Help talk:Contents/Archive 6

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

RfC: Redesign of Help:Contents
'''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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 3) Strong support The proposed page is far easier to use than the current one.  David  1217  What I've done 00:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Good work! -- John of Reading (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support :). Ironholds (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 7) Support: Cleaner, much more user friendly.  Nice work! Ocaasit &#124; c 19:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. A large improvement over the existing page. Great job!  WikiPuppies  bark dig 21:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Yes.  Theo polisme  22:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, however please consider the comments made by Blue Rasberry. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.  J N  466  06:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. Ocaasit &#124; c 17:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) Support - it seems an improvement -- No  unique  names  03:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support, obviously. This creates a strong base to redesign other help pages. Dodoïste (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Great to see the results of this work. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support but keep working with Blue Rasberry below to address his concerns. Gigs (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) Support as a much better starting point for future improvements. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I always thought that the Help page was confusing.  This one looks much better.  --Forich (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Screenshot of headings being cropped, on Firefox 16 @ Ubuntu 12.04 (doesn't happen in Chrome) --Waldir talk 12:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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..
 * 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)
 * 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)

Discussion
Minor concern, 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)
 * Fixed. —Quiddity (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The only changes I would suggest, are to the 2nd and 3rd link in the final section: HTH. —Quiddity (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "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 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.

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 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 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 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.  J N  466  06:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. 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)
 * 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, agreeing with Tom Morris' edit, which was reverted.
 * At 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 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.  J N  466  12:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.  J N  466  08:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points:
 * I want to report a problem with an article: this links to Contact us/Article problem, which has now been redirected as part of the new rewrite of Contact us. It's now been broken up into Contact us - Readers and Contact us - Subjects.
 * 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.


 * I have another question about Wikipedia: do we want to finish this with a link to Contact us? Andrew Gray (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Less sure about this, I think we've covered the main reasons for contact under "report a problem", and "Contact Wikipedia" is still listed in the sidebar. the wub "?!"  23:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * 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)

Thanks everyone who commented, and Armbrust for the closure. I've implemented the change. the wub "?!"  12:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The old contents system is now under Help:Contents/Browse. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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&zwj;水 10:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

Merge with New contributors' help page
Can this page be merged with New contributors' help page? This help page has been made almost to match New contributors' help page and perhaps now that page can redirect to here. Thoughts?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   13:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That would fit well with the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * (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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.131.23 (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggested wording change
Hi, I suggest

"That's great, Wikipedia always welcomes new contributors!"

instead of the present

"That's great, Wikipedia could always use more contributors!"

86.176.209.22 (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds better. 86.176.209.22 (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer the original personally. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I should say, of course, "It sounds better to me". To me, "could always use more contributors" sounds less like anyone cares much, or, alternatively, more like Wikipedia is in trouble. 86.176.209.22 (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, it sounds like it's inviting you in. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Restored Tip of the Day
This is a good standard location for the tip, where people have known where to find it for years. It is at the bottom of the page, so it is otherwise out of the way. The tip is designed as a template that users can place on their own user or user talk pages. But they will never know about it if they never see it. The Transhumanist 09:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat my reasoning from above: "The vast majority of people coming to Help:Contents are looking for help with something specific, rather than a random tip however useful it may be. The tips also vary widely in quality, with some of them being outdated (e.g. 1, 2). And it takes up a large (and variable) amount of space on the page." Tip of the Day is a nice project, but I don't think having it in this location is a good idea. the wub "?!"  12:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The tip of the day is already highly visible at the community portal. Users looking for help are unlikely to want the tip of the day, which is quite specific in nature. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Why must it be so hard to edit as an IP
I understand that you get a lot of vandals but must it really be so hard and frustrating to edit without an account? I recently added a couple of URL's to discussions and articles and in each case I was asked for a Captcha from 3 to 7 times to add a link. Here is what I recommend: Eliminate the captcha for adding references. Requiring a captcha for this is discouraging the use of references and is causing IP's to just remove them when they hit save. I almost did it myself. 138.162.0.41 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a bit off-topic here, see here. Anyway, allowing IP additions of external links without captcha is not an option, since it would open the gates for spambots. You can fix your problem very easily by creating an account. That also makes you more anonymous, people can't find out within seconds who you work for. &mdash;&thinsp;H HHIPPO  08:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Need for simple instructions on how to edit a page
Per some discussion on Jimbo's talk page, I've become aware of a need for this page to give a direct link to a set of simple instructions on how to edit an article. Help:Editing attempts to be that, I think, but it is too complicated. I have sketched out what I think this should look like at User:Looie496/Editing help, and would welcome comments or suggestions. Looie496 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally refer students and younger editors (to all new editors in general really) to Tutorial/Editing - nice and simple. We could also just add an article creation box - so editors dont get stuck having to go to page after page before they give up. --Moxy (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd much rather send new users to the Article wizard for that, otherwise their new page is almost certainly going to be CSD'd -- John of Reading (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Tutorial/Editing is actually quite similar to the thing I sketched out. What we need is a way to send people directly to it from here, as a top-level item.  ("Want to know how to edit a Wikipedia page?  Go here!")  Article creation is a separate topic. Looie496 (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree its the best place - Your first article is overwhelming if you just want to know how to edit an exciting  page and "Getting started" just takes you on a page surfing ride.  Proposal below to simply add see how to edit a page

";I want to learn more about editing Wikipedia

That's great, Wikipedia could always use more contributors, see how to edit a page. Getting started lists brief introductions containing all the basics needed to use, comment on, and contribute to Wikipedia. The Teahouse provides a friendly place for new editors to ask questions and get to know people. If you're looking for something to do, the Community portal keeps lists of open tasks. The Cheatsheet shows how to edit wiki markup." ,,,-- Moxy (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer fewer extra words. How about "The Editing Tutorial shows how to edit wiki pages" instead of "The Cheatsheet shows how to edit wiki markup"? The tutorial is pretty good, and does mention the cheatsheet. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is better - I agree.Moxy (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed edit
Because the present position of shortcuts is at the bottom of the page, I completely missed them until they were pointed out to me by another editor. It may help both new editors and old timers to put those shortcuts where they will be quickly seen and used. The needed edit can be viewed at Help:Contents/sandbox. A documentation page has also been created so editors can be informed about the best way to propose improvements to this page. If there is approval for this, then I shall go ahead with this improvement. Thank you very much for your consideration! – P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX ! 15:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In principle both a good idea, but I think not on this page. This is for absolute beginners, so it should be free of all the boxes and hatnotes that often clutter pages, in particular outside the main namespace. Most newcomers will not know what these shortcuts are anyway. For this page in particular, shortcuts are not needed for navigation (since there is the 'Help' link in the sidebar), but only for referring or linking to the page. That is, only editors need them and they should find them on the bottom (sooner or later ;-). Similar for the doc page, I would put that here on the talk page, if at all. &mdash;&thinsp;H HHIPPO  19:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that sounds patronizing, and yet I shall AGF on your part. I do realize who this page is for: "absolute beginners" you call them.  Though I've been editing Wikipedia for several years, I am myself still an "absolute beginner" in many respects.  Frankly, I think that whoever designed this page with its fancy tables and CSS, to the point where beginners come here and feel that they shouldn't even touch this page's editing screen without first coming to this talk page to get their edits screened, and by whom?  The impression this page gives to beginners is fundamentally dishonest – yes, dishonest.  Even beginners can go to almost any other page and not get reverted without explanation.  It is my understanding that beginners' edits of this page are often reverted without explanation.  Your absolute beginner may come to this page and say to themselves, 'I could do this so much better'.  But when they try to make it better, the first thing they see on the edit screen is someone's little ditty about how the page uses fancy tables and CSS, in effect that comment says to the beginner, "DON'T YOU DARE TOUCH THIS PAGE UNTIL YOU'VE CLEARED IT WITH THE OWNERS ON THE TALK PAGE."  That's dishonest, because if the beginner isn't completely put off by that, if they go to other pages and check the edit screens, will they find that vanity comment?  No, not likely.  If this were truly a page for "absolute beginners" then it shouldn't "bite the newcomers" the way it does.  This page should be easy for beginners to edit, easy for them to experiment with, to try out their wings.  Instead, this page says to the newcomers don't you dare BE BOLD, not on this page.  Dishonest.  That's my take anyway.  I will leave it in the capable hands of the involved editors, the stewards (general sense) of this page to make the necessary changes this page needs very badly.  It needs to be easier to read, easier to edit, and when a newcomer blunders and gets reverted, shower them with explanations.  Turn this vanity page into a real Wikipedia help page.  I'm done –thank you very much for listening! –  P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX ! 04:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. Please note that all the negative comments I've made were toward this page and only this page, not toward any other editor.
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to sound patronizing, that's why I actually said "I think not on this page". I assumed it was clear that this is just my opinion, but reading your first post again, you're looking for approval. I can't provide that, I don't own the page, nobody does.
 * By this is for absolute beginners I meant it's more important that beginners (even people who just start reading Wikipedia) can read and make sense of the page, than it is to provide all the details more advanced editors might be looking for. I didn't mean this is the first page a beginner should be encouraged to edit.
 * Btw. this page has seen a lot of work over the last months, and the current form is the result of both broad discussion and quite some research. That doesn't mean it's perfect, but the people who did the research (I'm not one of them) might still have something interesting to say, so it is indeed worth discussing things on the talk page. &mdash;&thinsp;H HHIPPO  08:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I respect the work that went into the making of this page. I was aware of it when I made the comments above.  What I am trying to say, and not doing very well at it, is that since this page is linked from all WP pages' sidebars, it is one of the more important pages in this encyclopedia.  My suggestion is only to rethink it, and go back to using the page at /Browse while doing so.  This page seems to slap newcomers in the face too much.  Also, I deal a lot with shortcuts.  There is no other page on Wikipedia where the shortcut notices are not placed where the shortcut links take the reader.  If the shortcut goes to a section, then the shortcut notice is right there at that section.  If the shortcut takes readers to the TOP of a page, then the shortcut notice is right there at the top of the page.  Your new editors might want to use one of those shortcuts on a talkpage to let other new editors know about it.  The shortcut notice should be at the top of this page.  Also, it wouldn't hurt to have a sandbox that new users can use to test their wings on this page.  It doesn't matter if it's the one I created, or a general sandbox like WP:SB, but some kind of sandbox would be so much better than an "ownership" comment at the top of the edit screen. –  P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX ! 20:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. I corrected the misquote.
 * Hi Paine, I'm one of the people Hhhippo mentioned as having worked on the research and redesign of this page. Leaving the shortcuts out was a deliberate choice. As has been pointed out, this page can be accessed from anywhere on Wikipedia with one click in the sidebar, so the shortcuts aren't as useful as on other pages. Furthermore they would add extra links which distract from reading the main content. Overwhelming new users with links (especially alphabet soup links) is something we really wanted to avoid on this page. I would object to putting them at the top.
 * I'm not sure who added the shortcut list at the bottom, but that seems like a good solution to retain them for users who might make use of them. I just made some tweaks to that list to make it more readable and hopefully clarify the point.
 * Regarding your other complaint about the complexity of the page markup (especially the tables), this is something I tried to minimise but it's a difficult balance between having a page that's attractive, accessible and easy to use versus having a plain page that's easy to edit. Many people in our usability tests commented positively on the layout of the page, and the use of icons and formatting. I'd also point out that the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Contents/Browse&action=edit&oldid=517437214 old page markup] was hardly simple either.
 * The comment at the top of the page was added to address similar concerns raised here. It seems friendly enough to me, but perhaps you could suggest a better wording?
 * Finally I checked the page history, and I can't see any examples of newbies (or anyone) being reverted without discussion. the wub "?!"  14:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I do respect all the work that you and others spent on this page. I'm just saying that as important a page as this is, "beyond lies" a better page. –  P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX ! 20:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. I spoke the truth about reverts sans explanations. That came from another editor who confided it in me.  When one complains, perhaps a hundred or more feel the same way, but don't take the time to bring it up.


 * I've taken a crack at the page, including the hidden comment. Though I didn't catch which page you were referring to as the "beyond lies better page".  Which is the help page you prefer?  The Transhumanist 23:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That was just my way of appealing to the wub, whose userpage will explain it. I wasn't referring to any specific page, although I'm not sure why the old format at /Browse had to be relegated to a subpage.  As has been noted, a lot of work has gone into this new Help page.  A lot of work went into that /Browse page as well.  That aside, my two main concerns still haven't been satisfactorily addressed:
 * the position on the page of the shortcut notices, and
 * the need for some kind of sandbox link on the page.
 * As I may have mentioned, I work on shortcuts as part of my gnomish categorization of redirects. This was the first time I entirely missed the shortcut notices at the bottom of the page.  I cannot remember a single page where the shortcut notices are placed somewhere else besides where they take the reader.  If a shortcut takes the reader to a section, then the shortcut notice is placed at the section TOP.  If a shortcut takes the reader to the top of a page, then the shortcut notice on that page is placed at the TOP of the page.  If I missed these Help:Contents shortcuts (granted, they were in a bit smaller type before), then it's not inconceivable that others might miss them, too.  To "notice" the shortcut "notices", they should be placed where they will be "noticed".
 * There is something that would be good at the bottom of the page, a sandbox link. Instead of gearing up to revert the wayward edits to this page of newcomers, introduce a sandbox link with an enticing inducement for them to make experimental edits to this page on a similar page that isn't "live".  Then, when they're sure they have it where they want it, they may ask people here on the talk page to give their opinions of the page.  Let's face it, no matter how well the editpage comment is reworded, it will still say to the newcomer, "This page has 'owners', and you better not cross them."  You and I know that it's just a perception, not a truth, but a newcomer might perceive it as the latter. –  P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX ! 00:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The old browse page set suffered from lack of maintenance. And some of its subpages were just too cluttered to be helpful to beginners (Information overload causes stress). The help system was biting newcomers.  It was overdue for an overhaul (and still is).  Replacing just the main help page was like slapping a bandaid on it.  Much remains to be done.
 * I have mixed feelings about the shortcut issue with respect to this page. On the one hand having it at the bottom isn't standard. But on the other hand, having it top right would clutter the format and compete with the search box.  The shortcuts may confuse absolute beginners. Meanwhile, "Help" is included in the sidebar menu and is accessible from every page on Wikipedia, rendering shortcuts to this page unnecessary.
 * My opinion of the sandbox is that you should just be bold and slap one on there. Perhaps start it out as an exact copy of the help page (and see how it morphs from there). The Transhumanist 01:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's true that saying "a lot of work has gone into" a page seems questionable, since that can be said about most every page. The /sandbox page shows the usage of the shortcut-l template that puts the shortcuts notice box on the left side of the page.  I disagree that the sidebar placement of a page negates the need for shortcuts, which are used within text on talk pages, project pages, etc., to instantly guide someone to a page or section of a page.  The alternative would be to always say, "Just click on the Help link in the sidebar on the left side of this page to..."  Then the reader has to find the link rather than just click on the instantly available shortcut link.  Every shortcuts notice box links to Shortcut precisely to dispel confusion.  Thank you for your suggestion on the sandbox.  Maybe I'll spiff it up a little when I have more time.  A different sandbox notice at the top is necessary, and a /doc page might not be the best way to link to it from the H:C page. –  P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX ! 02:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Tweaked it a bit
Okay, I have taken The Transhumanist's advice and rebuilt the /sandbox page to better reflect the way a shortcut box would look at the top of the page on the left side. At the bottom I have placed an italicized toenote(?) that points aspiring absolute-beginner editors to the /sandbox page (it's linkable on any page except the /sandbox page itself). Of course, I had to use the whole PAGENAME to make the cell- and header-styles work, and I've custom designed the Sandbox Notice just for that /sandbox page. I've placed a noincluded date stamp at the very bottom, which reads:
 * DATE STAMP: 04:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Any edits made to the live Help:Contents page after that time and date are not reflected in the sandbox. Thank you for your considerations and your musings, past and present, on the /sandbox page's viability for live use. – P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX ! 06:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Font family
According to WP:FONTFAMILY:

"Font families should not be explicitly defined in the CSS of an article. On one hand, this interferes with Wikipedia's flexibility. On the other hand, it is impossible to foresee what fonts will be installed on a user's computer."

Therefore, I changed the page to use Wikipedia's default font. More importantly, this matches the standard heading font used throughout the rest of the help system, as well as in articles in the encyclopedia itself. The Transhumanist 19:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Change - Add Technical Support Links
I have been investigating how users who have technical issues get to the right place for support, specifically how they would get to Wikimedia's bug tracker, Bugzilla.

I looked at how the support pages linked in the side bar under "Interaction" relate to each other, and I found that users looking for technical support starting with the pages linked at the sidebar are not clearly directed to pages that would provide technical support.

I realize that users, new users especially, may be hesitant to create a Bugzilla account and file a report, so I would like to modify Help:Contents to include links to Bugzilla, Village Pump (Technical), and Bug reports and feature request.

The change could be appended to the 'I'm looking for help with something specific' section or another row could be created, and the information would be in one cell.

I welcome your thoughts and suggestions. -Valeriej (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The current Help:Contents page is not set up for that. It is a minimalist approach, intended to be a single-screen introduction to Wikipedia (or close to it).  Anything more was deemed by the community to be too overwhelming for newcomers and therefore counter-productive.  See the consensus achieved in the archived discussion above.


 * The old (menu-style) Help:Contents page is set up almost exactly the way you requested. A link to that help menu is provided at the top left of the current Help:Contents page.   It is now called Help:Contents/Browse.


 * From there, click on Technical information, and you will find 2 of the links that you seek.  Feel free to add the 3rd.


 * If everyone with link concerns added links to the Help:Contents page, it would just grow to become another version of its predecessor...


 * Help:Contents/Browse grew so large that it was divided into 12 subpages (26 screens) of help link listings, and given a one-page front-end menu. It's an extensive table of contents for Wikipedia's help information.  For the whole thing on a single page, see Help:Contents/Browse/Site map.


 * I've changed the hatnote on Help:Contents to be more informative. Let me know if that facilitates finding desired links. The Transhumanist 14:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the Village Pump should be linked to. I went to the portal and the contact links looking for the pump (I keep forgetting where it's hidden), and then I came to the Help page. The only place where I found a mention is here on the help talk page. This is not a user-friendly situation. (I ask once more for an easily findable place where some-one can search for things like the Pump as easily as wearching for Wikpedia content.) 211.225.33.104 (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Pls see the nav bar at the bottom of the page --Moxy (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: "I have a factual question" section
Move "e.g. "Which country has the world's largest fishing fleet?"" after the "If searching Wikipedia has not answered your question". Like this: Current revision is good and that's just my suggestion. Thanks to all Help Project members. Zheek (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If searching Wikipedia has not answered your question (e.g. questions like "Which country has the world's largest fishing fleet?"), at the Reference Desk you can ask questions about any topic. Volunteers will attempt to answer, or point you towards the information you need.
 * ✅ The Transhumanist 06:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Images
I made an edit that was reverted so now we should discuss it here. Recent discussions have been brought up about readers (not editors) providing images for articles. Some situations I know of are articles on people that don't have images, have lame images, or have fair use images for the recently deceased. I have seen the subjects of articles treated with all sorts of abuse for simply wishing to change or update their image. Since 'help' is the first button they probably use to provide images then we should have a statement like the one that was reverted on the first help page they see in the section "If you see a problem in and article". Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * We have a section for images that directs people to the image tutorial and Upload wizard. Telling editors to go to the help desk or talk pages will get them nothing but the same links to the  tutorial and Upload wizard as seen here. To me its  redundant information that will lead to the same outcome but in a long circular manner. The information is also a bit odd - what if its not an image they took but can still be used under our policies? I suggest we dont  confuses editors or send the on a goose chance for information that is linked here already.Moxy (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The existing links are in an editor section. Mine was directed toward readers and subjects of articles. I think this is why so may subjects are abused. We are actually asking them to edit their own articles on this help page and then everyone jumps down their throats for being COI. That is why we need a version for readers and subjects that don't want to edit or upload but just provide images for us to do it for them. We need it in the "I want to report a problem with an article" section because lack of good images is a big problem. Most subjects I have contacted didn't even know they were allowed to provide better images. I have them simply email them to me and then they email OTRS to license them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A reader would not add a photo - by definition they would become an editors thus the other section would apply if they wish to add something. What if we just add a bit to what is there already - since the help desk and talk page are both mentioned on the page already....like below --Moxy (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sending people to those canned, long-winded, and hard to follow instructions is a bad solution. We need to make things more engaging. Other than that, sorry no big comments. The help desk still pretty much rocks and Tea House is great also. Really, you could look at these interactions as a chance to "hook" a user. Other than that, sorry...I don't plan to do any work here or stay engaged. (I am in selfish mode. ;))TCO (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

TCO (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Abaarso Tech
Not related to this page - question moved to Help desk.Moxy (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

External links on this page
I will have to disagree with the recent addition of an external link to a huge PDF file that has out of dated information. Will let others comment before removing. Moxy (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I is a 2008 copy of How Wikipedia Works which has a free license. It looks incredibly detailed and some readers my find that detail very useful. We could leave it and just add a warning that it is dated and very large. That way readers could decide whether to plow through it. "It offers specific sections for teachers, reusers, and researchers." and "a great one-stop source for information on the world’s go-to source for information." We could just change the external to a link to the article but that would just create an extra step for any that do wish to download a copy. I don't know how software works but we could also publish the entire text to an essay type page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is just one of many that are all linked in the directory with a warning at Help:Contents/Directory and also linked at our page about Wikipedia About (second link on this page). Lets not overwhelm our readers here on this page with huge external link pdfs away from Wikipedia  especially  to dated information that is repeated on other pages that deal with the topic directly. Just my opinion. If we link any publication is  should be  Help: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual  as it is up to date for the most part. As for publishing How Wikipedia Works here why not Help:How Wikipedia Works ...then a link would make sense....Moxy (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Moxy's concerns, and the suggestion to move the link to another directory page. There are already too many SeeAlso links (which we should examine in a new thread, sometime soon.) –Quiddity (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

discospinter removed my user age AND talk:aspies: please help reinstate and get properly referenced piece
I have asked other editors to help rebuild Talk:aspies (voted a keep) into a good enough content to enable the article aspies (also voted a keep).

If you check talk:asperger's syndrome, talk:Aspies and talk:Damon Matthew Wise you will see considerable discussion and discovery of evidence of pre-1999 references to such cultural lingo used by Aspies, and removing Aspie cultural. It should start coming out of talk pages and come into the public area.

Aspies around the world, who have now been using Aspies, Cousins, and Auties for around 20 years have no problem using their referenced lingo. It should not be classed as a subculture, to be hidden away, but identified as a unique cultural language and meaning.

Please do the right thing and reinstate.

I have been told this is not cyber-bullying - but pages which have considerable reason and important, even talk ones and building a resource of information AND voted to keep ought not to be removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurotypical&oldid=569577634&diff=prev — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspieNo1 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You could try creating in in user space for development at User:AspieNo1/Aspies This is actually the wrong place to ask. Help desk is the normal place.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I not want "I want"
This page would look smarter and cleaner if its help topic headings did not start with "I want". The "I want" in front of every topic makes it look like a website made by a 21st-century corporate dumbing-down team. What's wrong with simply "Report a problem with an article", "Browsing or searching", etc? Eric talk 12:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

We can link to the same place twice, right?
Hello all. My link was reverted. I find it to be a better page than the editing tutorial, which at the top has stuff about the Visual Editor, which as now that it's turned off, appears out-of-date. I also imagine that the current version of WP:Your first article tops the tutorial by actually getting people to play in their sandbox immediately. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 12:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edit was to the wrong section - not a big deal ....that said I have restored the editing tutorial as per you noticing its still all full of old VE stuff... so all is fine again. Look like there is an ongoing page move problem that should be resolved before we add links here. -- Moxy (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a clear difference between people wanting to start a new article from scratch (where the first thing we need to deal with is inevitably: should such an article exist?) and those who just want to edit an existing article. Yes there were issues with the tutorial focusing on the now hidden VisualEditor, but the correct action is to fix that page (as Moxy has done). the wub "?!"  17:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I will be going over alot of the help pages to see how much more stuff needs to be converted back to before VE edits. I am hoping its not much as VE was not around long. -- 16:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

feedback wanted on draft rewrite of "Welcome to Wikipedia" print brochure
(I'm posting here because I know the people who care about this page have a lot of expertise with helping newcomers.)

The Global Education Program team at Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on a new version of the "Welcome to Wikipedia" print brochure, which is used for many in-person outreach events like edit-a-thons, as well as for education program courses. You can see the feedback we collected on the previous version, and now we have text for a draft rewrite ready for review and editing. Please take a look and leave comments and/or make edits, as this rewrite will probably be in print for several years (the previous version was developed three years ago, with only minor text updates for subsequent printings in the meantime) and it typically reaches a few thousand people per year in English (plus a lot more in translated versions, as an online PDF, and in local printings for specific events).--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Disclaimer header
Per a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer, I would like to propose adding a Disclaimer header to the top of this page. Here is what the header looks like:

The purpose would be to increase awareness of Wikipedia's limitations, without adding warnings to the top of every page. --agr (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for advice
Respected Mam/Sir,

I am from New Delhi,India. I am in need of your help very urgently.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.158.120 (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2014
 * I'm sorry, no one at Wikipedia can give you legal advice. Pleas see the legal disclaimer. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Evaluating Wikipedia
Wikimedia Foundation has a document called "Evaluating Wikipedia article quality." https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Evaluating_Wikipedia_article_quality_(Bookshelf)

Should we link to it from the Help page, or maybe the help template?--agr (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The file on Commons: File:Evaluating Wikipedia brochure.pdf, and definitely!
 * The other 2 very-recently updated booklets are: File:Editing Wikipedia brochure EN.pdf and File:Illustrating Wikipedia brochure.pdf
 * Link them all, far and wide. :) –Quiddity (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Chupacabra
Under the pop culture section of Chupacabra...AMC's the Walking Dead has an episode called Chupacabra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.215.159 (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)