Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Help Project/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Help Project
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Leevanjackson (talk | contribs) at 23:05, 24 January 2010 (archiving some intro talk and older discussions to make the rest clearer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Overview discussion

The discussion page from WP:Help_Project/Overview redirects to this section so we don't have to hop about.

I don't know if I mentioned this elsewhere, but I started a subpage. I find the structure and navigating the help system quite a headache so am trying different ways of visualising it. I should probably be doing this sort of thing in my userspace, but if I put it here it may help the future if my head explodes! JoeSmack and rd232 (and others), I know you are both into this sort of thing as well,so please feel free to have a look/edit! Currently Wikipedia:Help_Project/Overview#Possible_Nav_Box is looking hopeful - I took help:contents main page, stripped the links down into sections, and have added a few directly related FAQs to order - it is currently in a left-hand info box style, which might work but the structure breakdown is the essential element (as it could be converted to a different format). Have a look, you'll get the idea... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the structure to the recommended structure, inspired by rd323's nav box for wikimedia references, its still very early, but maybe it could be developed into a full blown help navigational aid ? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, is there any way we can cut stuff down? I think simpler is how we need to start leaning, because as it stands now that template overwhelms even me, a multiple year veteran of the wiki! Get brutal, I want to see the other side of the coin.... JoeSmack Talk 18:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Its like topiary - you have to let it grow to have enough to prune back into a solid shape! I get your drift - but I think what we need to do is have a two stage nav system - A simpler one providing links to core subjects and a nice progressive path that new users can follow, giving them some idea of where they are. Another might be very useful for experienced editors to check out specific pages e.g template say, which would probably need links to most things - but could cut the intro/basic pages with maybe a breadcrumb for new users that accidentally stumble across this page. I am also toying with the notion of a help introduction, which describes the type of help pages that will be encountered, the various ways of using the help and a recommended path for newcomers, could even be a portal, but I think that's missing. I shall split the nav box so you can run in and chop to your heart's content :) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 19:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I like the snipping ! :) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 02:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I have played with the 'accessible nav box' on Wikipedia:Help_Project/Overview#Possible_Nav_Box, got extremely drastic which I like to do sometimes. There isn't an overwhelming amount of things to read now, which I feel is important. The result of whats left was determined by picturing I was very very new as well as:

  1. link leads to something no more than 2 pages long (broad overview link was 3 pages)
  2. link leads to something that wasn't scary technical
  3. link leads to something that looked nice

I also removed links that seemed fairly redundant. The notable exception from all this was Wikipedia:Talk_page. I really really would like there to be a better intro to talk pages. Note, before the link was Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines, which was somehow even worse, making me both laugh and cry at the same time. What do ya'll think? JoeSmack Talk 03:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good at first glance, will look further after some tasks. The WP:talk page has now been migrated to the Help: namespace, There is WP:Look it up but not sure about it's future as quiddity has suggested merging that with wp:searching with some others. Maybe we should start a new article e.g /Introduction to talk pages where we can be as newbie friendly as we like, then like articles we could have 'for a more detailed see help:talk page' and on help talk page 'for a introduction to talk pages see 'introduction to talk pages'. Another crazy idea I had was have a subpage of each help page, which is mostly the lead, maybe with a few other lines to make it readable on its own.this can be transcluded as the lead of the main help page and keep them synchronized in the same place. Your basic premises seem pretty good and I think we should draft a rough /guidelines at some point.Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I would loooove to see a refactoring of 'talk page' help content. We know any mavericks who do the design on the prettier help stuff? JoeSmack Talk 02:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
us? ;) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 03:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Crap! Ok, lemme see what I can pull off. JoeSmack Talk 17:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I was just about to suggest the tutorial section on talk as another option /start point when I see you have already got there ! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 23:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Help_Project/Introduction_to_talk_pages - not quite finished but you get the picture. Thoughts? JoeSmack Talk 04:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks great! I think I can see a few tweaks here n there ( excluding anything obvious ) but the picture is good - will get back soon, but am hitting the sack in 3, 2, Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 04:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Linking to Introduction of...s

I have added Wikipedia:Help Project/Overview/Introductions and Help:Help onto the project page in a suggested structure for incorporating the new 'introduction to...' pages, I think it makes sense now. Maybe introductios could be incorporated into help but I think the trade off between extra clicks and simplicity is ok. Another thought is to have a review page listing basic facts that should have been picked up if all the intros had been read - for speed freaks and those wishing reassurance they got it all... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Help:help

I am coming to the conclusion we need a page that describes how to use help, Help:Help, this could describe the basic types of help pages that will be encountered, where to go for each detail level and how to use the pages, part of this ( or the next page ) should be an intro to intros page where we could explain things like what happens when you stray from the path. This might allow for my next idea..Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 03:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC) ....Next idea. At the bottom of each intro page, we could include links to the next level of detail relevant to issues on that page. We should point out that they shouldn't be followed first time through and are there so a user who has completed the intro can come back at a future date - to familiar territory and gain more in-depth help. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 03:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally, totally feel an in depth level of help material. This is a great idea, but let's start with getting the basics out there. I think reclaiming Help:Help is keen and a good way to start moving back into Help space - give it a go. JoeSmack Talk 17:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Reclaim Help:help is on the cards ... I'll knock something up soon, just got to clear up a few things, but relevant to this it will have a big pointer to 'if you haven't used wikipedia/help before, it is strongly recommended you browse the briefest overview we can provide that will get you aquainted with wikipedia's workings and able to make comments, ask questions, or contribute to articles with some sense of confidence (link to accessibility intro/navbox)' Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 02:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Help:Help Reclaimed! have written a draft using current best links - which we can update as better ones are found, its basic, but its basically there and can develop Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 03:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

new talk page help tutorial

Much in the same light (well, i stole the code) of Help:Tutorial and WP:INTRO, here is Wikipedia:Help_Project/Introduction_to_talk_pages, basically a prettier tutorial for talk page use. The current ones suck, and suck hard. This is a draft, there's even a couple of jokes I put in, but really I want other people to poke and prod too. Make it more interesting, the layout look more appealing, whatever. Pretty please! JoeSmack Talk 07:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Short and sweet is definitely easier to understand and more likely to be read (cf WP:TLDR). Needs a decent shortcut, and we need to figure out how to link it with the existing Tutorial / Intro, and where else to add (there must be some related user warning messages - WP:UTM). Perhaps {{talkheader}} too. Rd232 talk 09:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Shortcut - maybe we should start a new category of shortcut up, maybe starting with TUT for tutorials, or INT for intro pages? Haven't looked at talk page help in depth yet. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 05:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
With an eye to where to link it for perspective, here are the pages related to talk page help that I could find Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I should also point out that development of a simple introduction to wikipedia navbox - Wikipedia:Help_Project/Overview#Accessible_Nav_Box started the development of this tutorial off, and maybe the question should extend to cover this navbox...Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm for a TUT shortcut. I don't want to abandon H as a shortcut though either. I'm for a mini intro on the nav box. Lee, i made a similar list as the above in my User:JoeSmack/sandbox! Great minds think alike. JoeSmack Talk 00:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Cheers - I have added links from your sandbox to the list above! Is the H an adopted prefix, then, maybe we should go HT ( tutorial) HI (introductory page) etc ... ? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 02:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Have gone for H:TALKINTRO, as there may be many INTOs but not many TALKS? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 03:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
INTRO:_____ is starting to feel more intuitive if we start developing a lot of 'introduction' material... JoeSmack Talk 22:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
H is, well, I thought it was established but I think so few help pages even exist that it doesn't matter. H, TUT, INT - I'm thinking now we should go with just one and work with it, not have many separate abbrevs. JoeSmack Talk 17:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Now its sunk in. INTRO:TALK looks best for this ( and similar ), as for the others .. shouldn't H: get extended to HELP: automatically, this would make other shortcuts automagic?Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 02:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, INTRO: just feels right. As per the H: ---> Help: automagic, from my testing the courtesy hasn't been extended to help space like WP ---> Wikipedia:. JoeSmack Talk 07:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Just made a few edit/suggestions a couple more thoughts before I sleep..Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 05:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we should include something about remaining civil in there somewhere.
I'm going to make a simplified ruleset intro and civility will be in there. I think also it is granted not to be a dick, and we shouldn't have to spell it out in the talk page intro. JoeSmack Talk 18:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • We should try to make each page have roughly the same amount of content, nay make them the same length so the bottom border doesn't jump around.
  • I really like the way the 'new messages' screenshot overlaps the text box.
  • Another thing we might talk about is the things that appear on a talk page, that won't have been seen browsing normal articles - notices, archives, project banners for example...
I think that generally a new editor can see those exist without needing to know where they belong or how to edit them, it's not simple enough. JoeSmack Talk 18:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
We should really keep text and information to a minimum, and resist the temptation to explain everything. Notices, banners, archives should be self-explanatory enough. It might be useful to clearly separate the behavioural guidelines from the technical; the behavioural stuff can be added to the first tab I think, it doesn't need a lot of text, maybe just a sentence in the first paragraph. Rd232 talk 08:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I have just moved the pages to named pages ( so that it appears titled correctly when browsing). In the process I picked a new name for 'indenting' as 'layout ( was toying with 'formating' but might conjure up a hard drive!), my theory being bullet points aren't purely indenting and incase we extend coverage in future. Let me know the preferred name and I'll fix if required. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 03:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, good call. I was thinking the same about bullets, so that fixes that nicely. JoeSmack Talk 18:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I am having secong thoughts on the title of these pages- i.e. Tutorial, when we don't really get the user to do anything, I am wondering if it should be called an 'Introduction to...' ? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, maybe we should say we're drawing a line about this now. Perhaps an 'introduction' is the new new editor stuff? Can we make this distinction from now on? JoeSmack Talk 22:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite get it, do you mean this and other bits in the offing ( like the simplified ruleset) are introduction ? or did you want to clarify the distinction further ? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 23:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
If we are reclaiming/organizing the Help space, and eventually if we're making tiers (a beginner & advanced form) of help pages, then as we make the beginner stuff it might help to say 'from now on, all super-green-new-editor stuff is called introduction'. JoeSmack Talk 22:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 15:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

cutting corners

  • I am toying with making the corners of the tabs and pages rounded, not sure if its possible but initial experiments ( not committed) looked visually appealing.
Let's see it, i'm interested. JoeSmack Talk 18:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Have successfully rounded the top of the tabs - phew templates/translclusions : future reference/reverting added '-moz-border-radius-topleft: 1em; -moz-border-radius-topright: 1em; -webkit-border-radius-topleft: 1em; -webkit-border-radius-topright: 1em;' into style statement on:
Now rounded the 'next' button and bottom of each page - this is in style of each actual content page. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 21:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Other bits I played with need more work - or didn't work, so I'll leave for now pending further thoughts ... the little line after the last tab appears to be a pre-existing 'feature' ( it appears after each tab but is only a problem on the last one ) 22:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I like it, even that one corner that won't round - makes it feel like a page corner for turning or something. JoeSmack Talk 22:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Cool, I think I've worked out a way to align the last tab with the side of the page ( thus removing the corner ), it requires some playing with the templates - but is possible. But if you like the corner then I won't! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 23:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, this breaks under IE6 (im using a friend's computer)...the corners just dont appear. JoeSmack Talk 14:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm - I've seen a few issues dotted around with wikipedia and ie6! Do you mean the corners are missing altogether - or do they revert to square ones ? Also shouldn't they be running a more up to date browser - I would've thought there were many security issues that have been fixed since it's release ? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 20:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
They just don't exist. IE6 is old, and we dont have to support it, but it's always better to do so (if possible). I think it's just good to know. I've already updated them to firefox for safety though. ;) JoeSmack Talk 13:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Feel finished?

Well, how do we feel about Wikipedia:Help_Project/Introduction_to_talk_pages now? Does it feel pretty final draftish? JoeSmack Talk 20:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It feels good enough to move on to finding a place for it and over bits, further tweaks may be just minor, I still have to test out these rounded corners, will see if I can create some time ... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 21:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it looks great with the tweaks you recently did! Now I think we just have to worry about the conclusion e.g. where we want to lead folks after the last tab...to talk page guidelines? help desk? experiment page? where? JoeSmack Talk 22:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
A novel concept for wikipedia - but how about nowhere! We could end the page with something like 'You now have enough information to get involved with any conversations, if, in the future you would like further information start Help:talk pageshere' and remove last 'next' button. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Or return to the place from which you would encounter this if read in order.. i.e. the simplified navbox overview, this would allow users to browse similar level intros - once we've made them ! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 02:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess I don't care that much one way or the other, but I would say whichever is simplier/less likely to break is better. JoeSmack Talk 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

JoeSmack, I went over it as you asked and I changed a few minor things, but I was wonder about:

  • {{tb}}
  • {{outdent}}
  • A user talk page example as well? I know that would be hard without explaining talkbacks and stuff, though

Anyhow, great job!-- fetchcomms☛ 00:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for the changes, i like em! Much more warm. Generally, {{tb}} and {{outdent}} are intermediate talk page devises, and ideally we want the tutorial to be as simple as possible for the very new. Although, if you'll see Help:Talk could certainly gain from such bits of info... We might be able to include a user talk page as well, but again preference should be on the simple. JoeSmack Talk 00:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Very well, I was assuming that would be the case. I hope the project continues well! If you want me to look over stuff some more, talk page or IRC is fine:)-- fetchcomms☛ 04:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

New editor feedback

So I'm slowly getting family to comment on the guide this thanksgiving break, and the first was a classic Mom test (which SHOULD have an article, heh). She's 55 and hasn't edited more than a couple of pages (but uses a computer a lot), so she's a target demographic for the introductions. Some of her feedback included that she missed that there were multiple tabs/pages to the intro. She wanted a 'next' and 'previous' tab at the top and bottom so she wouldn't miss that there was more than one page. She wanted to 'close the guide at the thing that looked like code' (wikisyntax) - perhaps something at the start that said it WASN'T programming code she thought would help. She wanted the last tab changed to 'summary', which could be skipped to and stood alone. I'll bring it around to my aunts around to it next. Helpful? JoeSmack Talk 13:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Aunt's feedback - uses wikipedia, never edited, 'in my 50s', uses an iphone but didn't know how to use a trackpad on the laptop. Asked where the 'new section' tab was on the first section. Missed the next tab (then shown it), skipped the 'user talk page' section by accident. Understood layout, but wanted it to be said it wouldn't be like microsoft word (WYSIWIG). Liked the examples section ('ooh, thats nice to see'). At the last section wanted to know how to 'get out', looked for something that said 'done' or 'finished', ended up logging out of my wikipedia account. 'Now I can comment on XXXXX subject on Wikipedia, because i've always wanted to when i see bias on XXXXX'. JoeSmack Talk 14:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like we're getting nearer the target! so we have:
  • Add another next button to top.
    • Add 'previous' button to match. (maybe just a simple 'back')
  • Last tab to 'summary' - skippable -sounds like what is required is a mini 'cheatsheet' for talk pages?
  • The wyswig / wikisyntax has been niggling me - I to believe we should have another tab to introduce what is going to happen (i.e. the edit window )- they might be one already for how to edit, but I don't remember one, so we could write this in a style that can used for both intros.
  • Where to go next - hopefully we can resolve this when we have decided on how and where the intro's fit together.
  • Sounds like the tabs might be a problem - dare I say it - after all the tweaking - but shouldn't get too attached I suppose, but we could drop them and rely on prev/next tabs and a 'this is a five part introduction to...'. This would reduce text on the page.
  • Another possible remedy is supplying an 'all on one page' link - this could be achieved by moving text to a further subpage and transcluding it into both destinations.
Like the Signpost perhaps? That might be nice... JoeSmack Talk 15:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm ok with applying any/all of the above options. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, wonderful, let's try it. I'll get something drafted by Wednesday (im on holiday right now, comments are easy but hacking up code takes too much time). Feel free to mess around with it too until then if you'd like. I'll try and get some more new editor feedback as well. JoeSmack Talk 15:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sister-in-law, late 20s. 'I use wikipedia lots, i've never edited or seen a talk page' (also, 'whats a wikipedian?'). Thought the first paragraph of the first page 'didn't say a lot', skimmed the next paragraphs and forgot the info when asked about it later. Navigated just fine using the next links (no tab navigation even when it was closer; missed it). 'I liked seeing the examples', 'i understand colons and bullets', 'what happens after the conversation gets really skinny?', 'will i see the colons later?'. At the end said she would probably just close the page or navigate away. JoeSmack Talk 03:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Cousin, 15 years. 'I use wikipedia, but ive never seen a talk page'. Didn't have any trouble navigating, understood indenting and the purpose of a talk page. 'Felt like the right length.' JoeSmack Talk 17:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Simplified ruleset refactoring

Hi ya'll. Before this idea slips out of my brain, what if we made a WP:simplified ruleset that looked like the talk page tutorial etc? I don't think it'd be too hard. JoeSmack Talk 00:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think a better introduction to several areas of WP would be good - policies and guidelines is one of the must haves! ( I always quite like the Wikipedia:Trifecta myself - if only someone had come up with a more positive way of wording 'don't be a dick' ! )Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 03:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do! You know, I might try to sneak in not being a WP:DICK somewheres - wikipedia isn't censored and all that. ;) JoeSmack Talk 20:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Here we go! Wikipedia:Help_Project/Introduction_to_policies_guidelines. JoeSmack Talk 20:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Aha - not happy with just several things at once, eh :) Just like to point out User:Pseudomonas/No-links beginners' guide to Wikipedia which they seem to have started with same goals in mind. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 21:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
His is more like editing policies/guidelines. I guess the simplified ruleset is more content/behavioral, more five pillars -ish. Basically a combination of 'this is an encyclopedia' and 'don't be a dick'. It really is that simple, but I guess that'd be too short of a help page. ;) JoeSmack Talk 22:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I should say that my motivation in writing it was not identical to what was going on here; I have found myself asked by (intelligent, computer-literate, sensible, but unfamiliar with WP-editing) friends what they can get away with and how. I'm no way going to refer them to anything that'll take them half-an-hour to read through, or that links to pages which link to pages which..., cos either a) they'll get bored and give up on adding to WP, b) they'll get bored and edit anyway without reading the material, c)they'll conclude that the whole procedure is too complicated - in any case they'll think I'm being stupid asking them to plough through that lot. I don't think that what I have is in any way optimal, but I strongly believe that we urgently need a document that can give an intelligent person a quick guide to getting started assuming they have a couple of facts they want to be adding (rather than assuming they want to embark on a career of editing). Something akin to blog-commenting-guidelines - a friendly couple of paragraphs. The rest is commentary :) Pseudomonas(talk) 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
...we urgently need a document that can give an intelligent person a quick guide to getting started assuming they have a couple of facts they want to be adding (rather than assuming they want to embark on a career of editing). Fully, fully agree about this. This in essence is what we're working on right now with 'intro to talk pages' and 'intro to policies & guidelines (simplified ruleset)'. JoeSmack Talk 22:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
If I can boil my essay down further:
  • This is an encyclopedia - don't write about yourself, your friends, your band, your personal opinions. Stick to objective facts.
  • Always say where you got each bit of your information from. Books, newspapers, journals (online or offline) good; random websites OK; blogs/wikis bad. Give more details rather than less!
  • Copyright is important; don't add anything you didn't personally write yourself.
  • Use the edit-summary box and the talk pages to explain why you're doing what you're doing.
  • Other editors want to help; talk to them, and ask at WP:Helpdesk if you have problems/uncertainties.
  • You can edit other people's work, they will edit yours, anyone who undoes what you've done doesn't hate you though they may misunderstand what you were trying to do - communicate.
  • Don't stress too much about formatting at first, focus on getting the information clear and sourced.
(these are not bullet point headings to be expanded on but a suggested beginners' guide in toto.) I think this should provide most of what people need to have the confidence that they're making WP better and not worse - and that's pretty much all we need. There are lots of wikignomes prepared to add links and formatting and all the rest, and new editors will undoubtedly learn as they go. Pseudomonas(talk) 15:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a great boil down. In fact, this should provide most of what people need to have the confidence that they're making WP better and not worse is something I think should be emphasized a lot. JoeSmack Talk 22:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Also, just to put this out there, for explaining WP:IAR I would love a picture of cutting a corner in a grass field, kinda like this [1] but better. I remember this from college and I'd see it all the time - a well manicured grass field with a wiggly cement path through it, but a trodden stomped down grass trail cutting across it all in a pragmatic way. That is a perfect metaphor for IAR, and I'm wanting it for the guide. Anyone happen to be near one of these who could take a picture? (Does this make sense?). JoeSmack Talk 22:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. the path that ignores the preconceived constructs can be better, and by accepted use becomes the most used path ( unless its raining! :) )' will keep an eye out...And will try to make sure your points are covered in these first few intro pages Pseudomanas... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Phew! That's _exactly_ what I mean, glad it didn't sound weird. I really want to find that picture! Also, I'm thinking of adding an 'editing' policies/guidelines tab, as three tabs seems kind of strange for some reason, and we might as well unless anyone objects... JoeSmack Talk 02:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I also tried to distinguish policies/guidelines by bold/italics, or even baldly stating if they were policies/guidelines - is this an odd convention or is it reasonably palatable? JoeSmack Talk 02:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you thought it was helpful. I think as a starting point, we should answer the question How much time is it reasonable for a new casual user to have to spend reading guidelines/rules before doing any editing?. I'd guess the answer is maybe somewhere between 30s and 2 min. After that, I'd bet most people will give up and either edit without reading the rest or just go away. As a corollary, I don't know whether most people read links breadth-first or depth-first, so giving up after 2 minutes may well mean they've read 2 mins through the first page linked, rather than 2 mins through the front page (so a reader might get no further than the first few paragraphs of WP:SR before getting bogged down in WP:NPOV, WP:POLICY, WP:PERFECT - or even WP:SELF). Hence the no-links approach. Pseudomonas(talk) 11:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree on the no/reduced links there are plenty of pages in the future for readers to get led astray, ( by the way check out the work in progress at Wikipedia:Help Project/guidelines - it's only just started so if you have any suggestions...). The link at the end of introductions could link to the next level of help,back to the introduction / next introductory topic. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 15:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I like those. I pretty much like the Simplified Ruleset apart from the linkiness of it, come to that. Pseudomonas(talk) 13:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Note: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-12-07/Discussion_report#Policy_Report. JoeSmack Talk 06:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, we're getting there. It is basically full, but the aesthetic needs to be prettier and simpler. JoeSmack Talk 18:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep, your recent edits were definitely in the right direction! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm still molding it, but I just wanted to say I took out the bit on the MoS. I think it is a bit too complicated to be summarized so quickly; perhaps its own intro sometime soon would be best. JoeSmack Talk 18:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm having doubts about the editing page, namely in that it feels too glossed for a one-pager (perhaps should have it's own guide, but theres overlap with WP:INTRO and WP:T...). There certainly are editing policy/guidelines that are important, and it was included in the original WP:SR this intro is based off of, but as it stands I am feeling weird about it. Thoughts? JoeSmack Talk 17:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
It does seem a bit descriptive compared to the other pages, maybe if we leave the ins and outs of editing itself to the further editing tutorials and make it briefer as a very basic review... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 19:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright, i've nixed it. Right now it kind of looks like the talk page intro's summary page, but uglier. I'll start prettying it up though. I'm liking how the rest of the intro is a lot at the moment. JoeSmack Talk 19:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Help:Patrolled edit

Help:Patrolled edit needs some significant copy-editing and clean-up. 67.101.6.31 (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that was pretty old hat, thanks! It had little info that Wikipedia:New pages patrol/patrolled pages so have redirected to there... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 13:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to talk pages ready for next phase

Ok, I think i've addressed the Thanksgiving feedback I got from non-editing user samples (my fam, awww). We can mess with a single page format later if we want to go down that path. I'm not sure about that nav box sitting down there, but as per the introduction itself i feel like it is out of alpha and into beta. JoeSmack Talk 22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Very well done ! I think it is nigh time we let it loose into the great outdoors for it's continued development! As for the navbox, you may remember that ramble I made a week ago, but if you look at Wikipedia:Help Project/Overview/Introductions you'll see my proposed way of getting to it .. and the navbox may make more sense. I suggest having the very final buttons as 1. Next Introduction, 2. Return to Introductions index, and 3. Further information - which we can duplicate on any other articles of this class ?. --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I have added example buttons to the Summary page, a link paints a thousand keypresses! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey now! That's a far better ending. I like it. Whats next? Should we wait until the guidelines/policies is more refined and present them as a pair? JoeSmack Talk 02:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I hoped it would make sense :). You initially started this wanting a simple group of articles you could point new users to. The Overview/Introductions hopefully covers most of this now - just have to work the order of progression through them and if double check all basic topics have been covered. Looking at the 'Introduction to wikipedia' page I not that it needs work, e.g. the 2nd and 3rd pages are merely lists of links, the fourth is the tutorial. So we could convert the other basic help to fit into this framework, which would require :

  • split the tutorial apart from the intro - and maybe reduce its size ( a couple of pages could be removed if we assume previous intros have been read first )
  • Change 2nd and 3rd tabs of the intro to wikipedia - to provide a better overview rather than lists
  • Confirm the best order that intros and tutorials should be read, and add navigation buttons (next/next tutorial/further info) to make this obvious
  • Add 'a tutorial/introduction is available' to each of the relevant help pages.

That would be leave us with an intro system that fits together.. Have we missed any intro pages that couldn't be covered in 'about wikipedia' ? I can think of one are that's sorely missing 'introduction to wikipedia community' - bureacracy, what to do, projects, gnoming, where to find it etc.. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 03:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I especially like a 'simple tutorial available' idea that floats at the top like a disambig link, and I think pacing the general tutorial et. al. is the right thing to do. We can start an 'about wikipedia' - totally handle-able; putting it in the first tab of 'about wikipedia community' would be an interesting leg of Wikipedia:WikiProject_community_rehabilitation (i'm sure we can get collaboration from them). I'm firstly going to work on making the policies/guidelines a little better, then i'm all game for making that the next stepping stone. JoeSmack Talk 18:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds a good plan - I'm right busy and travelling about right now - but should have some spare time again soon to catch up properly... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 23:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem, no rush. JoeSmack Talk 05:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I've now made the last page the 'summary' page, much like the talk page intro (it even looks/feels identical except for the different pithy summary points). I've added the nav box to the first page. It feels kinda done. Thoughts? JoeSmack Talk 20:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
They look pretty funky and smooth to me, will have a double check with some fresh eyes tomorrow, my only thoughts at mo are - I'm not sure about navbox now, but then again it will help to tie in other pages in the series without having to drastically change their current style. Good Job ! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we could leave the five pillars out of the nav box now - the policy guideline covers it pretty much. Maybe we should either remove the wikilink in the first tab or send it to a help:five pillars, with less confusing caveats and links, but I think the 'introduction to wikipedia' could easily have one of its tabs just list the five pillars. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy with content - just the five pillars thing above and not sure about having links and denoting (policy) (guideline) on the conduct page, but then again. In summary looks good to me ( allowing for a few reverts to my recent edits - which are as always merely suggestetory ). next stage I think! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, been a bit slack - skidding/getting stuck and playing in the snow! in the next week I'll sort out a proposed rewrite of the second,third and forth tabs of the 'introduction to wikipedia' and continue intro intregation, may need to step back and look at all the ideas and proposals, but I reckon we can put the intro's into 'live' space now and we can start adding links etc as we go ...I would've done it myself, but I believe the honour should be youes JoeSmack! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I have too, but it's time to get things moving. Let's try leaving out the five pillars, I'm for simplicity and if it's in the policies/guidelines intro in essence I think thats fine. If we can figure out a way to smoothly get (policy) and (guideline) outta there that'd be best, but I couldn't wrestle it out. I bet if a few more pairs of eyes hit this thing it'll help. I'd love the honor of making this live, thank you Lee! :) Here we go! JoeSmack Talk 02:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

OpenID at Wikipedia: near future?

While not yet a topic for help pages, OpenID support at Wikipedia is a topic of accessibility, of making easier the process of registration and login.

A while ago, the WP:OpenID Proposal was made, but never really took off. I have expressed my feelings at User:B Fizz/OpenID and invite you to all to join with me in discussing the ups and downs of the proposal. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

radio car

hi. this is radheshyam gupta. actually i am not able to understand the meaning of radio. some times we say the am receiver a radio. i saw a number of cars in jaipur which are having a board written RADIO CAR. radio wave, radio transmitter radio receiver and so many words. if radio means transmission of any wave having frequency less than visible light frequency then what is the radio car, radio receiver? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radheyg (talk • contribs) 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello radheshyam gupta, you should ask this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk, but you nearly correct, radio refers the actual wave (having frequency less than visible light frequency). radio transmitter is the device which creates or emits this wave, radio receiver converts this wave into another form - information ( for radio - controlled devices, or commonly sound ). In everyday use the term 'radio' is used as a shortened form of 'radio receiver' (of the sound variety) and can refer to the device itself, or the channels of information sent on it ( radio stations). I do not know what a radio car is, maybe it is short for radio-controlled car? Hope that helps! As said before Wikipedia:Reference desk is the best place for factual questions, all the best. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 16:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Replacing images on foreign Wikis

A few minutes ago, I tried to replace and incorrectly named image(File:P1010049.JPG) on an "Ido" Wikipeida article on Champaign, Illinois. The image I tried to replaced was of the File:Champaign, Illinois Municipal Building.jpg, and had originally shared it's name with the file above. Now when I tried to add the correct image, I created a redlink that I can't fix. Can somebody else fix this one instead? ----DanTD (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You're question would be better suited for the Wikipedia:Help_desk, or alternately the help channel for live help here. You'll get quicker, more nuanced help at either of those places. JoeSmack Talk 02:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Help_Project/Archive_3&oldid=339812294"