WikiProject Australia/2.0 is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Before we get too far ahead of ourselves, let's try observe the PPPPPPP rule of projects... being, prior preparation and planning prevents piss poor performance. If we spec out the project aims and goals here rather than design on the fly and collaborate via the wiki interface (not an ideal environment), we'll possibly make the same mistakes all over again. So far, I like what I see... it's a start, until you click for Help and get belted in the face with over 70 links of... sheesh (I know, it's the old over-complex stuff we're trying to improve). Back when WikiProject Australia was born as it kinda looks today, I asked about and nobody wanted the big job, so I just took it upon myself to be bold and one day landed the lot upon them, and it worked. Editors of the time accepted the change but looking back, I too fell for the over-complication game. Let's not do that today. Keeping the KISS principle in mind, the simpler the better I say. I'll admit right now if I'm to be of any help, I'll need some time to update myself on what's possible with the Mediawiki software these days, so if I seem like I'm asking questions that I could otherwise find answers to myself, it's because I'm way out of date and the internet moves fast. Let's go eh? Perhaps start by pointing out what's broken or over-complex and needs change. -- Longhair\talk11:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, obviously an overhaul needs to be more than just one page, and thought out rather than cobbled togther – like I said at the notice board, this was just a possible starting point. I've changed the links to be red links, rather than pointing to current pages. - Evad37[talk]14:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I forget now, and ain't really interested in getting my head around 10+ year old knowledge either, but I do recall the current project being a collective of many subpages, templates, all sorts of things transcluded into what the end user sees. When I suggested a new start, I really did mean from the ground up. I'm one of those if it's worth doing it's worth doing right types. I'm here for advice, but like I said above, I'm way way out of date but keen to see the place come alive, and actually be user friendly while being useful at the same time. -- Longhair\talk14:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well Evad37 is up there with the latest tweaks - so you have a good working companion. I like the simplicity and graphical nature of the new front page- starting page ... and think it is a very good start... we need to keep the linked items in the KISS style and brief, with as few links as are practicable. JarrahTree14:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't jump on Evad37 for nothing when he spoke up suggesting not to go anywhere :D I still know how to find my way around the backend stuff. I'm not that senile yet. I have many other things on the go away from Wikipedia and would prefer not playing a leading role this time around, but I'm here aren't I? Nek minnit, I have a code editor open... I swear I retired years ago :D It's day 1, others will have input I'm sure. Half the old historical stuff isn't used any more from what I can tell, because the place has largely changed while the project remained the same. -- Longhair\talk14:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like the simplicity and graphical nature of the new front page — Some graphics are useful because they are common and thus easily recognisable ("i" in a circle for information, "?" for help), but others ("discussion" and "tasks") are less recognisable and thus don't necessarily add value. Consider this - why do we need both the icon and the words? The words alone are self-explanatory, but we need the words because the readers don't always know what the pictures mean. So why not just have the words?
But if we must have the icons please make them smaller. It's not necessary to fill up the whole vertical space of the screen to give me half-a-dozen lines of information. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What you see was only a 5 minute presentation of ideas thrown together by Evad37 that came from the discussion at WP:AWNB. Having words under icons assists those with disabilities who may have visual impairment. I'm not sure if Mediawiki manages HTML ALT tags or whatever they're called which most websites would use for accessibility issues, or did once upon a time. Many websites designed today make use of an icon set known as Font Awesome. I haven't look into the copyright status of that icon set but the article here suggests it's an open source licence. A little colour wouldn't hurt either... people love eye candy. Of the two designs I think the top one works better with the horizontal flow. We should probably move any nitpicking and discussion to the subpage for the purpose before we end up fragmenting the discussion making things harder to find later on. -- Longhair\talk01:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When is the right time to introduce new editors to WikiProjects? I don't think in the very early stages they are ready to participate in a WikiProject *but* I think they would benefit from relevant WikiProject noticing their existence and helping them out in a friendly way as they stumble through their early edits so they survive. That would lay the groundwork for involving them more actively in the future. Of course this means that effort is invested in people who may not develop into ongoing editors and may therefore be wasted (such as edit training can be a waste of my time if they don't continue). But if WikiProjects think they can just ignore new users until they magically blossom into competent editors without help, it hardly surprises me that our numbers are dropping. Most organisations understand the need to invest in developing their people; at Wikipedia, we seem to prefer to eat our young. Kerry (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll suggest the right time is anytime, before festering opinions set in not unlike what you mentioned yesterday about editors guarding articles and tagging talk pages like vandals (and to many new folk, that's probably just how it looks). Almost everyone here is genuine, and there's a lot of help the old hats can offer new folk. We did use to joke a lot about the Australian Cabal back in the day and that probably didn't help the reputation of the place. I don't tend to agree on the effort wasted talk however, being one who thinks that if even one person learns one new thing, an increment in knowledge, then Wikipedia achieved one more small step along the way to where it always wanted to go. May I ask what formed your views early on, was it geography related articles, because I know they had and probably still have ways they expect others to follow, and that's a good thing sometimes, observing long established styles that bring a uniform look to the place. -- Longhair\talk08:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I* don't regard it as a waste of time or I wouldn't do edit training, but I've been told by others in this project that they regard investment in new users as a waste of time (my summary). Kerry (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ - we are here at WP AU version 2 (or at least that was the impression), trying to have less words, less links for new users - the whole thing of projects can be a furphy. One thing at a time - we are thinking of new users. Keeping it simple, as few words as possible, as few links.
For the large number of enterprising editors with lots of time in Australia - the project could/should have mentors - the potential for new user to have some one to turn to in times of confusion. But nothing about projects at this stage, unless they so wish. Link bombing, word bombing is not what a new user needs... They need another editor who can be talked to online for advice, about the most basic things. Not a logarithm or youtube video, somebody who has a keyboard and experience. JarrahTree08:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Warning... I was referred to as the Gordon Ramsay of IT by some... I'm no trainer, burnout from years in customer service more than likely. I try, but even I still call idiots idiots and vandals a lot worse, even this week. If we formulate a design that aims to drip feed while still making accessible what folks seek, they might not feel so overwhelmed and leave. I read over that Welcome template earlier, and was flabbergasted at just the first line. This is the first contact moment for many, and we're talking about what welcome means, what Wikipedia is, and where their edit history lives in the first 9 words! (Here it is). I've got a lot of ideas but if I spat the lot out, I'd never shut up, but at least I got heard when I screamed too much, and I'm glad we're thinking of a minimal interface. That said, Wikipedia will never be minimal, and it'll all have to reside somewhere. Where is why we're here. A lot of the stuff you raised Kerry is more the sociology issues that Wikis experience, and if you've not already seen it, then Meatball Wiki is here to the rescue. It's almost bible-like when it comes to understanding Wiki human behaviour. I still refer to the site even today. -- Longhair\talk08:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how often that Australian welcome template is actually used. And because it is substituted, we can't easily tell (unless there is some way I don't know about). I know that when you click on the "welcome" link displayed when looking at a diff on your watchlist involving a new-ish user, you get a list of templates and I generally pick the "plate of cookies" option, being friendly in tone and shorter than some of them. I don't think the Australia template is on that list. Kerry (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I mentioned barnstars the other day, and cookies, and kittens. Where's the sixpack? Wikipedia is still very US-centric beyond the mainspace. -- Longhair\talk01:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I use the Australian welcome templates every time I encounter an Aussie editor doing the right thing with a red talk page link, it's built into WP:TWINKLE. It's not as widespread, but it's out there. -- Longhair\talk10:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. The Australian welcome template is built into Twinkle but the list is so long it falls off my screen so I have never noticed it there until I went looking for it just now (is there a way to reconfigure Twinkle to get your favourite template onto the first screen?). I note this is also a problem for me with large project banners on Talk pages - I can't see any Talk, just banner. This probably contributed to my "this is our clubhouse, others not welcome" interpretation of project tagging. It's also an accessibility issue for those of us who have to live in small screen land. Kerry (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
. It's one click away, and 2nd from the top. Anyway, this is me pushing the Twinkle barrow now, when many probably don't even use it. I mention it to say via Twinkle, the Australian welcome template does get usage. -- Longhair\talk01:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a good look at the welcome template I've been throwing about. It's a total shocker, reworded as,
G'day ip address, and if you don't know what that is, get used to it, because that's your name around here now. and welcome to Wikipedia, which we've provided a link for, just click it in case you have no idea where you are or what we even do here despite it being in the top 10 most trafficked sites in the world. Thanks for your contributions, and while we're on that topic, there's this thing called an edit summary which those darn admins will monitor and you better realise that's your entire existence here and there's no running away from it. What you just did helped grow Wikipedia, big thanks for that. I hope you enjoy your stay, and before we throw more information overload into your face, I'm a Wikipedian, a what, doesn't matter, I'm a Wikipedian and you're not until you bloody register ok.
Next up here's 14 pages of how to click the edit link at top of every single page, a tutorial on how to survive past midnight, a tutorial on pictures, a tutorial on writing articles, look, just take the $$%^&%^$(lot it's too much for one man to carry, share the load.
What's that? Did you just consider American style dates, snap the hell out of it mate, Straya here, Aussie date format, here's another war and peace sized Manual of Style, learn it by 5pm or you're blacklisted as a potential style terrorist.
We're in no way done yet, there's a noticeboard where Wikipedia's talk more lingo to isolate you further, a WikiProject that'll spam every talk page you ever dare look at, and just when you thought you were aware of the environment, here's an invite to the next meetup, a training workshop, a memorial bbq for dearly departed aslyum inmates formerly known as RightToLeave achievers... don't look away mate, we ain't covered Wikimedia Australia yet... what's that, you're gone, but they're a legal framework... hello? What did I say? What's with that rude ungrateful swine... (and believe it or not, I still had almost 6 lines left to translate... %^&*(^ hell folks. -- Longhair\talk11:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are often the real deal arseholes to many new folk. Most days I delete a lot of stuff against policy. And I mean heaps some days. It's a nasty, heartless, quick rejection process done with a zap to the article, a whack to the talk page, and a blockall in 3 swift moves if their username also breaches policy.
Don't bitch, or we'll maim your talk page as well. See what I mean? For survival, we're often pricks.
They are mostly potential editors we just ram out the door citing policy crimes the moment they arrive. Don't underestimate the bulk who were never here to contribute either. They exist in droves.
Some folk are here just minutes before being thrown out for 3 different reasons in one hit. Rough, but left inside, they'll often run amok.
I can tell you if we didn't operate that swift, we'd be absolutely swamped in junk right throughout the place. There's just no easy way of telling somebody they're being a dick when they believe they're doing the right thing. Spammers know they're wrong, but also don't care when they're the ones selling. Many seek a free web host for their startup business, we belt them around too, because they arrive hourly by the hundreds some days. Takes about 10 seconds all up if you've gotten in the practice. Gone... that fast.
On one hand I feel newbies are often entitled to tell us administrators, and the editors they clash with where to go as many do, but on the other hand I also work the front line seeing the idiots arrive that we just can't combat touchy feeling style due to workload.
What I am saying here is, the place isn't friendly to newbies at all, sitewide, and while we can do all we can here at the Australia project to be the nice guys, once they walk out there into the big bad pedia, the friendly environment here can fast turn into an admin noticeboard report that we'll never prepare them for. The lunatics run the asylum as the saying goes... I'm partly to blame. -- Longhair\talk10:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at drafting a 2.0 version at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/2.0/Welcome. It cuts down the number of links to three main items – learn more, ask question, collaborate with others – plus an "ask me" link that opens up in edit new section mode. A lot of trivial details and jargon are also gone. - Evad37[talk]12:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this. It's been around for 11 years. They had the right idea but probably never told anyone about it. We could probably delete it once we're done here. -- Longhair\talk08:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A small change we could make to be a little more welcoming to newcomers would be at the top of Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board where we currently say "Click here to start a new discussion thread" would be to say "Click here to introduce yourself or start a new discussion thread" which makes it explicit we are inviting people to say Hello. Then someone replies "Great to meet you, are you interested in an specific Australian topics or just Australia generally?" and hopefully if they indicate specific interests may elicit further response from someone who shares their particular passion for Australian birds (or whatever) or (for a more general response), just says "great, you've come to the right place. Any questions or problems, please ask me or ask here." Kerry (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just proposed a local adaption of the {{help me}} template for local usage. That'd cover Kerry's hands-on ideas for newbie welcoming. The "ask me for help" link I feel is yet another current problem with the existing welcome process, with newbies referred to whoever welcomes them for help.
Two seconds later I could be right in the middle of a forever changing VPN vandal onslaught of idiots, and those newbies will be left waiting. Besides, I'm often not in good moods when idiots re-engage past 5 blocks as they often do some days. I don't want to handle newbies full stop. Others are better at the job and I'd rather stay away.
It'd work, but would anyone want the job? It'd need responsive coverage. I've not looked into how it works but it wouldn't be that different to the ping notification thing I suspect. -- Longhair\talk13:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I ask would anyone want the job, it'd be a job for many, but we'd need folks capable to answer as well. I imagine it'd involve a script counting the number of users sitting in a dedicated category for the purpose, and that number being visible to us here as a queue of those seeking help (sorry for the geek talk, it's hard to shake). Is that something you could code if we got our hands on the current working script Evad37. I said I'd help, but... younger minds are keener folk :D
That said, I reckon I've had about 2 people ask me in the past month a question coming from a welcome. Some go into shock there's real people here sometimes and enter a state of "oh, they saw me". Then silence :D -- Longhair\talk13:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking even further along these outreach lines, I kick Aussies out every day the helpers here could rescue. I often don't go back to the scene of the crime, but imagine with a bit of "hey, you messed up, an admin had to clean up, they're good guys, but if you just try this approach, they'll look at more problematic folk". Like I said earlier, many simply do not understand Wikipedia is not a storage facility for their latest grand plan... they're not idiots, they're single purpose editors like most of us once were when we came to edit here, and I'll unblock folk I've kicked out if they're told and understand what got them out by kinder types. See where I'm going here? We throw many out and they never return, or do as vandals who end up hating the place even more. -- Longhair\talk13:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What we need is eds other than the usual suspects here to comment or appraise the new suggested modifications.
I like what I see as it is removing the clutter of ten years of little interest in changing things or format.
I wouldn't call it little interest... remember way back when those frequent editors once organised Collaborations Of The Week, which became Collaborations Of The Fortnight, which became Collaborations Of The Month ending up as Collaborations Of The Never Never. It's still around, likely because it's a complex setup and its easier left than explain why the entire project is FUBAR and guys who knew the backend had left. That project came about well before Wikipedia had 1,000,000 articles, and it drove content. Today, it's history because the content exists. -- Longhair\talk13:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My prognosis is quite different - some projects have eds who are very 'within scope' on their edit range. You'd never find their editing go anywhere near rabbit holes or any warrens beyond their subject. ACOT died at a point where a pool of willing collaborators diverted/diverged in their editing behaviour, some stayed and became more 'loners' in their style. Some eds who were here on wp left due to the general level of anxiety and angst against holding up content and things that were not of general stress free - some simply had real life event changes and may return, some never. ACOT depended upon an online group who were willing to work together regularly. We have many more 'loners' now who feel no alignment to the australian or the broader community. To gain an increased involvement of new and longer standing eds in the community with things that constitute the elements of a collaborative community, is something that requires considerable time and effort on the parts of the community who look, by current behaviour, as if they couldnt give a rats about fellow editors. Its a mindset. And it is easily lost, and quite hard to recover, and cannot be artificially resurected.
Like some broader time and space issues, some people in real life hope their children or grandchildren can help their communities, or the world recover from havoc wreaked by current generation stupidities. On wikipedia it is not lifetime spans, but even annual cycles of new editors, who could/might help recovery.JarrahTree14:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but they were also very different times, long before references were ever demanded and long before that professor chap who I can't recall now threatened to sue Wikipedia into next century, bring about WP:BLP. Wanna know what I did back then, I let them have their outdated articles, unreferenced, and watched every single one of them get angrier and angrier when new folk arrived wanting to chip in and out came the teeth. I won't name names... but I wouldn't call them folks I worked well with. They're gone. They were folks close to the topic who knew the topic who produced the articles and behaved like they owned the things. If they return, they adapt like I had to relearn. -- Longhair\talk14:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just threw this together quickly... people love statistics and if wanted we could work this up into the header someplace. (There's a minor bug where subcategories are being counted along with articles but I'll look into that). If you want to use this I'll happily donate it to the project and move it to a more suitable namespace when appropriate. -- Longhair\talk09:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Evad37, we need a project home button as there's currently no way to return to the main page (noticeboard) via the interface. I like your code. Nice and clean, and I can work with it easily, but I thought I'd add it to your list as we'll also need an icon matching the current suite of icons along with the text link. It'd work up in the right side header I think. Thanks. -- Longhair\talk11:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you're updating my dated skills changing my old school <BR> stuff into <div> and similar. My age is showing eh? I don't mind. I'm learning the new tricks as we go. Thanks :D -- Longhair\talk12:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
