Wikipedia talk:Questions/Archive 01

re: Where to ask questions
Hi.

This page is an amalgamation of Wikipedia FAQs and Ask a question, designed to be represented by the single word "Questions" on the navigation browsebar. It is a solution to a number of problems that were encountered in the development of Template:browsebar and also in the Main Page Redesign Draft project. Since the the new browsebar was being designed to be the best navigation tool possible, the main challenge confronting us was how to get all the top-tier navigation pages on the browsebar. This meant using as few letters as possible, which "Questions" does quite well for the 2 links that it replaces.

It is an elegant solution to the problem of too much room being taken up by the original two links, and hopefully brings us one step closer to having the browsebar adopted on the Main Page.

Go for it! 22:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note the similar purpose served by Contact_us. &mdash; Catherine\talk 22:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In an attempt to make this page more useful, I suggest some changes, along the following lines:

Have your questions answered

 * First, please use the search box for relevant articles before asking a question. See Wikipedia:Look it up.
 * For general questions, ask our volunteers at the Reference Desk. E.g., "What kept Hitler from invading Switzerland and Sweden?"
 * For questions about using Wikipedia, see the Help Desk. E.g., "How do I add an image to an article?". See also Help:Contents to find answers to common questions.
 * For help with rules or guidelines put your question on the newcomers help page.
 * Again, for most questions it's faster to fill in the search box at the left. (To find the capital of South Africa, fill in 'south africa' in the box and click Search.)

Other places to ask questions

 * Each article has a Talk page — click on the article's discussion link at the top of the page — for questions, reporting vandalism or discussions about the article.
 * Village pump is the place for technical and policy issues.
 * IRC: You are also welcome to ask questions in Wikipedia's IRC channel. If you have an IRC client installed you can join the channel by clicking on #Wikipedia.


 * Note the prominent Search box, and the fact that 'searching' is mentioned first (and last as it happens). Note also the addition of the word 'volunteers', and changes in language to suggest that searching is quicker and cleaner. An obvious reference to Help:Contents won't hurt. -- Ec5618 12:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Major change
I have re-structured the page, because it wasn't working too well before. I think it's a terrible idea to join the WP:ASK and FAQ's on one page just so it looks pretty in hte Main Page redesign (usability comes before prettyness in my book). But when given lemons, I had to at least get the page semi-usable.--Commander Keane 03:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I got rid of the browsebar noblank at the top - it's too confronting and confusing - maybe a smaller version would be ok
 * I rearranged the "Good places to ask questions" section inline with WP:ASK (also added link to FAQ and condensed newcomers links)
 * I moved the WikipediaFAQ down the page - too distracting at the top.
 * Moved the "==What not to do==" down the bottom. It seems out-of-place, since we don't even give them the email address on this page.

Some FAQ pages missing?
I came here from this page Main_Page_FAQ, and was surprised to not find that FAQ linked from here. I also looked at Category:Wikipedia_FAQ, and I think some of the pages there are missing from this page as well. If I need to click through some of these links to get to a more comprehensive listing, could it be made clearer on this page? Carcharoth 10:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

FAQ to be restored as an individual page
OK, it seems to me that the FAQ have no place on this page, and should be restored to their own location: WP:FAQ. I'll be doing to that soon, assuming no objections.--Commander Keane 08:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Browsebar removed
The browse bar is confusing, full of irrelevent information. Please don't re-add it without some discussion.--Commander Keane 09:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The browsebar is a major navigation tool, that is familiar throughout Wikipedia's top-level tiers. Questions is on the browsebar. It disrupts lateral navigation if the browsebar isn't on every page included upon itself. Click on each entry on the browsebar from left to right in sequence, to see what I mean. One of the contributors affectionately called this "blowing across the top" (of Wikipedia). It's been on Questions ever since Questions was added to the browsebar. That's why Questions is on the Main Page: because Ask and FAQs (which were both on the browsebar) were combined. Please don't remove it again without discussion. It takes the formation of a new consensus to remove such a long-standing design element. --Go for it! 19:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the browsebar isn't confusing, because the user sees it all over the place. You but have to click on a couple pages to ge a feel for its purpose. --Go for it! 19:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Browsebar restored
The browsebar allows users to easily access all the major navigation pages of Wikipedia, each from the other. It's a convenient tool for accessing Wikipedia, and also serves as a guided tour -- the most essential pages for accessing information on Wikipedia have been included. Leaving the browsebar off of Questions disrupts the usability of the browsebar, and by extension, the usability of Wikipedia itself. The same battle occurred over the Mathematics Portal. It was just bloody inconvenient not to be able to easily get back to the browsebar from there, and it eventually won out and got included. I've installed a slight format-variant of the browsebar, used for pages for which crowding is an issue. Feel free to drop me a note on my discussion page if you have further questions. --Go for it! 19:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I don't object to having FAQs as a subpage or linked subtopic of Questions. FAQs was combined with "Ask a question" for the sole purpose of integrating those two links on the browsebar/main page. We needed the room on the browsebar so we could include all of Wikipedia's category schemes on there. Besides, "FAQs" is also prominently placed on the Help page. --Go for it! 19:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Think like a beginner - it's a lot easier to click on the links of the browsebar than it is to type these into the search box. And beginners don't know the shortcuts like us seasoned users do. But with the browsebar actually on the pages which are on it, this cuts down the number of clicks in using it by half (by removing the need to backtrack to get to it again before selecting the next destination on the browsebar). --Go for it! 20:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I did remove the browsebar. Maybe that was a bad idea, but I'll give my reasons. I am always thinking like a new user when I make decisions about help infrastructure. I was thinking of someone looking for how to insert an image into an article. There are 19 links in the browsebar. 2 are not about article: this page and site news (site news isn't very helpful generally, or for the insert image query). So that means that none of the links help this person. No I removed the browsebar.


 * However, what the browsebar is useful for is finding content. This page is unique, in that some people will want to find content and some won't. The browsebar should stay if it means less people will asking content questions on help pages. The new design with colours also helps - it draws attention away from the browsebar.--Commander Keane 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Link on Help menu
For improved accessibility, the Questions page now has a link on the top level of the Help Menu. I've also added the Help Menu colors for continuity. --Go for it! 02:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

IRC link to #wikipedia-bootcamp
The link to the bootcamp IRC channel was removed. The channel is not defunct. I know it's already covered at WP:NUH, but having a link to #wikipedia is problematical. The culture in #wikipedia is not focussed on Wikipedia - and they aren't welcoming to new users (rather spiteful at times I think). Maybe a link to #wikipedia-en would be better, or reinstate the #wikipedia-bootcamp link. Any ideas? --Commander Keane 12:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Bootcamp would be best, if we could actually get some seasoned helpers to hang-out there. But failing that, I'd say get rid of IRC as a help department link until there actually is an IRC-based help department.  That's the best I can come up with.  I hope this suggestion helps.  --Go for it! 13:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well we have seasoned helpers in bootcamp, but not 24-hour coverage yet. Maybe we could just link to WP:IRC instead - let them choose their own channel. Any ideas on how to advertise #wikipedia-bootcamp would be appreciated. --Commander Keane 13:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Centralizing discussion of help menu submenus
I've been centralizing help menu discussion by redirecting all the help menu subpages' discussion pages to the main help menu discussion page. Now that the Questions page is part of the help menu (and the help site map!), are there any objections to rerouting its talk page to the main help menu discussion area? (The above discussions would of course be continued and preserved there.) This redirect would help ensure a wider audience and participation for discussions concerning the Questions page and how it fits in with the help system and how it (and all the help pages) fit in with Wikipedia as a whole. --Go for it! 13:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah I would have a problem with that. Pages in Wikipedia have their own talk page. There aren't many exceptions. But anyway, where is this central talk page?--Commander Keane 13:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The central talk page is Help talk:Contents - all of its subpages were part of that page until I sectioned them off, so their discussion was all in the same place to begin with (and the whole-version is still maintained as a site map, which displays all the subpages via inclusion, so they are still part of an integrated whole. And since they are all affected by discussions of the overall menu system which takes place at the top of the menu tree, I've redirected their discussion pages so that nothing gets missed.  Another reason for the subpages' talk pages being redirected was because they are very obscure, and very cumbersome to monitor all sixteen of them (requires sixteen watch clicks - who will go through the trouble? And that's a lot of hoops to make users jump through - an inefficient use of manpower).  Someone actually vandalized a couple of the otherwise empty pages, which was discovered only when I went in there to redirect.  However, I made an exception with this talk page, and asked here about its redirection, because it already has its own identity and other entry points of its own.  Knowing that you've been nurturing this page, directly redirecting would have been a bit too bold without discussing it with you first.  --Go for it! 15:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverted major redesign
I have reverted the major re-design. We must discuss changes first. Also, the link to WP:NUH dropped out in the redesign - this is why we discuss first.--Commander Keane 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Then discuss. In your statement above I don't see why you didn't include everything you have to say on the design, so we actually have something to discuss. And thanks for the feedback. In the meantime, I'll fix the design element you pointed out. --Go for it! 14:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well for starters the new design takes up too much room. I don't see why it's necessary to link to all the various reference desks. What if the reference desk expands to 8 desks soon? Are we going to include those too? Also, Resolving disputes and Computer help desk aren't actually places where you can ask questions. General complaints is a desk, but you don't ask questions there. The large paragraph is probably too long for people to bother reading. It is also considered courteous not too make so many edits to page when achieving so little. You can experiment in your userspace first. For the process behind the way a major page like this should be modified, take a look here.--Commander Keane 15:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If refdesk expands, I'm sure we can find a solution. Good point on the RD and CHD - we get a lot of questions about those subjects, but don't have a place to actually ask those kinds of questions. I'll move them to "See also". --Go for it! 15:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't like at all the redisign. The page is too huge now and hard to read. The "Reference desk" links should be all combined in the same page, rather than all listed here. I would suggest going back to the much simpler original format. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Oleg Alexandrov on this one - revert to the simpler version.--Commander Keane 04:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Simple is good especially because many poeple who might use this page will be newbies. JoshuaZ 16:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Simplicity and clarity should be our focus, I agree. The previous version had that. The redesign seems to have completely different goals. -- Ec5618 18:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

IRC client
Hi, I suggest we include a link to Bjelleklang's Java-based IRC client so that readers can easily connect to the appropriate channels. - Tangot a ngo 09:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Usenet/Google group
Is there a usenet or google group aimed for wikipedians? If yes, maybe it could be mentioned here - but I ask mainly before I wasn't able to find it and I guess I have seen somewhere that such a group exists. Thanks in advance. --Kompik 06:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)