Welcome to the Help Project!
	This page is intended for centralising discussions or comments related to the help system in general, please see the project page for more details. ( if you were looking to ask for actual help, the Wikipedia:Questions page is the best place to start).

Archives
1, 2

Contents 1 {{WP help pages (header bar)}} overhaul 1.1 Beginners / Advanced Help 2 Article complexity scale 3 In which namespace should a page be placed, namely the Help: and the Wikipedia: namespaces 3.1 Essays 3.2 how-tos 3.3 information pages 3.4 Guideline for namespace 3.5 And should we move some pages acoordingly? 4 Overview discussion 4.1 Linking to Introduction of...s 5 Feedback pages 6 Draft of general guidelines 7 Help:help 8 new talk page help tutorial 8.1 cutting corners 8.2 New editor feedback 9 Simplified ruleset refactoring 10 Discussion of interest started at the Village Pump 11 Strategy 12 Help:Patrolled edit 13 Introduction to talk pages ready for next phase 14 OpenID at Wikipedia: near future? 15 Help:Redirect

[edit] {{WP help pages (header bar)}} overhaul

From this thread at the help desk talkpage, it is getting pretty clear that the {{WP help pages (header bar)}} needs an overhaul, cleaning up currently fixed mainspace help in addition to updating help/info offered in said header template. Any suggestions on how to improve {{WP help pages (header bar)}}? JoeSmack ^Talk 18:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to define it's intention, for that I see two or three options:

• A navigation aid: reduce number of clicks to reach specific areas of the help system.
• A shortcut aid: provide quick access to the most commonly used areas of the help system.
• A combination of the above.

Also don't think it's necessary to duplicate links to anything already listed on the sidebar, i.e. Help:Contents L∴V 15:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be tagging pages with help project + forging links with other projects in the help domain for a while yet, but once that is done we can put the pieces together and form a representation of the help system in all its intricacies... L∴V 15:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, agreed. Here's something to start on, number of hits for each help page associated with the above header, simply to know what should be prominent: Help:Contents, Wikipedia:Help desk, Wikipedia:Reference desk, Wikipedia:FAQ, Wikipedia:Welcoming committee, Wikipedia:Tutorial, Wikipedia:Cheatsheet, Wikipedia:Glossary, Wikipedia:Questions...... JoeSmack ^Talk 16:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

After checking an approximating, we have this for Aug 2009:

...which makes me think we should bounce Editor's welcome and Glossary right out of the header bar. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with glossary - in these days of wikilinks it is old hat - anyone looking for this would use the old style contents system where it will still be found. Editor's welcome - all users are editors and we shouldn't have this differentiation yet. Tutorial : on a reread - and seeing the high number of hits - I am wondering if a lot of users are clicking 'tutorial' thinking it is a tutorial on _using_ wikipedia so should be renamed 'editting tutorial' at the least. If one doesn't exist we could do with a 'usin wikipedia' tutorial instead. ( Well not instead, but as a prelude to editting tutorial). So we don't really need both 'editors welcome' AND 'editors tutorial' in the header at the same time ... L∴V 18:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We should probably move this conversation to the header bar talk page (see following section ), but I am interested in how some of the issues sometime require the bigger perspective... L∴V 18:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I kinda think no one watches that template (the help header bar), but we can put a talkpage link to this discussion. Anyways, I think this is the best place to talk about full-on help environment reform. On a little digging I've found that some of these items, like Tutorial, are in many welcome talkpage boiler plate templates, thus the high visit rate. So chuck up the high numbers to other sources as well, but the lows are just pages people don't see and aren't linked to much. I for sure think Editor's Welcome could be chucked, although it is the most flowery seeming part and someone might be upset for killing kindness or something. Throw a draft down of what you're thinking and let's have a look at it. JoeSmack ^Talk 22:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops - sorry missed this reply! One way to check the number of clicks from the bar would be to create a redirect ( or use a less well trod existing one ) and point the links in the bar to the redirect for a while ... then one could check the page hits of the redirect to get a more accurate idea of which links are being used. I like the editors welcome too, but it seems a bit incongruous in the header bar - it's first line is 'we're glad you wish to help develop wikipedia' - but at this point the user may be just that and not been introduced / coerced / browbeaten into making this decision. I'll keep thinking ! L∴V 20:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you check out the bar out with Help:Contents things may start to look a bit more obvious, it is the first link in the bar so how much do we need to duplicate links on this page in the bar itself?

• First off 'help index' on the bar links to the 'help:Contents' page! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 21:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Beginners / Advanced Help

Several 'sets' of help pages ( whilst trying not to duplicate ), for non-logged in users start with the very basics, some basic editting and all the questions, some form of tutorial which at the end shows how to set a preference / edit the monobook / quickly access full help. Full help - which can skip any these startup help pages ( leaving say one link to access them again) and provide the options a new editor might need, maybe a further set which gives quick access to technical areas for advanced editors ... This would be some task but would enable us to write pages to address the needs and information level of that level of user... L∴V 18:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not quite getting what you're saying. Do you mean there should be special help for non-logged users that is real real basic? If I had to take a shot in the dark about that, what of Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0? JoeSmack ^Talk 22:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Erm, basically minimalised help that is accessable from main screen, advanced help covering more issues, somehow switchable. I should probably concentrate on grokking how the system currently fits together before coming up with madcap ideas ! ( The article wizard looks promising - and it is being developed at great speed recently )!L∴V

Gah, have you looked around? So much of it is just garbage, there is very little maintenance in the help part of EN. JoeSmack ^Talk 22:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, its scary out there, but there are some dedicated editors improving it over time, so I dread to think what it was like a year ago! L∴V 13:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've refined my opinion slightly on this - I was slightly picturing two articles with differing levels of detail for some of the help subjects, but a help on article on a particular subject should be able to be written so that it starts off easy and goes into further details later - allowing readers to read to their own level. L∴V 12:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Changed my opinoin - besides the into / tutorial pages perform this function Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article complexity scale

Perhaps some sort of scale, like this vandalism one, might be a good idea. I think this would help set a target audience for each page and potentially help provide a sense of a cohesive system - help here has always been a collection of interwoven yet fairly disparate pages. If it was on the "article" page (as opposed to the talk page) it may also help users feel more comfortable and assist their navigation around the system, albeit at the cost of adding clutter and the question of whether users would really find it useful. Gareth Aus (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I kinda like the idea, but would it be accepted to be placed on all the help pages ? something would be good to indicate the complexity though! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] In which namespace should a page be placed, namely the Help: and the Wikipedia: namespaces

What should be in Help and Project (Wikipedia) namespaces? For example, we have both Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Footnotes. [copypasted from Gadget850s posts] L∴V 11:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Help namespace states it contains information intended to help use Wikipedia or its software and 'There is a large amount of overlap between the Help namespace and the Project namespace (pages with the Wikipedia: prefix). For this reason redirects and hatnotes are often set up between these two namespaces.'

• The Wikipedia namespace states it is 'a namespace consisting of pages with information or discussion about Wikipedia.' , and covers guidelines, policies and discussions.

That seems like a pretty clear distinction, but I am noticing a large amount of migration to mainspace. We need to track down the examples of Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Footnotes so we can go about this methinks. We need a coalesced and simple(r) helpspace! JoeSmack ^Talk 03:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's one, Wikipedia:Sections. Stuff like that should be in the helpspace not mainspace. 'Nother, Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners. And 'nother, Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page. JoeSmack ^Talk 04:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Aaarg there are thousands ... in the words of quiddity 'need more coffee!'. Ifeel a lot of these should be moved into help namespace ( less 'cluttered' wikipedia space and easier to search using help: prefix. This would be a big task and would require consensus ( there are several groups of editors happily working away in wikipedia space who might take offense if we start pulling carpets around). Hopefully once I've caught all the pages with the banner we can sift through using the hep project category? One more thing some of the guideline articles ( wikipedia space) are almost good enough to use as help, and the help pages should be congruous with the guidelines. It might be possible to have a lot of the help system merged with the guidelines which would reduce the complexity, give guidelines greater exposure and increase their application. After all help pages should be showing how to edit /use wikipedia within the guidelines rather than saying 'this is how you do it ( p.s. there are some guidelines) 'L∴V 12:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be a big task, but definitely doable. Who do you think we'll need to inform (other than the community bulletin) to get consensus so no one is jarred? Also, give an example of a guideline you'd want to move to help - this is where the controversy would be I think if anywhere. JoeSmack ^Talk 15:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we attempt to move policy pages - just noting, the example I found so far was Help:Vandalism which has no help but redirects to the policy which reads a bit like a help page? L∴V 17:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the help namespace should contain specific step-by-step instructions and how-tos, while the project namespace should focus on outlining and describing details surrounding Wikipedia and its guidelines, policies, and processes. Compare Help:Link and Wikipedia:Linking for example. Another question would be where would the MoS pages fit? -- œ^™ 02:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, forget the 'merged' idea! In fact we might actually have to duplicate some of the instructions in guidelines etc on the help namespace - since I am imagining if we get the system working correctly one could search the help nice and easy simply by only searching the 'help' namespace. Maybe we could have an infobox or something that links to relevant policies and guidelines to tie the space together. L∴V 00:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A single complete list of all the pages we intend to cover would be useful. Like a miniversion or subset of the Editor's Index. Essentially the links in Category:WikiProject Help Project pages without the "_talk", and with brief annotations. e.g.

• Help:Link (related to: Help:Contents/Links and Wikipedia:Linking and this Missing Manual section)

Re infobox/navbox, there might already be something in Category:Help namespace templates or Category:Wikipedia administration templates. More thoughts when I have time. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also agreed. I would land MoS in mainspace as it is more of an shaped/amended standard. It's actually a good dividing line. You don't have to hash out pros/cons of helpspace articles, they are tutorials. JoeSmack ^Talk 06:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Essays

OK we've got policies, guidelines, and processes in the project namespace, instructions, how-tos and tutorials in the help namespace. But in the main namespace we have essays some of which can be very useful for guidance of users - they are neither 'policy' or 'help'. How should we deal with essays? L∴V 00:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(Clarification: WP:MAINSPACE refers to articlespace. Wikipedia: is WP:Project namespace.

I'm also not sure that there is any clear division between what got added to helpspace and projectspace, over the years. There might be, but I wouldn't guess so.) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

In the same spirit as the intended distinction between Help and WP: namespaces, i.e. if it's merely helpful, technical, documenting uncontroversial practice, it's Help. If there a substantial policy element (stuff to argue about...) it's WP. Probably most essays fall into the latter category, as they're someone's view, but not all. Those are perhaps not really essays and might be adapted into Help pages, if the creator doesn't object. PS I recently edited Help:Edit summary quite a lot, wouldn't mind some feedback. Rd232 ^talk 08:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] how-tos

Category:Wikipedia how-tos are currently mostly in the Project namespace, shouldn't they be in Help? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] information pages

And now I've found another class of article : Category:Wikipedia information pages ! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And lots of untagged pages, which are partially explained by WP:NOTAG and WP:CREEP etc. Welcome to the rabbit-hole. ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ye- gads, hopefully we can crack this jungle with the various pincer movements .. will have a look (did I take the red pill or the blue - I can't remember) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Guideline for namespace

Does anyone mind if we place a guidelines section onto the project page, just to include some handy hints like the above placement of articles, here is a quick draft (please edit) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Namespaces
Pages that offer advice and guidance are found in several Wikipedia:namespaces according to their type:

Policies, guidelines, and processes firmly belong in the WP:Project namespace,

Instructions, how-tos and tutorials should be in the WP:Help namespace

Essays: If an essay is merely helpful, technical, and documenting uncontroversial practice, without expressing a particular point of view or defining policy, it might be adopted into the help system with the creator's cooperation.

If an essay is technical, documenting uncontroversial practices, it's not an essay. The {{essay}} template includes these words: Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. In short, if you find something labeled an essay that does not contain anything potentially controversial, you probably should relabel (change the template) so it is a "how-to" page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about a quick ref for project page, so how about :

Essays: If an essay is technical and documenting uncontroversial practices, it could probably be relabeled as a "how-to" page and adopted into the help system (with the creators consent). Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 12:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] And should we move some pages acoordingly?

A second and more scary question is : should we add it to our tasks list to start moving pages to there rightful namespace - I know this will probably require bots and bits, but by limiting searches to the help namespace, searching for help would be made easier and it would clean up the WP namespace a little? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably wouldn't be a good idea to be doing any mass moves at this point. It could start a drama-fest and the project would receive undue attention. Best to just leave what's currently in projectspace (Including Category:Wikipedia how-to) for now, unless someone wants to write up a formal RfC? -- œ^™ 01:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i think that's what will have to be done methinks. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It did sound like I wanted to start today didn't it! Sorry I really meant is the hypothesis good. If it is we would tread carefully... Get a list of pages that could benefit from a move. Make sure pages are tagged with the help project first ( don't want established editors first contact to be a page move ). Build up an Rfc. If consensus found start with the obvious, and then build up to the not so obvious/controversial if the moving is actually beneficial and consensus remains... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 10:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this sort of thing is particularly controversial. I've moved or merged a few pages between namespaces in the past and I don't remember anyone objecting. Just be bold and do it (once you're sure you know what you're doing). Moves are reversible anyway.--Kotniski (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Feedback pages

Hi, you might be interested in my proposal at WP:VPR#Feedback pages. Rd232 ^talk 16:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus, I created Template:Editnotices/Namespace/File (an editnotice for File: pages), if anyone has any thoughts on improving that. Rd232 ^talk 16:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be an idea to design a special header for talk pages that incorporates the feedback element - at present there are a myriad varieties of ' don't edit this page' 'use the sandbox' etc, , from a couple I have tidied up in the past - it seems the less aggressive, stikingly glaring and straightforward the header ( give the reader some respect) the more often its followed. There will always be some editors who somehow seem to not read any of the warning notices whatever you try, so might as well assume good faith and maintain clarity for the ones that do bother reading! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Draft of general guidelines

Ok, I thought about tagging project articles with importance and maybe quality, to do this we would need a system. I thought I'd try summarising some of the previous discussions and a few other ideas so we can form a general guide. I dislike guidelines as a strict ruleset, but in the help system think we should see if we can form some that may help all editors - rather than trying to take into account every aspect o whenever we encounter a new help article. I have made a first draft on Wikipedia:Help Project/guidelines, will add to the growing list of todos, but the good news I am feeling happy that most of the foundations are laid down, just a few tweaks here and there and then we should have a framework from which any new contributors or visitors to the project can find some solice or direction :) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 03:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikiprojects already have that measure of importance and article quality, we're kinda using that right? Their criteria is going to have to be something-ified to work with Help pages, cause it's normally for article space. But yeah, this is actually a good thing to start prioritizing, absolutely needed - using the ol' noodle! JoeSmack ^Talk 09:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure of the first part - I think we are on the same wavelength. I was working on using the importance and article scale built into the standard project banner/system. Importance for the help project would be visibility to the user and article quality would help figure out how much attention the page has had (i.e has it even been looked at recently! ) and then for future use finding pages to improve. I think the quality rating is defined by the project rating it so doesn't really have a standard definition. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 05:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

• Help:Talk page
• Help:Archiving a talk page
• Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines guideline
  • Wikipedia:Signatures guideline
• Wikipedia:Harassment#User_space_harassment policy
  • Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments essay
• Wikipedia:Talk page layout guifeline
  • Wikipedia:Talk page layout/Sandbox - a subpage containing a series of templates found on talk pages
• Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with Other Editors/Communicating with Your Fellow Editors
• Wikipedia:How to use your user space orphaned article (no links to it )

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)

[edit] 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:

• Wikipedia:Help Project/Introduction to talk pages/Tab1
• Wikipedia:Help Project/Introduction to talk pages/Tab2

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Discussion of interest started at the Village Pump

Hi! I honestly didn't know about this project before now (sorry!), but I started a discussion on the Village Pump which those of you who are active here would probably be interested in. Feel free to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Create a How-To namespace. Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Strategy

Although I keep getting sidetracked, I do have an overall plan which I'd better state ...it goes a little something like this... Goal: make using and constructively wikipedia as easy as possible

1. define help (overview and namespace etc discussions) and how to help help ( this project) ...ongoing and in progress
2. Provide most efficient help that enables new readers and editors get them into WP with minimum stress, whilst providing enough guidance to prevent errors, surprises and reduce stress for those that will become regular editors.
   1. Currently, help JoeSmack develop accessible navbox, associated pages and end up with something we are happy is robust to fulfill this purpose. (actively in progress)
   2. help:help - start point which describes help system as it is, and how it should be used
   3. Activate intro ( at this point some idea of structure and how to use help will be defined and we'll at least have some good examples)
3. Guidelines, namespaces, structure defined, Rfc for confirmation
   1. Tidying up moves / structure / update help:help

   (at this point we have a fairly clear structure and guideline to help page structure/links/contents)

4. Request a fortnight of help - get everyone ( users/projects) to look at help pages they are experienced at and check them vs guidelines and experience, a knowledge of structure of help system will help fix several issues of technical detail, links etc
   1. fix up any issues ( help system is now set in pixels and only requires updates )
5. Hold an annual Help event - same as above to refresh help pages and their use. This could be part of a bigger event, say a 'freshers week' where all experienced editors just take stock of the situation on behalf of newcomers - i.e the help, policies, maybe welcome all editors, anyhting to do with renewing the blood.
   1. Repeat ad infintum ( at this point the help system is fixed and self-sustaining )

Some say I'm a dreamer... but gonna log off before I have second thoughts :) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 03:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You're definitely a big picture guy, which is great cause I'm more of a details fellow. Even though we're obviously still in the beginnings, seeing the finish line like that is quite helpful. This is a great list! JoeSmack ^Talk 08:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I glad it is reasurring - I'm just throwing it down as a rough draft to work from, happy for it to change wiki-style. The beginning stages are the most important - The difference between someone who doesn't care,or even intends, their edits to break something and random good guy who wants to fix these - but doesn't want to break anything else. If we can reduce the learning curve for these simple edits to minimum it could hopefully tip the balance of vandalism, and of course wants an editor has the basics and has edited, they may catch the bug.. ok we'd have to tidy up the next stage of learning too. As you say - we are at the beginning, but that's usually a good place to start ;) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Note: somewhere in step 2/3, Help:Namespace needs to be brought into the picture. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Also note: [2] shortcuts need to be less sparse. JoeSmack ^Talk 06:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Introduction to talk pages ready for next phase

• Wikipedia:Help_Project/Introduction_to_talk_pages

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Help:Redirect

I've just done some major pre-Christmas clearing out on that page - if anyone has time, please take a look and see if it can be further improved. And Merry Christmas to everyone! --Kotniski (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Holy moly...amazingly better. Thank you much Kotniski! You've got some talent! Mind if we rope you in for some future collaboration in other help areas when they come up? JoeSmack ^Talk 19:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...(blush)... Well, I'll be watching this page, so if anything comes up that I feel I can help with, I'll be sure to lend a hand. (I think I'm now going to take a look at WP:Redirect, which is a guideline rather than a help page, but seems to overlap a lot with the help page - wouldn't it make more sense to have all the (technical) help on the help page, and reserve the guideline page just for good practices?)--Kotniski (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do! Oof, redirect needs it bad. (I've never seen so many shortcuts and tables!) We've done some discussion about help space and wiki space (aka project space/WP:XXX), and that's pretty much what we're planning - info about how to use wikipedia to help space, policies/guidelines/essays stays on wiki space. Also there's a somewhat not-yet-widely-proposed plan to have a very basic kind of help page called 'introductions' for the very new editors. See Wikipedia:Help Project/Introduction to policies guidelines as well as Wikipedia:Help Project/Introduction to talk pages as examples. JoeSmack ^Talk 08:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A brilliant present Kotniski! And I see you've been working on one for the new year too (WP:redirect) :) They're both looking much healthier ! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)