This is not the page to ask for help.

This page is for discussion of the Help:Contents page itself, and its subpages. You may be looking for one of the following pages: Wikipedia:Help desk - For questions about Wikipedia and editing. Wikipedia:Reference desk - For questions on factual topics (for example: Who is the pope?) See also: Wikipedia:Village pump - For policy and technical discussions. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes - To resolve issues between users.

Wikipedia Help NA‑class

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 NA This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

For the last change, yes/no, make sense, needs work? Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the heading-centered alignment. Eleven even (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question wasn't one of aesthetics, but of usability (I agree that the centered content is more aesthetically pleasing).

I believe the left-aligned version is clearer, and more easily understood as giving just examples of the content found in the subpages; Also, with regards to this page going against our manual-of-style recommendations of not linking headers. Anyone else? -- Quiddity (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to develop an alternative introduction to Wikipedia that is not focused on how to edit, but rather how to get acquainted with Wikipedia. How to use the History tab to see what's happened to an article, why getting an account and using a watchlist might be helpful even if you don't plan on editing anytime soon, how talk pages and archives work. Maybe also how the administrative end of things works: how people get admin or bureaucrat rights, what those rights are, how deletion and merge decisions are made, how consensus works in general. If anybody's interested in collaborating on this, please contact me. -Pete (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My adoptees would really need something like that. -download | sign! 21:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - there is no need to bombard users with all of the editing help and info from the off, just a genle intro and link to all the editing help would do, there are a lot of duplicate links on the help pages leaving it a little confusing - but everything can be improved eh? I recommend using Wikipedia:Help Project as a base camp, it is somewhat inactive but seems to be the place to start ( I have suggested putting it's banner on relevent help talk pages so that good natured editors such as yourselves are led to a central discussion area rather than the isolated mists of little watched pages). I know of at least one other editor keen to fire the project up again... :note there's also a smaller more directed Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents. LeeVJ (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! I am a newly signed up user who would just like to make the most basic of comments on errors noticed in articles or minor changes to them now and then. Every time I've wished to do so, I've come to help and begun reading because this wiki stuff isn't exactly user-friendly. I feel encouraged by those bits about anyone being able to contribute, and advising people to "be brave" and add something. After a half hour of non-progress I start to think I'll just leave the correction for others. Sometimes I then think; well, it would be nice to learn how to do this once and for all. Couple hours of reading later, having been bounced around to a dozen pages, informed of umpteen additional policy, mark-up and guideline documents I still need to familiarize myself with, having become utterly overwhelmed by a storm of information and still having next to zero knowledge of how to do something as simple as customize the CSS for how I see the site without incurring the wrath of God, I always do decide to leave it to others!
I've nearly mastered HTML, Javascript, CSS, Objective C, and Perl, but the so-called help on this site is the most unfriendly, daunting, bewildering disaster I've ever encountered. There must be a way to get people like myself acquainted with the site and the details of contributing in a step by step way instead making it feel like trying to get a Phd in a day. Deinonychus rex (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did anything come out of this? I don't know how to locate this page, if it exists. Is there discussion of this proposal somewhere else at Wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's not a simple as first thought ! Wikipedia:Help Project is more active now and we have sorted some bits out, outlined others and work is still in progress. apart from general tidying up and fixing a large number of articles the main pages relevant to this thread stem from Help:Help -> Help:Getting started (several new introductions that are meant to cover everything and not lose the reader)), Category:Wikipedia help is cleaner and another recent drive by a lone editor is reader help (see Category:Reader help). We're not there yet but any help or suggestions much appreciated ! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 21:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Introduction 3 should mention joining a WikiProject in a particular area of interest in the right-hand column. (The page isn't editable.) -Pete (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Mallerd (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link "Other Media" currently links to Wikipedia:Media, a disambiguation page. Looking at the history, it appears the originally intended link target is now at Wikipedia:Creation_and_usage_of_media_files. Should this link be fixed? -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for not only pointing out the problem, but also researching the solution! Ideal. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some links to third-party software that can be used to edit articles would fit well in this article. SharkD (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link to Wikipedia:Tools here already. I think anyone who is technical enough to want a separate program to edit with, will be able to find that. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through the help files and saw a link to [Pages Needing Attention] under the heading of [Resources and Lists], and when I clicked on it I saw it was marked as an inactive page and retained only for historical reference.

Maybe that should be noted on the main page, and the link move somewhere down below, seperating it from the rest of the help section.

76.211.8.149 (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are Foundation-level discussions in progress of how to deal with our BLP problems - which are probably Wikipedia's biggest problem with relations to the outside world. Sue Gardner (WMF executive director) started a discussion on foundation-l (see start of thread here).

One of the biggest problems is that people don't know who to contact about a bad article about themselves. FAT52 Birgitte suggested that people with a problem are as likely to hit "Help" as "Contact Wikipedia". I ran some statistics (1, 2) showing the "Help" link in the sidebar gets almost as many hits as the "Contact Wikipedia" link. And noted I'd be mentioning it here.

So. Given a reader's idea of "help" may not match our prior neat categories of what we want to offer as "help" ... I think we really should try a link at the top of the "help" page to Wikipedia:Contact us and Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem.

I realise the page is cluttered as it is (and could do with reorganisation), but this is a serious problem and these could be really useful to the reader. - David Gerard (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to have a stab at it, or suggest a specific location. I don't think many people are watching this page (sadly). eg. would you suggest within this page somewhere (you say "at the top", but might under the "Communication in the project" header be ok?), or in the {{WP help pages (header bar)}} somewhere? I've made an initial go of it...

I left a suggestion for a potential merge/overhaul between Wikipedia:Questions and Wikipedia:Contact us in September '06, and still think that might be worth considering.

As for an overhaul here, always needed. I still kind of like the "everything on one page" we had when the Help:Contents/Site map was here (eg Feb 2006). Though John Broughton's Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia now does that more comprehensively. Lots of options, too many pages! -- Quiddity (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be on this page, and where you've put it is where it would presently go ...

I'd like to stick it at the top, really prominently, for people who see an article on them with rubbish, go "what on earth!" and click "Help!!" in the hope of finding help. I'm assuming they won't read the page - from this usage perspective, it's presently hidden in a wall of text.

I'd like to put a row in a different colour at the top, with "Article problem?" and "Contact us" in it, for at least a week and see if the hits on the article help pages go up. (stats.grok.se is so useful!) If they do, it was needed - if not, it wasn't.

The main watchers of Wikipedia:Contact us are the OTRS crew, who see it as a way to minimise or at least direct their email flood, and it seems to help them a bit - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm poking at ideas in my sandbox, for what to do with {{WP help pages (header bar)}}, and thinking of maybe something like this:

Feel free to edit my sandbox, or throw your own together. It's brainstorming time...

(sidenote: I'm sure someone asked that a link to "Contact us" get removed from some prominent place about a year ago, because otrs was getting too many cranks and kids deluging the queue - however I've searched everywhere likely (all the redesigns i've watched or been involved in), and can't find it. (Not that it matters, all experiments are reversible![except the exceptions]))

Do thy will, nobody here but us bears. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ... I wouldn't like to instruction-creep the help header. That's why I didn't just add the header, all extra words are bad until proven necessary!

I'll add a test header shortly and see how the hits go after a week, as outlined above - David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test header up. It's not ornate in the least, but it'll do. Note bright prominent obnoxiousness. Tweaks OK. The design point is to be the first thing someone sees on the page, so upset people know where to go about a real problem.

I'll keep an eye on the stats for the next week and see if Birgitte was right - David Gerard (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit in your face and pushes the rest of the items down the page :( I agree a restructure may be needed, the questions etc at the bottom look a bit lost /out of context. I'm not sure about making access for reporting problem articles is more than other questions, but can see your point... maybe a reordering / rationalisation of the sections could be implemented - say with the first section being 'report a problem' subsections factual error / copyright issue, which would make it easier to find and still fit in with the remainder of sections? LeeVJ (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The results

I said a week, didn't I? *blush* Well, no-one zapped it in that time! The numbers from stats.grok.se show March hits so far as:

• Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem - 11595 (up from 7773 in Feb and 8259 in Jan)
• Wikipedia:Contact us - 253665 (up from 232227 in Feb and down from 279774 in Jan)

The increased hits on "article problem" may be worth the effort. The increased hits on "Contact us" not so much. What do you all think? - David Gerard (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no helpful insights, hence am keeping quiet.

It's really up to whoever has to deal with the influx, I guess.

We're just a quiet valve, here. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea to consider better organizing the Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia page, since in its present form, it is hard to locate things on the page and it is a bit of a mess. Don't know if this is the right place to ask for input, but have created Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia/Sandbox for a re-write. Any help or opinions would be appreciated, thanks! --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right place to ask, low quantity of people watching though.

Your sandbox rewrite looks like a good start. Once you're happy with it, feel free to overwrite/update the actual page. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far too much info on this page; no idea what to click for the best. Can't it be clarified? Like, distinct headings - help for people reading Wikipedia, help for beginner editors, help for experienced editors? (I'm not a beginner, but I'm imagining I am, and I think I would be overawed by this page.)--The Early Knight (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you ever have too much information? Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 17:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that sentiment. Howcan we provide a simplified walkthrough of the core areas as a guide to this wonderful bounty of information, more like the tabbed Tutorial pages? +sj+ 11:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just jiggled with the header bar (a separate template), if anyone wants to take a look. Template:WP help pages (header bar).--Kotniski (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

makes alittle more sense, cheers. L∴V 20:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:FAQ/categories has the following statement:

"When using the search box, it is possible to restrict your search to articles in a particular category. To do this, just add +incategory:"CategoryName" to the search string."

I'm not quite sure how this works. I didn't get any results when I did a search for:

+incategory:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases discrimination

I must be doing this wrong. Can you add an example of a properly-formatted search to that sentence? Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 04:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The linked example to do this at Wikipedia:Searching is also not working. I would hazard a guess that the feature is turned off. Most likely someone at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) will know for sure.--Commander Keane (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twist fan and Jeannieb's recent posts are examples of the influx of topics on this talk page that I think are new article requests. I am not sure why they are posted to this page, maybe there is some misleading documentation somewhere? Perhaps someone can add an edit notice or warning on this talk page to avoid these kind of posts. Someone should welcome and explain to these users the right way to request a new article (if that is what they are trying to do).--Commander Keane (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by Wikipedia talk:Starting an article's model, I've created Template:Editnotices/Page/Help talk:Contents. Might help a little. Rd232 ^talk 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there efforts to synchronize these pages with help pages on meta, MediaWiki, and other major language-projects? For instance, there are only Help site map equivalents on a few language editions of Wikipedia. There is a lot of information here, and it's not clear that newbies find it friendly (cf. the comment above, and the feedback so far from the usability project), but it is extremely useful for long-time editors and the en:wp collection is one of the best around. +sj+ 11:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. There's some recent activity to improve our own help pages, being coordinated at Wikipedia:Help Project (just a few people currently). It would definitely be a good idea to do so, though.

I've wanted to look into this myself, but I haven't spent enough time at meta to feel confident that I know the whole Help hierarchy, or all the ramifications of bold action there... -- Quiddity (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have just unleashed several new help pages aimed first time users/would be editors, Help:Help whose first paragraph links to Help:Getting started, which itself provides links to a couple of lovingly crafted introductions ( 'talk pages' and 'guidelines/policies'). We hope to fully integrate them and other newbie help pages into something a little more cohesive than the prexisting help. More eyes and ideas would be welcome, but I can't quite decide where to link them in - a link 'about help' to help:help, maybe a 'first time users' link to Help:getting started for now..? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've added a discrete 'about help' -> Help:help for now, and modified the first link in the 'getting started' subpage to point to help:getting started... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. As someone who has been involved in the discussions leading up to this ArbCom case and presented evidence you should be informed of this motion and have the right to explain if you agree or disagree with this proposed motion and why. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Contemplated motion to dismiss. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone knowledgeable please add sections or clear links to guidance and examples of syntax to use for linking to images in Wikimedia Commons. The only thing I can see is a comment that the same syntax works for Commons as for WP, but this is clearly not the case, it just does not work. Even adding "commons:" into the link makes no difference. Can someone please explain how to do it, and put the explanation and examples in an easily found place. Thanks. -- Bricaniwi (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do it the same way as if the file is hosted on English Wikipedia, no difference in syntax. In other words - it just works. Eg [[File:Frog.jpg|thumb|A frog example]] displays the image from Commons

. Now, where to make this clearer in the documentation? I suppose the flow is (from following links):

• Help:Contents =>
  • Wikipedia:Picture tutorial*, or
  • Help:Contents/Images and media =>
    • Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files*

I will add a note to the "*" pages, but I think a colorful tip box would be better, I'll leave that up to others to decide.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've tried again today, using exactly the same syntax I used at first, and it worked this time, thanks.

Is there a delay between when I successfully upload an image to Commons, and when it becomes available for me to link to in WP? Is there an overnight refresh or something? It's certainly not real-time. If there is a delay this should also be noted in each of the Help pages too, to save others hair-tearing. Also, if there is a delay, how do people know when the image is ready to be linked to? This info too should be published in the wikis and Commons. -- Bricaniwi (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be a delay, for example I will save an image here that was uploaded less than 3 minutes ago to check that it is working.

Perhaps the server had a hiccup when you uploaded.--Commander Keane (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article page name is "Help:Contents/Images and media", but this Talk page's name is merely "Help talk:Contents". Is this a technical glitch? Maybe that's why quite a few sections here are very general, only vaguely related to Images and media. Thoughts? -- Bricaniwi (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a glitch, Help talk:Contents/Images and media redirects to Help talk:Contents (here!). It has done sosince 2006 to centralise discussion. I think it works well that way, otherwise I would not have spotted your query above. You can suggest a change of course.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on a proposed update for this page. See Wikipedia talk:Help Project#Help:Contents update for info and discussion. - Gareth Aus (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]