This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles
The outline of academic disciplines is an overview of and topical guide to academic branches of knowledge. The outline presents the major fields of study you might find in a college course catalog.
This WikiProject provides an oasis of order amidst the chaos - a place where editors can meet up, share opinions, and support each other with the mammoth task of help cleanup. Many of the help pages have few, if any regular maintainers, so having a place to record ideas can ensure that good ideas endure.
As one option, I have created a new category, below. this is designed to help new editors to find, as stated below, an "oasis of order amidst the chaos," namely a central category that can enable and assist others in finding helpful pages more easily.
However, this category is in danger of being DELETED.
could you please go to this category, click the link for the deletion discussion, and then add your thoughts there? we greatly need a wider amount of input. We appreciate any input that you could please provide. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's turn down the dramatization by a few notch here. There's a CFD going on. Just look at the CFD and evaluate the arguments. The world isn't about to end. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}19:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just went over the intro section at WP:About and made some tweaks, including updating statistics that were half a decade old. That the top section of such an important page (it's linked from literally every other WP page via the sidebar, and receives 300,000 views a month) contained statistics that stale really doesn't seem good, and there are lots of other issues on that page beyond that. If anyone has the inclination, please head over there and make some improvements (just keep in mind that it's a page for readers, not editors, and shouldn't duplicate our help pages for editors). Sdkb (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting to compare the pageviews at the various different pages we have for new contributors. They're in what I would consider almost the exact opposite of the preferable order. At the top is Help:Getting started, a list of other help pages that's basically a product of us not being able to agree what the actual best place to get started is. After that is the outdated Wikipedia:Introduction, with a subset of those users making their way to the equally outdated Wikipedia:Tutorial. And only at the bottom do we get to the more helpful Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia (our best single-page intro), Help:Introduction (our best tutorial intro), and WP:Adventure (our best intro for kids). Is there any tool that helps us see where people are coming to a page from? I suspect a lot of it is the welcome template, but still, it'd be helpful to know so we can try to redirect users toward our better resources. (Of course, some of this will be mute if we're able to get our act together and start merging and using redirects.) (A sidenote: all of these pages are absolutely dwarfed by views of the non-contributor intro pages WP:About and Help:Contents, perhaps in part since those are linked from the sidebar.) Sdkb (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Getting started gets the most views as its the landing page for new registered users. What we need to do is cuddle the old style module pages into one set. Despite multiple page modules being less valuable and an accessibility nightmare many old timers will be familiar with the old layout so we should keep one even if its overloaded with info with 67 pages. One Page Website vs Multi-Page Website.--Moxy🍁20:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposals to redirect WP:Introduction/WP:Tutorial and the Welcoming Committee welcome
Sharing a request for feedback made by @MMiller (WMF): of the WMF Growth team, who is working on features to increase new editor retention:
Screenshot of suggested edits module in Czech Wikipedia
Over the last year or so, the Growth team has been piloting features in small Wikipedias meant to increase productive edits from newcomers (such as the "suggested edits module" shown here). As our features become more developed, we're planning on expanding to larger wikis, and so I created this project page on English Wikipedia, looking to gather thoughts from English Wikipedians who think about new editors. I hope some of you can check out that page and leave any of your thoughts on the talk page, so that as we think about deploying features to bigger wikis, we'll take your ideas and concerns into account.
The latest idea we're thinking about is called "structured tasks". The idea builds on our previous work of task recommendations for newcomers, but is geared toward breaking down simple editing workflows (like copyediting or adding wikilinks) into steps that are easy for newcomers to accomplish, potentially assisted by algorithms. We are asking for thoughts and opinions on the project here on the talk page. I hope to see some of you in the conversation! -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)"
Good to see a post here....as your aware Miller a few of us from here have comment on the parent project page at the foundation. Joint venture will be the best way to get this implemented. We have been in touch with the design team about how pages should be formated for screen readers and those with disabilities.--Moxy🍁21:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just happen to like edit articles for better improvement and consistencies, and I tried to do so but hampered with time constraints. I earlier spoke to one of the editors User talk:Brojam, he replied, but he was busy, and so I tried experiement doing the article in inaugural American Idol season using the same table and colour scheme based on the ABC-era (season 16 onwards). I wonder if that is a success and other editors follow suit. That's why I sent this help request for help whenever possible.
The move is because that the colour scheme and template for the ABC-era Idol seasons is pretty good in terms on contrast and display and the fact it follow standards, compared to the FOX-era seasons, which use monochrome template and the wrong use of Bold typeface to indicate eliminated contestants.
MSGJ, my intention is for it to go only on pages that are simplified versions of more complex pages or designed explicitly for newer editors. Creep is certainly a problem beyond just those, but adding an editnotice for all help pages crosses into the realm of offering generic editing advice on pages that have shown no special need for it, and there might be concerns about that. I also think it's appropriate for some WP-space pages (another example is WP:Simplified ruleset), and while we'll hopefully someday better clarify which pages belong where, we're not there yet. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that makes sense. I would prefer to see a bit more discussion before adding this edit notice to so many pages. I will post a link here from VPR to make sure it has consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this seems like a good idea. It is unquestionably important that new editors understand policy, and to achieve that goal, we should be ensuring that our policies are (in some form or another) understandable to new editors. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:CREEP is a widely-recognized shortcut. Editors who are not affected by it will not be affected by an edit notice. I note the irony of fighting instruction creep with instruction creep. ―Mandruss☎21:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with having this edit notice. Banner blindness is a significant problem and edit notices should be reserved for the most urgent concerns. Managing an appropriate level of detail on help pages can be done adequately with the usual editorial process. isaacl (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl: (and also Mandruss and GenQuest): this notice as proposed is only for pages that are simplified versions of more complex pages or designed explicitly for newer editors. These are the most urgent cases. Go take a look at WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide or pretty much any other supposedly simplified version of a help page — they are notoriously barely any simpler than the page they're supposed to help clarify; the usual editorial process has very much failed to keep them from becoming bloated. They all need to be trimmed, but without a more structural change to help them WP:ENDURE, they will just start expanding again. An edit notice is the best way to try to curb that cycle. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understood your proposal for putting the notice on specific help pages; I just don't agree with your interpretation that it is an urgent matter requiring an edit notice. Also, in my experience, edit notices generally aren't very helpful at persuading editors not to make certain types of edits (banner blindness and people just not worrying about advice are the most likely reasons). isaacl (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support this a very good idea. We need this to avoid unnecessary talks and over-detailing. This a brilliant idea Tbiw (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Moved from VPR[reply]
I'm neutral, but one concern is likely edit notice fatigue. Eventually people will start ignoring it, and maybe other more important edit notices. I don't really see the benefit of adding such generic advice to help page edit notices. — Wug·a·po·des21:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Moved from VPR[reply]
@Wugapodes: Probs best to avoid a WP:TALKFORK and have the discussion at WT:Help Project, but for what it's worth, the intention is clarified over there to be that it would specifically be added to help pages that are explicitly designed for newcomers - not just all help pages, or even a significant number of them. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Moved from VPR[reply]
Alt suggestionSupport - One option might be to use an Editnotice to display it only to editors going in to edit the page (current example for for the WP:I editnotice). That ay we avoid header tags wherever possible except for editors actively about to edit the page. In the long run, it'd be nice to have a bot warn a article talkpage and recent editors when a page gets above a designated byte length an/or reading complexity! In the same way that editcount shapes editor tendencies via gamification, so too could optimising page length or readability etc. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk04:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: Hah, I misread it in haste and thought it was a proposal to add a status template to the top of the page! Please treat my re-suggestion of the same proposal as a support! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk08:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chalst, yes, good thought! Since the template itself will appear on the editnotice page, we'll need to figure out how to get the category to apply to the right page, but there should be a way to do that somehow. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk19:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have recently lost my password, and found the Special:ResetPassword page unhelpful. It did not send me an email.
I created a new account and only then realized that there is a Preference that requires that BOTH the email and the username be provided, and that my old account had this preference enabled. There was no mention of this on either the special page or the corresponding help page. Once I entered both fields, I was sent the email and able to access my account.
I think that either the Help page or the Special page needs to mention this caveat. If nobody cares to disagree in timely manner, I will edit the Help page myself, but I'm asking for comment now. Henstepl (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of Wikipedia:Help Project, a banner says: Assessed quality: 100% complete [...] Assessed importance: 99.9% complete. I could not find the remaining 0.1% of pages importance of which hasn't been assessed yet. So my question is: is assessment complete? And a follow-up to that: is the banner at the top of Wikipedia:Help Project still useful? —andrybak (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what it says, I'd assume it is indeed complete; congrats! I have no issue removing the banner from the top. Our current collaboration ought to be perpetually improving clarity and reducing WP:CREEP on beginner pages—that's less measurable but far more important. {{u|Sdkb}}talk17:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm working on a wikipedia page about Salvatore Briguglio, and I want to add an image of him, but he's dead and I can't take a picture of him now, I thought I used the non-free biog-pic correctly but I'm not sure, and I don't think I can use any image unless I ask the website it came from for permission to use it, is that right? Any help would be appreciated! Thanks. --Sodapoppers (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First time attempting to add a picture, using template from Help:Pictures#Links, and ran into a roadblock. Maybe I'm just wanting someone to hold my hand, but it seems that instructions could afford to be clearer. The admin who responded at the Help Desk recommended I go here to voice the concern. Please see Wikipedia:Help_desk#Adding map thumbnail using external link for details; my proposed additions to the instructions are at the end of the section I linked to.
Well...just stumbled upon WP:CREEP. Ouch. Instructions do have a way of always getting wordier over time, don't they? Still, I think the issue I raised needs to be addressed, and maybe someone can glean some ideas on phraseology from my suggestions, which for some novice users might be clearer than the text as it stands. -- 2603:6081:8004:DD5:6451:2AC4:EB73:1BE (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We have a lot of introductory pages, and a lot of guides and central pages to help newcomers to find introductory pages. I felt that instead of adding another page to list the links, perhaps a nav box might be helpful to some newcomers.
Below is what I came up with so far. Please feel free to comment, provide feedback, etc. this is Template:Introductory pages. thanks!
I would like to propose some changes to Template:Basic information. this would involve several changes to structure, and also to content, such as;
simplifying the titles for each group within the nav box,
consolidating some sections
renaming some links to be more clear,
adding a new line to link to the Library
regrouping links within some groups on separate lines, to make this easier for newcomers.
the goal is to make this nav box simpler for new editors, as well as easier to read for existing editors.
I would like to get some informal feedback here,. on this revised version. I am planning to formally propose these changes in the future, by visiting the talk page for this template. This post here on this page, is just an informal request for initial feedback on the draft version below. I appreciate any help.
That sounds like it'd be useful to me! A lot of our help pages are biased against the VisualEditor because the experienced editors who mostly write them tend not to use it as much. {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's the plan with quality ratings on Wikipedia:Help Project/Assessment? Every help page tagged with {{Help Project}} says "This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale," even if it has been assessed. The new banner shell does not recognize non-WP:PIQA class ratings on help pages. There's also an A-class criteria with 8 members even though none of them have gone through a formal A-class review. I don't see that this is helpful. Schierbecker (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mark historical - Help pages are not articles. Having A, B, C and Start classes for help pages creates confusion with Wikipedia:Content assessment which has a similar grading scheme but different criteria. Alternatively create a non-standard assessment scheme like Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals/Assessment. I would suggest having no more than three quality tiers.
At a bare minimum, A-class should be removed or renamed. Promotion to A-class requires two impartial reviewers on other projects. This isn't an area where an objective standard for A class could be agreed upon. Schierbecker (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Shierbecker; I could see some kind of assessment system remaining, but it should be very distinct from that used for articles. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also leaning towards this project not having A, B, C, etc. ratings. {{Article history}} does not support them. Is it worth the editor time and watchlist spam of adding these ratings? I guess the idea is to generate a list of low rating articles for folks in this WikiProject to work on, which someone found useful at some point? –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has just occurred to me that when searching the FAQ the results are horrendous ("edit main page" for example does not show "Why am I not able to edit the Main Page?"). One solution would be to move each question to its own subpage allowing a prefix search that should yield cleaner results (example). The problem is that there is no cascading Watchlist function that I am aware of, so short of watching every subpage a Related changes on the Category might have to be viewed regularly. I will cross-post to WT:FAQ. Thoughts? --Commander Keane (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to streamline the welcome template. Sdkb (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Help talk:Contents § Small addition. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Template:Double soft redirect has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
-- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)