This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. I put a question up on the Wikipedia talk:Closing discussions Talk page. Doesn't appear to be too active over there. Wonder if a couple of folks interested in the whole Wikipedia Help project might look over there and suggest a next step.
Since this page is not much monitored nor very active, I went on to ask my question at the Wikipedia Teahouse on 27 November 2013. It was quickly and helpfully answered by Fuhghettaboutit on 28 November 2013, and the discussion may be found here.
Done So in early February 2014, I have updated the "Closing discussions" page to make it explicit on where such requests may be made. Feel free to improve or copyedit what I added to that Help page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Leaflet for Wikipedia Help Project at Wikimania 2014
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Greetings! I'm glad to see this project. If done well, and I believe it will be, not many projects will have such a great positive impact on the overall quality/consistency of Wikipedia articles. I'm considering signing up.
One of the first things that should be done---before any changes are made to help pages---is a "manual of style". It would standardize things like exactly how to represent variables, the characteristics of tables, and so forth. It's a big area and it alone could take half a year or so to complete; but I think it's critical to do it first.
Is this already being done? I didn't see anything like it on your main page. It could be that I just didn't look deep enough.
On a different topic, is there a "project manager" here? I.e., someone doing high-level planning and coordinating the activities of the worker bees? Mandruss (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the project Mandruss! As seen at Help:Help the help system is a bit of a mess. This has happened simply because of the way Wikipedia is - that is anyone can create pages, plus pages are divided up by name spaces. We have Policies, Guidelines, Help and advice pages "Essay" in different name spaces (thousands of pages). We take care of "how to" and some "general info page" - not policies, guidelines or the manual of style. Our project has its own MOS at Wikipedia:Help Project/Guidelines but its a project guide not a real MOS. May be a good idea to expand the page to tell all more on how best to present help info to our readers....however most people who come to this project are generally aware of the main MOS and use that as a format/style guide. We also have to remember project members and non-project members have their own ideas on how to present the help info. For example Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia has the same basic info that can bee seen at Wikipedia tutorial and Newcomers training and The Wikipedia Adventure all in different formats/styles. The most pressing thing is consolidation of current pages that regurgitate the same info in the same format that can be found at Help:Contents/Browse/Site map and Help:Contents/Directory. We don't really have a project manager ..a few take care of things like this project pages and news...but we all do what we like where we feel things need fixing or expanding. Jump in be bold - got more questions just ask. -- Moxy (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there a link to how to assess Help Project articles? Also, since many of the help topics only require brief explanation, are we ruling out length as a major criterion for a certain assessment, assuming all other aspects are good to go? Upjav (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow, WP's help/Wikipedia pages really are a complex barren of confusing advice. If there are any users here, I was wondering how we actually assess these pages? I mean, what does 'C-class' or 'B-class' mean in terms of a help pages? I think perhaps if that was clarified there might be easier to target editing to help improve this situation. Some of my own thoughts (this is more like a wishlist):
Clear division between instructions for admins, technical details, and instructions for users
Minimising links to irrelevant policies and use of unique fonts/formatting devices
Minimising duplication between help pages
Presenting instructions in a clear way without an excessive number of pseudo-steps
Using language that isn't legalistic and can easily be understood
These certainly aren't measurable, but by stating a few I hope to start a discussion with other users about what things are? If there was a way to get from C to B or whatever, and that clearly reflected how to make this system easier to understand, I'm sure there would be at least some interested users. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
We have Help:Category and Help:Categories. The latter ("Categories") is a small stub that describes itself as a "quick how-to guide". If that's the case it should be renamed -- in my opinion it's confusing to editors to have two help articles that appear to be about the same topic. Should they be merged? I'm asking here before formally proposing the merge as I haven't worked much in this area before. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
My view is that, while Help:categories is poorly named, it is actually a cool idea to have a beginners version of Help:Category. One solution would be to have it renamed to Help:Categories for beginners, or something like that, with a redirect on the old page. --Mrjulesd(talk)22:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
So I think its time for news letter ....been some time and we have a few new participates to the project.
What should we mention in the news letter??
Was thinking we need to mention Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia (A main page) has been completely overhauled - including Wikimedia Foundation brochure (also just updated) and videos (one even has Jimbo in it). What have others been upto that we should mention??? --Moxy (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I've done an overhaul of the Intro to MoS pages. I'm hoping to further update and improve the Help:Intro series and merge in some of the disparate help pages into the relevant Help:Intro pages (e.g. this and this). They already cover more up-to-date versions of all the info in WP:Tutorial. I'm hoping to eventually supercede the older tutorial, since I think it's off-putting and unhelpful to newcomers. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk22:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Failure of coordination: Screenshot updates and Publish changes button
Because nobody seemed willing or able to coordinate the updating of all the Help Pages across en.Wikipedia following WMF's name change of the "Save changes" button to "Publish changes" last year, I've taken this task upon myself. It's taken days of rooting around and cajoling, but I think the job is now completed with my replacement yesterday of old, out-of-date screenshots for all but the most obscure processes or protected templates. Maintenance list here
Will somebody now take responsibility for checking my work, please?
I would add that we have had months of new user confusion at the Help Desks because of this issue, and that really ought not to have occurred. There is now the additional matter of ensuring a clear distinction in the minds of new editors between "Publish changes" and "publish" to mainspace. I've added a note to the front of the VE guide to that effect. Where else should it go? Could it be improved? I have also copied this post to Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
So, I prefer to use a black background with green text, as it's easier on my eyes. However, in the last couple of days it's messed up. The the Wikipedia background, not the article background has been black. The article background has been white, with green text. Just thought it should be reported to someone. (talk page stalker)CrashUnderride14:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
The Growth Team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects. We will be starting with Wikipedias, but we hope these changes will benefit every community.
We are contacting your project today, because you may be interested by what we work on.
8 ideas we consider: tell us what you think about them!
We are considering new features to build, that could retain new editors in mid-size Wikipedias. We will be testing new ideas in Czech and Korean Wikipedias, and then we'll talk to more communities (yours!) about adopting the ideas that work well.
We have posted the 8 ideas we are considering. We would really appreciate your thoughts and the thoughts from your community. Please share the ideas, and tell us what do you and your community think of those ideas before September 9.
Share your experiences with newcomers
We want to hear about what is working and what is not working for new contributors in your wiki. We also want to hear any reactions, questions, or opinions on our work. Please post on the team’s talk page, in any language!
Learn more about us
You can visit our team page to find out why our team was formed and how we are thinking about new editors, and our project page for detailed updates on the first project we'll work on.
I just checked the wikilink Wikipedia:Annotated article and looked for advice on the sectioning of referencing /notes/bibliography. The article is a car crash, and technically wrong. It takes a 2007 article on a US railway topic and gives advice. Clicking links takes us to the 2018 version of that article, and that has multiple-issue warnings. Glancing at the list of useful advice; it takes us to a raft outdated (say pre- 2015) articles. If anyone is working in this area can I ask you to look at each one. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
"Magic" DISPLAYTITLE template, please update information
Template:DISPLAYTITLE: Instructions for this template, and documentation templates including it i.e. Template:Correct title examples, still refer to a totally non-explanatory help page on meta. I would have rewritten it, but I am not totally sure what it does! I suspect it searches a page for a string of characters and substitutes each instance with another defined string, i.e. non-standard cApiTalS, but it doesn't quite say that. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 11:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: It seems to say the template affects the title above the lead section. If that is the case, I am suggesting that starting with the nutshell on DISPLAYTITLE and clicking the link fullpagename, along with those unfamiliar multicolour pastel highlights, and links to non-descriptive meta sections which link to unrevealing phabricator entries, is probably... Um, I'm going to edit them all so they say this template is used to display a different title than is in the address bar, and/or when you need to display a different title than is in the address bar, use this template unless I am again mistaken. Thanks PrimeHunter. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 13:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, but it is a template at the moment, and it is documented in the template way, so I have edited it. It's just a copyedit basically. The coloured parts are now more obvious, the nutshell is a nutshell, and I believe the lead sentence is conveying what it was intended to, o7 ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 19:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
It is not a template. With templates, the first parameter is separated from the template name using a pipe; with behaviour switches, it's a colon. This uses a colon: {{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="color:red;">Wikipedia</span> talk:''Help'' Project}} and its effects may be seen at the top. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
For me C++ is a foreign language, though I used to speak some Basic and HTML. In English, a template is a temporary overlay, or a preformed base. I consider this an overlay of sorts in the output, but really I just mean that it says, "Template:" at the top of the page.
However yes, you have stirred some understanding. My interest is piqued. In the template function there are often colon or pipe char after the function name, and thus determines the route of the code thereafter. It sinks. I joyfully bleed understanding. I look up expectantly, but C++ remains a mystery, tugging on my vision, a point somewhere near the top of the mountain. I wrench myself away and continue my journey marching toward Avalon, my eyes on the ground and the horizon, but my head in the sky, filled with anime visions. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 13:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't say "Template:" at the top of the page. The page where this behaviour switch is described is Help:Magic words. It is a Help page, in Help space. Not in template space. It's not a template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
It's confusing to many users. In MediaWiki and therefore in Wikipedia discussions and documentation, a template is an editable wiki page in the template namespace. The page name starts with "Template:" in the English Wikipedia. Templates are created by editors of the wiki. Templates don't exist from the start when MediaWiki is installed on a server. Template:DISPLAYTITLE is a template which happens (on purpose) to have the same name as the magic word {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. The latter uses syntax similar to templates but is not a template. Magic words are part of the MediaWiki software at installation and cannot be deleted or edited by users. {{DISPLAYTITLE:title}} with a colon applies the magic word and doesn't know or care whether a template by the same name exists. {{DISPLAYTITLE|title}} with a pipe is no longer the magic word but a template call. The MediaWiki developers chose very similar syntax for templates and some of the magic words. {{DISPLAYTITLE}} with no parameter refers by MediaWiki definition to the magic word and not the template, but there is never reason to use {{DISPLAYTITLE}} without a parameter. If you want to call a template with the same name as a magic word without using a parameter then you can say {{Template:DISPLAYTITLE}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see! @PrimeHunter:, thanks for this informative comment. When you wrote that "The MediaWiki developers chose very similar syntax for templates and some of the magic words", you revealed the source of much confusion. Design choices are not about function alone, but also about usability. Had a different syntax been chosen for magic words, say using {[…]} delimiters (or {/…\}, or ««…»», or whatever would work without also breaking the parsing of existing syntax), we might have fewer problems understanding what we're looking at. Yes, that's right, humans also read syntax, not just machines! Should I take this up on MediaWiki, perhaps? But the magic words help page has other problems as well, which I'll address in a new section. yoyo (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Submit your proposals for Community Growth at Wikimania before June 1!
We would like to invite you to submit a proposal to the Community Growth space because of the actions you’ve done around newcomers on wikis. The deadline for submission is June 1. See below for Community Growth submission topics and session formats. Topics and sessions have to be in English.
In the Community Growth space, we will come together for discussions, presentations, and workshops that address these questions:
What is and is not working around attracting and retaining newcomers?
How should Wikimedia activities evolve to help communities grow and flourish?
How should our technology and culture evolve to help new populations to come online, participate and become community members?
Recommended topics. While proposals related to all aspects of community growth and newcomer experience are welcome, the organizing team is particularly interested in proposals related to:
Research on recruitment, activation and retention.
Technological approaches
On- and off-wiki engagement strategies
Supporting diversity and cross-cultural newcomer experiences
Lessons learned from beyond Wikimedia, and
The future of newcomers and editing
If you are interested in seeing presentations around additional topics, but do not plan to submit a proposal, you can suggest additional topics here.
If your topic does not fit into our space, remember that there are 18 other spaces that could welcome you sharing your knowledge and perspective.
Types of session. We prefer sessions that are participatory, interactive, promote conversations, and give a voice to parts of our movement that are heard less often. We welcome the following session formats:
Roundtable discussion
Panel discussion
Lightning talk
Working session
Teaching session
Conference presentation
Poster submissions. Posters are also a good way to introduce a topic, or show some results of an action. Please consider submitting one!
More information about the Community Growth space, topics, and submission formats is available on the proposal page.
Greetings, Wondering if {{Inline talk templates}} can be changed to a narrower format? It is very wide and requires horizontal scrolling to follow a line across the display. Any improvement is way beyond me & requires expert help. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I followed the link you provided, it doesn't exhibit any width problem that I can see. It's just an ordinary dab page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Fixed the link, it should have been the {{tl}} template but was mistakenly put as a link instead. I'm not sure what the best way to redesign that template would be, but agree that the current layout isn't optimal. the wub"?!"23:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Done So in early February 2014, I have updated the "Closing discussions" page to make it explicit on where such requests may be made. Feel free to improve or copyedit what I added to that Help page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
