many people leaving questions which would be better handled elsewhere. I've added Category:Article Feedback Blacklist to hide the box, although previous feedback can still be viewed at Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Help:Contents. the wub "?!" 17:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Redesign of Help:Contents

There is a clear consensus to replace Help:Contents with the new design at Help:Contents/B. Armbrust The Homonculus 02:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the existing Help:Contents page be replaced with the redesign currently at Help:Contents/B? 11:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments from proposer

Over the past few months I have been working as a Wikimedia Community Fellow on a project to improve Wikipedia's help pages. Work completed includes a survey, usability tests, rebooting the Help Project and creating a series of new tutorials (referencing, uploading images, navigating Wikipedia).

The final and most ambitious phase of the project is to revamp Help:Contents. This is a main entry point into the help system and one of the most viewed pages with almost 10,000 hits per day. However in its current form the evidence is that it does a poor job of assisting readers and editors alike. They find it unattractive and confusing, and to reach the help they require often needs several clicks. Improving this page would be beneficial for editor recruitment and retention, as well as better serving our readers.

With the benefit of research conducted during the fellowship, and assistance from WMF designers, a new design for the page has been created which we believe is superior. Some of the major problems identified with the current help page and what was done to alleviate them in the redesign are summarised below:

Importantly the redesign has been tested against the existing page in a series of usability tests covering common scenarios where a user might seek help. In all five tests the users were able to find the help they required from the new page, whereas with the existing page two users were unable to find help. Additionally in follow-up questioning all the users expressed a preference for the redesign.

For these reasons I recommend the existing page be moved to Help:Contents/Browse (so that experienced users who prefer it still have it available) and the redesign be adopted as the main page. the wub "?!" 11:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

The existing Help:Contents page should be moved to Help:Contents/Browse, and replaced with the redesign currently at Help:Contents/B.

  1. As proposer. the wub "?!" 11:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support. Fantastic, and overdue. Replace a.s.a.p. Details can be tweaked, over time. —Quiddity (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support The proposed page is far easier to use than the current one. David1217 What I've done 00:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Good work! -- John of Reading (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support :). Ironholds (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Very nice! I would even support paring things down a bit more (as the navigation covers more than anyone could ever use). heather walls (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support: Cleaner, much more user friendly. Nice work! Ocaasi t | c 19:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. A large improvement over the existing page. Great job! WikiPuppies bark dig 21:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes. Theopolisme 22:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, however please consider the comments made by Blue Rasberry. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, and per Blue Rasberry, there are some easy improvements to the design that can be made.--Ragesoss (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. However the new link to the "plain and simple conflict of interest guide" for people affiliated with the subject is a bad joke. That "plain and simple conflict of interest guide" is a page running to 5600 words. We have featured articles that are shorter and simpler than that page. People who have unfair or erroneous information about them at the no. 1 Google link for their name need to have an easier way to contact a person. As described below, even if they ignore that page, they still have to step through several more screens before they come to the OTRS e-mail. It's like one of those annoying telephone systems that has a recorded voice talking to you for 10 minutes, offering you dozens of confusing options you don't want, hoping you will give up, hang up and not bother them any more long before you finally reach the golden pot at the end of the rainbow – a person you can talk to. JN466 06:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PSCOI is a single-page guide which walks a COI editor through our policies, social norms, and editing conventions. It's more specific than WP:COI and more helpful than being directed around to 20 different pages. It could be simpler, yes, and it's not a replacement for a better on-wiki response mechanism, but it's currently the best guide we have for a COI editor given the current state of Wikipedia. That's not a reason to stop there and consider the problem solved, but it's more effective than directing people just to WP:COI or OTRS. Ocaasi t | c 17:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In part it seems that it's complex and confusing because the community's stance on COI is complex and confusing (and changes by context); any attempt to represent it fairly is hedged around with so many caveats and differing viewpoints that it seems very hard to boil it down to a couple of sentences. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - it seems an improvement --Nouniquenames 03:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support, obviously. This creates a strong base to redesign other help pages. Dodoïste (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Great to see the results of this work. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support but keep working with Blue Rasberry below to address his concerns. Gigs (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. A great improvement. Browser issues need to be ironed out, but they shouldn't sink the whole proposal. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support as a much better starting point for future improvements. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I always thought that the Help page was confusing. This one looks much better. --Forich (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

The existing Help:Contents page should remain in place.

  • Oppose for now. I love everything about the new content and hate everything about the old content, except that the old content is neatly formatted and aesthetically pleasing. It is my opinion that it is more important for the help page to look good than to work, because a broken system which gives a good first impression gives a better user experience than an unattractive system with functionality. Please address the following issues and I will give my support:
  • The text in the lowest line of the section headings is clipped below the baseline in my view.
  • Four section headings have an icon and two do not. This should be uniform.
  • I am not sure if it is technically possible but the text in each box ought to be justified or otherwise made to look neater.
  • There should be a title banner.
  • This page is using atypical design elements and it ought to come with documentation to assist people who would edit this page.
Thanks a lot for doing this. I really believe in the project. What you have done is indisputably a functional improvement. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baseline: could you (or anyone seeing this problem) take a screenshot, or tweak Help:Contents/B/headerstyle to fix it?
  • Icons: any suggestions from commons:category:icons?
  • Justify: I tested it out, and took 3 screenshots of default, justified, and justified at 1024x768 screen size. I don't think the problems at various sizes are worth it. The paragraphs are simply too narrow to make this work.
  • Title banner: ? (That's a broad and abstract request!) Do you mean {{Help pages header}} (or a new version of this navbox concept), or {{Wikipedia how to}} (identification banner) [unnecessary imo], or something else?
I imagine this to mean a sort of banner saying "Wikipedia Help" or "Welcome to Wikipedia" or something like that. It needs that, since the structure draws focus away from the top-left of the page, where the page title "Help:Contents" is, and to the centre of the page, where the content is. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Documentation: What kind is needed specifically? It's just a table with css styling and normal wiki-text. As with other portals and non-plainly designed pages, anyone uncomfortable editing the code elements can ask for help on the talkpage.
HTH. —Quiddity (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot of headings being cropped, on Firefox 16 @ Ubuntu 12.04 (doesn't happen in Chrome) --Waldir talk 12:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. I'm using FF 16 @ Ubuntu 11.04, and don't see that problem. What setting do you have for "Preferences->Content->Default font" ? (just so that I can try to replicate the bug, in order to fix it).
(Addendum: i've doubled the margin-bottom to "6px" in Help:Contents/B/headerstyle. Does that fix it? —Quiddity (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What Waldir shows is what I see with the baseline. What you shared does help, This, That. I have no suggestions for icons - in the meantime one generic icon used for all entries would work until someone has a better idea. I like the second and third of your three pictures which demonstrate the justification. That is really cool that you demo'd those. The sort of banner that you imagine is also what I had in mind - see how the old help has a darker blue box in the center of the screen.
Quiddity, I do not think this page should be treated as other portals and non-plainly designed pages. If any page should have documentation about code elements it should be this page as a model for others. While the wiki-text here may be normal it is certainly not typical and this is the page intended to traffic 100% of all new users. My standards are very low but there should be some documentation somewhere for the new user who clicks edit here and wants to know how this page works. A new user is more likely to check this out than any other technical page, and I am not expecting anything comprehensive, but I want to see some intent to accommodate them with a few sentences somewhere that could be expanded if requested. I want there to be enough information to prompt someone to ask questions if they otherwise would not know what is useful to ask. I wish there were a way to hide most of the code in templates. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your welcome for the screenshots :) imgur.com doesn't require an account, it's just an easy anonymous upload. -- I still believe that justifying the text is a bad idea, and should not be used, because on small screens it looks a lot worse.
  • Banner: Something like this? We could replace (remove) the standard-top-left page name (Help:Contents), as we do on the Main Page, and use a centralized name banner instead? (Otherwise, I'd softly-object to the duplication of "Help:Contents").
  • Icons: I've browsed the commons categories, and these were the best I could find (definitely not perfect, either in style or dimensions). I've left a request with the designer of the original 4 icons, asking if she can create something suitable.
  • Documentation: I'm still not sure what you mean. New users shouldn't be editing this page; experienced users can either understand the code or know how to ask for assistance. The text itself (what appears in the rendered page) is as easily editable/tweakable as any text on the site. -- I've added a basic code-comment. Is that kind of what you want?
—Quiddity (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Text justification may be a bad idea but I think the proposed layout is not an improvement over the old layout. The old layout is minimal and looks neat. If the text cannot be justified then I might propose cutting all of it out entirely and leaving only the section headings. The old help did well without text. I might even say to just apply the new title headings to the old help interface, without the explanatory text. As I said, presentation is more important than functionality to me because even if the help pages do not work I want them to look good enough so that new users continue not to perceive the problem. I think that the innovation here is new redirection, not the explanatory text associated with the redirection.
  • What you did is nice but do you think it is better than the current old banner? Why not just keep the old banner?
  • Icons may or may not be necessary, if they are used then all subject headings need one. This may be something that can wait. I support icons if they are available but it might be nice to just remove the few that are there until all headings can have one.
  • New users should be editing this page because new users should experiment everywhere they go, and if we push 100% of new users here then a certain percentage of them should click edit at the top or otherwise something is wrong. That message is the kind of thing I think they should see, but for a help page I would not expect the documentation to read "go ask someone". Maybe the best documentation for now would be something like "This page is an oddity on Wikipedia for using very complicated computer code. You can edit it if you like, just like you can edit any page on Wikipedia. If you want to read about the code that this page uses then go here. If you only want to develop Wikipedia articles then you will likely never have to learn code like this."
Let me state that I believe in progress and that if it was inconvenient to follow up on my criticism then I would support all proposed changes. I want this off to a good start but certainly the help desk needs reform.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Justified text is a bad idea, especially with relatively narrow blocks of text like those here. Web browsers are not good at handling it and tend to create rivers of whitespace, reducing readability and accessibility. This is intolerable. [1] [2].
  • Which old banner do you mean? If you mean {{Help pages header}}, I've explained my reasons for removing that: it duplicates links and does not provide any context for them. If you mean the big centred "Wikipedia Help" then I don't see any need for that. Users will most likely have reached the page by clicking the Help link in the sidebar, or a Help:Contents link somewhere else. They'll know it's a help page from context. In fact one of the usability testers commented that the second page was more clearly a help page. I did consider moving the top banner up to cover the title (as is done on the Main Page), but decided that the extra space wasn't worth breaking a convention everywhere else on Wikipedia, which is important in understanding how to navigate the site.
  • Vibha made some new icons, we now have them for all the six main headers. What do you think? We also got a new icon for search in the same style as the others.
  • I really don't think this is a big deal. The current Help:Contents page has been semi-protected since 2006, and I wasn't expecting that to change with the new page. We could definitely add in a friendly editnotice pointing people to the Sandbox if they want to experiment though, would that address your concerns?
the wub "?!" 22:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Justified text is a proposed solution to the problem of poorly formatted text. Another solution that I could propose is deleting the new text entirely. The last help page had problems but looking disorderly was not one of them. The new proposal looks disorderly. Perhaps the explanations could go and only section headings should be used. And was the need for a graphic redesign ever the problem? I thought the problem was links to things which no one needed and too much extraneous information. I like the look of the old blue box and I think help page could be slightly modified or simplified, not expanded with more text and especially not with more text which does not look orderly.
  • When I say keep the banner, I mean the blue box at the top which says "Wikipedia Help" in centered text with a search box below. Now that I look more, I think that the entire blue theme should be kept. There are years of precedent of making so many of the help pages blue so if you change the theme of the main directory then I think the theme of every other help page should be changed to match. Was it your intent to do this? Surely you do not think there should be two design themes in place, or that the main page should use one and then other help pages should use another. Why not just keep all your text changes and incorporate them into the existing theme? A proposal to change functionality does not necessarily need to include a change to the aesthetics.
  • The new icons are cool. It is still strange that one icon seems missing, because you have six sections with an icon and one without. But again, these is a change to the thematic design, and I am not sure than anyone ever complained about the blue theme which is already being used on this and other pages. Why incorporate a design change at all?
  • Yes, a note would satisfy my concerns.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Minor concern, {{Help navigation}} does not stretch across the full length of the page at the bottom. It would look better if it did (or if it was at least centered). LegoKontribsTalkM 20:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Quiddity (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only changes I would suggest, are to the 2nd and 3rd link in the final section:

  • "Browse Wikipedia's help pages" is just a link to the old Help:Contents design (the 3rd such link), and should either 1. be removed, 2. link to Help:Contents/Site map, or 3. link to Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia. (I have no strong preference)
  • "The Quick directory [...]" is a troublesome page. Actually, all the items listed in {{WP nav pages (header bar)}} need a thorough overhaul, update, and significant merge. (Add in WP:Dashboard, as the more-uptodate location for much of that content). That'll need to be coordinated somewhere else (WP:Help Project, probably). I'd suggest removing that link, for now, unless it proved helpful in the usability tests, or other good reason.

HTH. —Quiddity (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good start, but not nearly enough. Will any work be done on the remaining pages? As described on Jimbo's talk, assume you are a BLP subject or a PR professional, and there is a problem in an article about you. This is how you are directed at present:

  1. If you spot and click on the tiny word "Help" on the left, under "Interaction", you come to Help:Contents, a page that is fairly confusing, and mainly offers help for people wishing to edit.
  2. If on that page you spot and click on "Report a problem", you come to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem, another confusing page.
  3. If on that page you click on "There's a problem in an article about you or someone you represent", in the "What's the problem" section, you come to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject).
  4. This tells you, "Before you read anything else on this page, please visit the Article subjects FAQ." And the first section below that, which you can't help noticing, says, "Fix it yourself."
  5. The Article subjects FAQ is at Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects. It's a page with 2,000 words on it.

This present proposal only improves the transition from the first to the second of these pages, which is not the main problem here. Even that improvement is marginal, as the new page design puts the 5,600-word "plain and simple conflict of interest guide" in your way as an additional roadblock. JN466 06:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: remaining pages: See WP:Help Project, and help out. (there's nobody here but us bears).
Re: "WP:Contact us" concerns, the main discussion about this is at Wikipedia talk:Contact us#"Main contact address". Go draft something in that sandbox!
Re: Plain and simple guide: Are you suggesting that we should change the link to something else, for the moment? Or delay using this redesign until all the pages it links to are improved? Or just pointing out the issues with those pages in the hopes that we'll discuss and fix it (ideally over there) ? —Quiddity (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I may look in. I didn't know this was ongoing (otherwise I would have mentioned it on Jimbo's talk page).
I already commented at Wikipedia talk:Contact us#"Main contact address" , agreeing with Tom Morris' edit, which was reverted.
At Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem, I would propose adding the OTRS e-mail address to the tantalising red box that promises "you may always go to the volunteer response team, if desired."
I'm just pointing out that there is a problem. Asking people to read a "plain and simple" guide running to 5,600 words seems almost like maliciously taunting the user. How about using Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects instead? If that is problematic, then use the /b version for now as it is, and address this in the next iteration, so the perfect does not become the enemy of the good. JN466 12:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that that Munch picture with its description of the help path as a rabbit warren has been on the Help project main page for nigh on three years. JN466 08:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points:

  • Good catch. I've updated the links and the wording here.
  • I have a factual question: "At the Reference Desk you can ask questions about any topic that doesn't relate to Wikipedia. Volunteers will attempt to answer your question or point you towards the information you need." I wonder if we're not missing a trick here - it doesn't suggest that you might be able to actually find the factual answer in Wikipedia! Perhaps something like: "If searching Wikipedia has not answered your question, at the Reference Desk..."
  • Oh yeah, I considered something like that but couldn't decide on the wording and forgot about it. Yours looks good though.

So, what are we waiting for? We have reached a consensus (19/20) to change this main page, don't we? I'm getting impatient to see the results of this design. Dodoïste (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is graphic redesign necessary?

There is a proposal above about changing the look of WP:HELP. I agree that functionally, WP:HELP needs redesign, but the proposal contains two parts - a functional redesign and a graphical redesign. Above I make some complaints about the graphical redesign, which include not liking the proposed new look and the lack of any plan in place to make the other pages (10+?) which use the blue theme match the main help page, or a redesign of the blue navigational/helpbox templates. Why change only the mainpage which uses this blue theme? Is there a need for a redesign of the theme? I think that was never part of the problem. I propose to scrap the graphic redesign, keep the blue theme, and focus on incorporating the new text and functionality into the old theme. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems obvious to me that if the main help page has a change of design, the other help pages will have to be adapted accordingly. Consistency is important. However, it can be done after the change of design for the main page. Dodoïste (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks everyone who commented, and Armbrust for the closure. I've implemented the change. the wub "?!" 12:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully Protected Request

Forgive me if it seems a bit over the top but the page only being semi protected seems underprotective to me. Since this is where everyone needs to go to get help I think this should only be possible for Administrators to edit, since the signup does not require an E-Mail Address it would be easy for people to create an account with no intention but flat out vandalism. I just see the help section as so important it would be best fully protected CHCSPrefect (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, over 2000 people are watching this page, so any vandalism should be caught quickly. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The disadvantage of fully protecting the page is that many of the experienced editors who are most active in the Help pages of Wikipedia are not admins - full protection would require them to make an edit request every time they wanted to change anything. It's also worth noting that semi-protection prevents editing by unregistered and unconfirmed users, so in order to create an account "with no intention but flat out vandalism" that could edit this page, a person would have to wait four days and make ten edits without ringing any alarm bells - very few vandals have the patience for that. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that semiprotection is fine. Look at the history, this page isn't suffering from vandalism and has lots of users watching it in the unlikely event that it does. the wub "?!" 23:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Wikipedia:New contributors' help page

Can this page be merged with Wikipedia:New contributors' help page? This help page has been made almost to match Wikipedia:New contributors' help page and perhaps now that page can redirect to here. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would fit well with the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Change from NCHQ to here to shut down the New Contributors question page and send them to the Teahouse instead. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the only reason I avoided proposing that was the questions page associated with it. If that does get merged into the Teahouse, then redirecting the rest here makes sense. the wub "?!" 14:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need the old search box back!

When I train people to edit Wikipedia, that old search box has been a trusty, reliable first stop, which even experienced editors appreciate. I don't know how I'd search for the templates or WikiProjects without it. Burying this search box 2 clicks down on an "old page" slows editing ... Plus, finding some of those essays in your search is a valuable way to become socialized in the community. I understand that the plain "help" search makes more sense at the top ... but if not on the help page, where else would you suggest putting the Template / Wikipedia search tool for quick access? For those of us who are not perfect typists, the searh box is a lot easier than attempting to type Template: or Wikipedia: before searches. Cross-searching namespaces is not something intuitively obvious, and it took a long, long time to find things before discovering this search box. Djembayz (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do those kinds of search by hitting RETURN in the main search box at the top right, which takes me to Special:Search. On that page there's a clickable link to search in the Help/Wikipedia namespaces or the "Advanced" link to search any combination of namespaces. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(More) And, looking at the coding, I see that the search box at the top right of Help:Contents is configured to search the Help and Wikipedia namespaces, so a search there will return WikiProjects and essays. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it searches Help and Wikipedia namespaces by default, because of all the policies and guidelines in the Wikipedia namespace. The checkboxes are hidden because they were found to be very confusing for new users in the usability tests (after all, if you didn't know anything about namespaces, you'd expect having 'Wikipedia' ticked to search articles).
I removed Templates from the search as I didn't really see how that was useful for finding help, and didn't realise anyone was using this page to search for templates specifically. I always used the method John mentioned, or looked through the index at WP:TM. I've just added a search box to the top of that page, not really sure why it didn't have one already. the wub "?!" 13:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've got my site-preferences set to search "article, wikipedia, template, help" namespaces by default, and usually have to uncheck "article" namespace (and search-again) to find what I'm looking for.
If anyone else shows up requesting template-namespace be re-added to the Help:Contents search box, then I'd support that (and I weakly support as of now). —Quiddity (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not the correct place, why do you take me here when I search for help

Why not have something that says the right page, without my having to search all over for it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Contents&oldid=527148357"