Help talk:Contents/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Very helpful

I would just like to give a big thanks to all those who have worked so tirelessly on the Help section. It may not be perfect, but over the last few months I have found it to be very helpful. Dustimagic 20:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Round corners

I think you're moving too fast with the "round corners". It just doesn't look right to me, as it deviates from the standard Wikipedia style of headings. And, it looks worse on Internet Explorer. I think the round corners issue needs much more discussion on the talk page here and on the help portal draft, as it's a very bold change. It also needs more discussion elsewhere across Wikipedia before this goes too far. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 21:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what feedback it generates here and on the portals. I'll hold off on converting the whole Wikipedia.  :-) Go for it! 22:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I think the boxes on IE look pretty good. I did the spacing from IE, to ensure they did. True, once your eyes adjust to round boxes, switching windows to IE can be a bit of a shock. But without a frame of reference (Firefox) for comparison, the boxes in IE are fine. What would you suggest to improve the look of the level-2 headings in IE? Go for it! 23:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any suggestions right now. Not sure if you've checked out Wikipedia:Help_portal, which Gareth Aus and others have worked on? I think these efforts all need to be coordinated more, in the design, style, and layout, to give Wikipedia some more consistency. I left a message on the talk page there (copied below):

Maybe it would be more *usable* to just list the main help topics and subtopics, with links to more in-depth help pages. Take a look at how Amazon does their help page. They have headings (w/links) for "Ordering", "Viewing & Changing Orders", "Shipping & Delivery", etc. Amazon makes it just so easy to find answers on their help pages (though dealing w/ their customer service staff isn't so helpful). Another good example is Ebay, and how they break up their help pages by topic/function (e.g. "New to eBay: Registration | How to buy | How to sell | more...").

Let me know if you want me to mock-up something for the help portal, and work with you on improving the help pages. And, kudos for taking on the task (and the work on the portal pages). It is indeed very important if we're to implement the main page redesign, that the redesign goes along with improved help pages and browse pages, to help people navigate through Wikipedia. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 21:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

—--Aude (talk | contribs) 00:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I think chopping it up too much wastes the user's time (too many clicks). The information should be one-click or maybe two clicks away. I usually have a hard time on eBay finding the answer to anything. The point of having a table of contents, which is what the main help page is, is to consolidate all the topics in one place where they can be conveniently perused. Go for it! 03:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What's up with the rounded corners? This page is unreadable now. Ashibaka tock 03:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Let us see. Show us a screen capture. The text shows up just fine on both IE and Firefox on my computer. Go for it! 03:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not that they create browser problems, they're just distracting. Also they are bright teal. I have created WikiProject Rectangular Corners to promote public discussion of this issue. Ashibaka tock 03:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted the round corners. I just don't think it works here. They're out of place (too bold and different from the standard Wikipedia style). Though, I also think it's worth working on improving the help page. I think that's what Wikipedia:Help portal is for. --Aude 03:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Help with viewing images

I have long used Mozilla Firefox (and have had the latest version for weeks) but today I have been having problems with images not showing up, rather getting URL links in their place. I don't know (and don't know how to find out) whether this is a wider problem or simply my own. Thoughts? --TJive 04:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's just you. I'm experiencing the same problem with some images. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 04:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a relief--at least on my own part. I actually just pulled up IE specifically for this purpose. It gives those red "X" symbols in the corner in the place of images which are displayed whenever the images are unable to load. Any idea what is wrong or where to look to resolve it? --TJive 04:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I am having the same problem. In Firefox I see the image tag File:Sample jpg.but no image and click on it shows only this [1] been like that for a day or so.--Dakota ~ ε 02:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday, it was a problem with the Commons server being down. But that was resolved. Is it just one particular image that you're having problems with? If so, is it the specific link you put here? If so, the link has a typo and should be Image:Sample.jpg. If you were just giving Sample as an example, what is the image that you're having problems with? --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It was an image on a random page. I go through them sometimes to find typo's and do some cleanup. I used sample only as an example. I have had the image problem on a few pages. I will go through my history and see if I can locate it.--Dakota ~ ε 03:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

perhaps 2-3 more. Perhaps they have been deleted but wouldn't a red link show?--Dakota ~ ε 03:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the image was deleted. I tried adding another Image link to something that doesn't exist, and it too was a blue link. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
yes, I think most of the time is image has been deleted or has some copyright issue. Anyway, It's surely not the browser's fault.Unixer 14:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Missing diacritics below edit screen

The various diacritic characters, which I use very often in editing, located below the edit screen for insertion into articles, are mostly missing. Who has made this (bad) change and when will it be changed back so I can get back to editing? Caron, Greek letters, hacek, Chinese pinyin tone marks, etc. are all missing. Badagnani 09:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, the special characters are back; just click on the drop-down menu just below the edit screen (the top line is labeled "Wiki") to get diacritics and foreign character sets for various languages. Badagnani 09:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

test

A call for icons!

I searched for icons for the help page until my eyes glazed over. I found quite a few, but there are still some headings that need icons. Anyone who wants to give it a shot please do so!!! Here are some icon list links:

--Go for it! 10:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Icon vote

I personally like the Nuvolas. Compact & shiny. Here, I'll show you. Her Pegship 21:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The collected icons are good, but too high resolution, specially if they're going to be resized smaller.Unixer 14:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Icons for help pages should be small (max. 2000 bytes) and GIFs (compatible with old browsers). JPG might be also okay, if it's small, but in my collection of old browsers two can't handle JPG, three can't handle inline PNG, and one can't handle icons at all, because it's a text browser (no serious issue, it get's the alt text). The worst is my favourite browser, it has a plugin for PNG, but replaces inline PNG with an ugly internal "broken image" icon garbling any text next to it. -- Omniplex 15:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Awesome work on Help:Contents!

originally posted at user talk:Go for it!#Awesome work on Help:Contents!

I really admire what you've done with Help:Contents. Between the graphics you made and the hassle of making a new page, I'm tempted to just move Help:Contents to Wikipedia:Help portal and forget about a redesign. And to think, I helped come up with that idea! (scroll down a little from pages? here). Anyway, great job.HereToHelp (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look, and will get back to you. --Go for it! 06:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This should tak you to a comparative history of the current verson and one before you came along (roughly).--HereToHelp (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, didn't work. It's further back in the history. And thanks for the encouragement. I'm glad you like it. --Go for it! 21:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

yeah holy crow this is beautiful now! A work of art! Great job, everyone! JamieJones talk 00:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The new Help page look

originally posted at user talk:Go for it!#The new Help portal look

Yes, I like it very much! If you're looking for icons, try Commons:Category:Icons. I personally like the Nuvola icons (can be small, nice, compact, and shiny) and if we go with the bluish & white color scheme they will add a dash of color here and there. Shall I mess with it a bit? Her Pegship 21:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do! --Go for it! 21:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I put in a few but I now have to go nap...while the kids are...zzz...Her Pegship
I like them. Thanks for the help! --Go for it! 21:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

We only have 10 more icons to go! --Go for it! 22:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Another 2c from me

Okay, after all my gushing about round corners...I actually like the boxes now. I think this scheme would actually be great for the Main Page as well, either as layout or as a skin. Thanks for filling in the icons!

I would like to ask whether anyone else thinks the FAQ should be at the top of the second column, in order to be immediately visible. Seems to me that's the perfect parallel to the first first-column subject. Her Pegship 05:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of icons!

There's only 5 more to go! --15:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The icons from the subject headings do not provide any new information-- they're useless. But the ones underneath the headers do look rather nice. Ashibaka tock 16:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

TOC

This page is massive, and the TOC should remain on it. Removing it takes away from the usability of it (people can more easily find things with the TOC) and means that some people have to scroll through 6 screens of information. For mobile users it would be virtually impossible to use, too. violet/riga (t) 16:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

A custom TOC could be created as in WP:FA.--cj | talk 17:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed (incidentally, it was me that created that TOC). violet/riga (t) 17:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
(I know - I was most impressed ;-)--cj | talk 17:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have "Getting Started" at the top, and create a section the same length to balance it in the right-hand column (or move FAQs up there), and then have the TOC immediately below the "Getting Started" section? I just think that "Getting Started" should be the first thing beginners see when they access the help page. I also like the custom TOC on FA, thanks for pointing that out. Comments welcome. --Go for it! 17:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've adjusted the layout to try this alternative placement for the TOC. Check it out and let me know what you think. --Go for it! 18:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point about mobile users. Though I would expect using Wikipedia on a mobile would be nearly impossible anyways. --Go for it! 17:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Bullets?

I think the page looks a lot cleaner and easier to read with a minimum of bullets. With everything bulleted it looks very busy and distracting. So I removed most of the bullets. Comments welcome. --Go for it! 17:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Page is too long

The Help page (even before the redesign) is too big. But before the redesign, the list of plain links was very easy to scan: moving it into two columns with lots of extra stuff makes it a bit more difficult to find the exact section of Help that you want.

Perhaps we should take a page from Wikipedia:Contact us and make things in a more "troubleshooter" style? If we want a page to look nice, it should be a portal with more selective linking. If we want it to be comprehensive, visual eyecandy, in my opinion, should be avoided. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 19:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The new page is ugly and I can't find anything on it quickly.--Srleffler 04:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Shortcut to stubs

I find myself wanting to mark articles as stubs, and having a hard time finding which page has the listing of stub types. So I've taken the liberty of adding this link to the Manual of Style section. This isn't a perfect fit, since the Wikipedia:Manual of Style itself doesn't have more than a reference to the Wikipedia:Stub. Maybe it should be on the Editor's Cheat Sheet, but changing that requires making a change in Meta, and I'm not familiar with that. So I'll put it where I'd like to see it, and I'll let you who are more deeply involved with improving the Help pages improve it if you see fit. Thanks for your work on this. --Jdlh | Talk 07:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: Help:Contents is a protected page, so clearly I'm out of my depth editing it. I'll just content myself suggesting that this page get a link of the form: "Marking articles as [[WP:STUB|stubs]] ([[WP:STUBS|List of Stub Styles]])" under Help:Contents#Manual of Style or Help:Contents#Templates.
Done. Oddly enough, I'm not an admin, but it still went through.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 14:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Contributions appearance

What has happened to the appearance of user contributions.[2] I can make neither head or tails of them.--Dakota ~ ε 12:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Looks the same to me. --Go for it! 04:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone please adjust the vertical alignment on the columns in the Contents box

I can't get the columns in the content box to line up vertically (the top 2 items should be side-by-side). I don't know how to do this. Please help.

--Go for it! 04:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Got it. --Go for it! 05:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Icon whitespace

In Internet Explorer, the icons show up with white backgrounds. In Firefox, the background for the icons is transparent, and so matches the surrounding background (light purple).

Does anyone know how to fix this so that it the icons appear correctly in Internet Explorer?

--Go for it! 05:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

See also:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#Icons on the Help page need help. -- Ec5618 22:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Smaller table of contents

Would anyone object to the font and images in the table of contents being reduced to slightly more than half their current size? -- Ec5618 22:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If anyone can figure out a way to do this, I'll support it.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I tried doing that yesterday, but was reverted. I'll try again. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I also suggest removing the icons from the TOC, and replacing them with simple bullet points. Agree with me? disagree? Any thoughts --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
While I don't mind the icons in the actual sections (they give each section some character), I find they clutter up the table of contents, while adding little. I do worry though that removing the icons will cause the space between elements to disappear. They really should be spaced.
The current layout looks a little off, presumably because of the lack of space on the left hand side. Perhaps someone should add colons in front of each item (one each, and an asterisk for bulleting, should suffice). That someone could also remove the superfluous {{FULLPAGENAME}} code from each link, as it isn't quite necessary. See for example this link to another subsection on this page: #A call for icons!. -- Ec5618 01:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, ... I've been thinking about how to improve the help page, as a whole. Icons aren't so much an issue, but it's overwhelming with the amount of links. The only way I can find anything is to hit CTRL+F and query the page. I have begun working out some ideas in my user space, User:Kmf164/Help, with a TOC that has just 7 items and some breadcrumbs to key topics for each item. This is similar to what Ebay and Amazon do with their help pages. I think the style of the help page should follow whatever the main page redesign uses. As for the current TOC, I think we can do bullet-points while maintaing the line spacing. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This very same concept is being worked on by the Help Project. Everyone agrees that simplication is needed. --Go for it! 06:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

New users

I think the help pages need to highlight key topics and policies that new users should be aware of... e.g. NPOV, Citing sources, no advertising/spam, no copyright violations (esp. with images), how to choose licensing tags, etc. I takes considerable time and effort to follow up on new users, deleting spam, copyright violations, etc. So, it would really be nice for these key topics to be easier to find and not drowned out in the massive list o flinks on the help page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How about making more effort to promote the simplified ruleset?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's a very helpful page. Though, I didn't really know about that one... because it's one of so many links. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Too Many Clicks / Obscure Navigation

While trying to find certain items within the Help: namespace, I had to keep hitting links. Most of the pages in the namespace are linked to from pages and/or link names that one wouldn't think a particular policy, guideline, or other help topic would be under. I had to click 9 times to find Wikipedia:Notability. Pages such as Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Undeletion policy I had to click 47 and 49 times, respectively. The navigation for this set of pages with policies, guidelines, and other helpful information needs to be redesigned, and the use of obscure link names needs to stop. I'd never have thought to click Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion just to find, almost randomly, somewhere in the text a link to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. (Lady Serena 03:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

Did you fix them? If not, will you point them out to us so that we can fix them? --Go for it! 06:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'm copying your post to the Help Project discussion page. --Go for it! 06:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If I was given a list of all the help pages, I could probably build a navigation map with logical titles, and logical locations for all the content. It might be a bit of a challenge, but it'd be fun. :3 (Lady Serena 02:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

How can I fix my signature

It isn't working right as you can see from this when I sign.--[[User:Super_ Flore|Jayla <sup><font color="purple">[[User_talk:Super_ Flore|hi]]</font></sup>]] 04:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How to fix your signature – ABCDe✉ 17:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The signature option can be very insidious. Try T&E'ing it. It takes longer, but can be fun. Eluchil 10:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Why I like this page...

I just realised why I like this page so much, and thought some of the thoughts I came up with might be helpful. I think people treat help pages in two ways: (1) There are those who, while editing, think of something they need to learn how to do, and want to be able to look this up. They don't want to scan through a comprehensive list, or try to remember where they read something. They just want to be able to ask a question or _search_ for the answer. (2) Then there are those, like me, who salivate over a set of help pages that looks comprehensive, and look forward to sitting down and reading the whole lot. Then, several months later, while editing, they remember, and decide to try out, that little trick they read about in those help pages. Carcharoth 17:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Salivate? Hungry for knowledge, eh?  :-) --Go for it!

How does the e-mail work?

I confirmed my Wikipedia e-mail, but there are no encyclopedia or help articles on the subject of how to access it. An article appears to be necessary. Lottamiata 02:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You can out it on your page if you want as follows [[Special:Emailuser/Sample|email ]] you full user name will be where sample is.--Dakota ~ ° 03:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

File type.

Whenever I try to upload an image either here or at the nCommons, it always shows this message: '"." is not an allowed file format. See Commons:File types for more information.' It's a perfectly normal .jpg file, why isn't it uploading?

--Le Grey Intellectual 14:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


no help desk?

WP:HELP redirects here, and yet this article has no link to the Help Desk and reference desk. It's shameful! I've added the links, but the page was pretty before, and now it's not. I guess functionality has to come before prettiness though. -lethe talk + 20:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather than just dumping an eye sore and leaving, you could stick around and fix it. --Go for it! 01:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I noticed the box you placed on the Help Menu page. I've folded its contents into the Menu, as Asking Questions, and removed the box from the menu page. If you have any questions, please drop me a note. --Go for it! 20:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
As I said on Help talk:Contents, WP:HELP has to have a link to Wikipedia:Help desk. A complete newbie does not know that a table of contents page on asking questions will lead him there. It has to be on the page explicitly. Therefore I revert. -lethe talk + 23:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
A complete newbie doesn't even know it exists, but if he has questions, he'll certainly click on a link that says "Ask questions". And there he'll find the Help Desk. Your arguments are emotional, not rational. If something "has" to be a certain way, then there should be good reasons for the necessity. The transformation of the help page to a menu page was well thought out. Now you are trying to turn it back into a help page, while all the help stuff is still underneath it on subpages, including the same content you've dumped on the help page. Furthermore, there have been no complaints by newbies, and the Help Desk is going strong. --Go for it! 01:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, I can understand why you don't like the box I added. It's not as pretty as the table of contents, and it doesn't fit in with the form and function as a table of contents. However, my position, which I'll state here again, is that as long as WP:HELP redirects here, we have to have the help desk and the reference desk here. And not as another table of contents entry either. Imagine the scenario: newbie needs help, newbie types "help" into the search box, newbie sees a general purpose article on help but helpfully there is a link at the top for wikipedia help. Now if my links are there, newbie has to load a third page to get his help. With your system, newbie has to know that the table of contents entry labelled "asking questions" will take him to where he needs to go to get help with dispute resolution, then he has to load a third and finally a fourth page before getting his help. Unacceptable. -lethe talk + 23:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The obvious solution is to change the redirect, but at the moment, the server problems are preventing me. Stay tuned. -lethe talk + 01:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

These are easy problems to fix.

  1. I agree that the shortcut WP:HELP should be changed.
  2. The menu can be rearranged to make the most important topics easier to find. "Communications" and "Community" are a bit vague and don't convey what is included under them.
  3. Perhaps a link to Wikipedia's directory would help.


But, I question the whole strategy of leading newcomers to the Help Desk where they ask the same questions that would be answered if they just browsed the help menus for ten minutes. The help menus are very well organized and are continually being improved.

Even so, I'll assist you with the above solutions so that everyone is happy. --Go for it! 01:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have combined both sections of links in a more aesthetic manner. Hopefully this will serve the newbies well. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on fixing the problems. I've changed "Asking questions" to "Where to ask questions", which is pretty explicit. I'll have the other fixes implemented shortly. --Go for it! 01:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kmf, I didn't see your small sig. I've reduced the size of the help menu page back down, and trying to make the route to the help department links (which are already in the menu system one level down) more obvious. --Go for it! 01:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I got logged out...

I got logged out without konowing! How did it do that? I didn't click on 'log out'. Do you know what happened?RAcHeL 00:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly your browser cookie got deleted. That would cause one to spontaneously log out. --Quiddity 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Help pages hosted on meta

I'm very confused about the help pages that seem to be hosted on meta (such as Help:Recent changes). I was referred here from the Help Desk. These pages all seem to be about Mediawiki, rather than about Wikipedia. Their audience seems to be "a Mediawiki server administrator". They use terms that are inappropriate for enduser help; an enduser doesn't need to hit the word "Mediawiki" at any point. They often talk about typing in certain URLs or designing style sheets. But I can't fix these help pages to be En-Wikipedia-specific, because any version here will be clobbered by the Meta version. Ideally, I would want Help:Recent changes to be enduser documentation, and something like Help:Mediawiki/Recent changes or Help:Recent changes (technical) to have the technical details. Or even just a link to the meta page from the en page. So, I have a couple of questions:

  1. Is there a page (here or on Meta) which explains why these help pages exist on multiple servers, who they're designed for, and why and how they get copied over?
  2. How do we decouple the page here from the page on Meta?
  3. Is it a good idea if we can? Or do I need to start a separate page for enduser documentation about Recent Changes?

I feel strongly that we need some enduser-focused stuff about these features: look at Help:Recent changes and imagine that you were a new user led there from Help:Contents->Tracking changes->Recent changes. We should be able to have Wikipedia-specific information there, because not all of the Mediawiki projects are set up identically. So what's the best place for me to put that? -- Creidieki 00:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia specific content goes into Template:Ph:Recent_changes, an edit link is in the section "Wikipedia specific info" of Help:Recent changes here on Wikipedia. Stuff in this template won't be replaced by the master copy from Meta. -- Omniplex 15:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

no help desk links

I noticed today that the front page has help desk links. I do believe that links for getting help should be very easily accessible, and that is the reason for putting those links on the front page. I still think it is unacceptable to not have direct links on WP:HELP, I tried adding again, using the main page template, and Go for it reverted my addition again. Therefore, as we discussed above, I've changed WP:HELP and Wikipedia:Help so they no longer redirect here. Now they are pages with links to those help desks. It also has a link to this page, so people who want to read tables of contents can do so, if they don't need more immediate help. -lethe talk + 19:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up, because this raises the issue of what exactly the help menu and the non-forum help pages it leads to are for. Are they to reduce the burden of volunteer question askers? Or should we route all help traffic to the question-asking pages and maximize the volunteer hours needed to answer quetions placed there?

By sending users to the Help Desks first, we spend our volunteer resources there, when they can be better spent working on the encyclopedia.

If the menu pages are written well enough, there would be no need for question asking departments at all. The reason we have those departments is two-fold:

  1. To catch those users who fall through the gaps and can't find what they are looking for because it isn't there.
  2. To gather valuable feedback on the help system. If people are turning up in the questions departments, then the Help system isn't working right, and this we need to know.


One of the subgoals of the help desks has been to get people to use the search bar first, to help reduce the number of obvious questions that are being asked there. Similarly, we don't want to head users off at the pass (help menu), preventing them from using the help menu in the first place. Links to the help desks are prominently placed within the help menu, under: Getting Started, FAQs, Where to ask questions, and are also prominently placed in the Department Directory, and on the Community Portal. And there's a statement above the help menu directing them to the Where to ask questions link. There is no way users are not going to be able to find the help desks, but we still want them to use those as a last resort, only if they can't find what they are looking for after giving it a go. --Go for it! 12:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I disagree with your philosophy of reducing the load for volunteers instead of making things easier for people seeking assistance. I understand that people can find the help desk by following the links in the table of contents, but in my opinion, this is not good enough. Those links have to be immediately visible. -lethe talk + 14:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

KISS? (Keep it super simple)

The streamlined menu is really easy to use and follow. Adding explanations to the menu items obscures them and makes the menu harder to read. It is much easier to just click on on the items to see what's there than wade through a verbose menu. We can also adjust the menu items themselves to make them more obvious, if they are too vague. --Go for it! 12:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't one shortcut enough?

H:C is pretty short. Though since the help page is on the main menu, and therefore its link is on every page of Wikipedia, it begs the question of why have a shortcut at all? --Go for it! 14:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

On retrospect, since the standard shortcut starts with "WP", users may not remember one that starts with "H". So I've reverted back to WP:H, and placed all the "See" references that Lethe was trying to make more visible on the Wikipedia:Questions page. --Go for it! 14:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

WP shortcuts are for Wikipedia namespace pages. It stands to reason that H shortcuts should be for Help namespace pages. -lethe talk + 14:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

help desk links

Go for it, you say "I also don't understand why you've set up a redundant questions page". The reason is this: whatever page resides at Wikipedia:Help, the page newbies arrive at when they type "help" into the search box, has to have links to help desk and reference desk. You are unwilling to have such links on Help:Contents. Therefore I stopped the redirect from Wikipedia:Help to Help:Contents so the help page could have the links I think it requires. I agree that having separate pages is not optimal, it represents duplicated effort. I adopted that as a comprimise, since you don't want those links here. -lethe talk + 14:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Note also that by redirecting Wikipedia:Help to Help:Contents, several pages became double redirects. We should probably make a list of all such pages, they're a little hard to find from "what links here", since that list contains hundreds of pages. -lethe talk + 14:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Browsebar headers

Categories · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Questions · Reference · Site news · A-Z Index

Arts | Biography | Culture | Geography | History | Mathematics | Philosophy | Science | Society | Technology

Please add to discussion on the usefulness of the browsebar/catbar headers, at

Template talk:Browsebar#Is this bar useful?. thanks. --Quiddity 21:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That is, discussion is underway to remove links from the above bar, as well as remove the bar itself from many of its current locations. We need lots of feedback on this issue, to make sure we aren't about to remove something that gets a lot of use. So if you use the above bar, you need to let us know. Or if you just have an opinion, drop on by and tell us. --Go for it! 22:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Linked heading are confusing

At Help:Contents/The_Wikipedia_community, for example, the headings are linked. This is confusing - as readers tend to look at the list rather than clicking on the heading itself (which is often the most important page). A new user has just reported experiencing this problem, so it's not just me who thinks it should be changed. I also think there is browser issue with making headings links, but I'm not sure if that is still important.--Commander Keane 20:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:HELP

Shouldn't WP:HELP link here? I don't understand why such an obvious shortcut would link to something other than the main help page. --Hetar 20:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It used to link here, but I changed it because I thought that it should redirect to a page which leads to the Help desk. It was decided that help desk links cannot go on this page, so I decided to make WP:HELP redirect to a place where they could go. My reasoning is that someone who types in "help" should get access to help in as few links as possible. It's weird to have that page separate from this one, I guess you're right about that. -lethe talk + 21:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I don't find the current redirect of much use at all. It didn't bug me when it was on the main help page, but I never used it either - all of the help information I have ever needed has been easily and quickly accessed from the help menu. --Hetar 21:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm mostly thinking not about people like you (who have been around for a while presumably), but about complete newbies who have never been here before. Arrive through google, type in "help", and are required to follow four links including reading the headings of the tables of contents before they can get homework help, dispute resolution help, etc. It's too much to ask from a newbie. -lethe talk + 12:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, i just discovered WP:HELP and it's great! Its contents or at least a link to it should be on this talk page's Help article IMO. In addition, i read the discussions above about whether it should be easy to find the help desk or not, and i believe the discussion ignores the fact that there are people with very different kinds of communication styles. Many people enjoy looking through hierarchical lists, but many hate that and are completely incapable of that. They and others like them that like to answer instead like to use live communication. These kind of people hate writing long explanations for questions that people might have and they hate reading through dozens of answers they don't have in hopes of finding their own.
Right now, the help desk is not easy, to find; it's even difficult. I would guess that most users that click on Help are frustrated by the list they find. Very few find or think of clicking the unintuitive link Communication when they're looking for a help desk. Their frustration increases a lot due to the erroneous link to a non-existent link "be sure to check the "Where to ask questions" link". Even the FAQ doesn't provide the info on how to contact another user until the very bottom.
I couldn't figure out how to change Communication to something less cryptic and misleading, for example "Asking questions, Getting in touch, Keeping informed". Even if i did figure out how to change it, this is a good example of a page that should probably not be changed until after discussion because a lot of time has gone into deciding on the current content and on deciding to not have anything else.
Contact Wikipedia also gives users the runaround. I'll try to add a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:HELP --Espoo 02:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you hit the page whilst it's in the midst of an overhaul. Such is the nature of the wiki that these things happen.
It appears from the history that the "Where to ask questions" link was lost 2 days ago by accident in a merge. I rephrased the statement to make sense.
"Contact Wikipedia also gives users the runaround." But it's run by volunteers, and has 1,100,000+ registered users, and lord knows how many anons use it. So (imo the explanation is) the hurdles help weed out the non-serious people, and the hundreds that still do find their way are helped better by the limited number of helpers. Plus we're having our annual "cleanup or we're doomed!" crisis... so things are busy everywhere at once.
hope that helps ;) -Quiddity 10:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with the idea of installing "hurdles" in our help pages. -lethe talk + 11:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a poorly chosen word. Please try to understand my intent, rather than my usage ;)
I'm sorry, but isn't your intent that we should not include links to the help desk because it might direct more traffic there than is strictly necessary? Or did I misinterpret? -lethe talk + 19:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I was just hypothesizing (hence the "imo the explanation is"). I havent been active on this page very long. I'm just watching where it goes, and trying to steer it back on course when it seems to be veering.. ;-) --Quiddity
However, "I" disagree with you hijacking (another poor word choice, see how easy miscommunication is in this medium!)
Not really that bad a choice; it's pretty much just what I've done. -lethe talk + 19:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
a redirect that has been in place since 2004. I'm reverting the shortcut. Please work on the help page itself, and don't just revert.
Alright, you've a good point here. I'm going to take your suggestion, and add my links to the "main help page". By the way, be careful if you change the redirect, there are 3 or 4 double redirects that will result. I said earlier that I would make a list of which they are. -lethe talk + 19:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: the sentence i just wrote: I agree that the help page has a very slight barrier for entry. But see how much it has changed for the better in the last 4 months:
It's great that the help page is improving. But as long as it fails to have a link to necessary help pages, I will not be satisfied. As you see above, I am not alone in this stance. -lethe talk + 19:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
december 2005... The introductory sentence is tiny synopsis of what wikipedia is, and the very next line tells "newbies" where to go to bug ask for help with their homework.
And I believe that the "Browsebar" at the very top is pure-clutter, and am working with others to have it removed/integrated at some point soon. ok? --Quiddity 18:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I would also suggest/agree that the titles/links on this menu/page need improvement still. They are not intuitively seperated yet. (eg "will i find what i want in 'basic editing' or 'editing wikipedia'?"). But as before, it's a work-in-progress, and has come a long way recently. Suggestions always welcome :) --Quiddity
I could combine all the "how to edit" stuff. We could make an exception to alphabetical order and arrange them intuitively to start at the beginning. That is not always as cut and dry as a-b-c, though.--HereToHelp 19:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
No, they're good as is. I was just using as an example. 21:47, 25 March (pre-coffee) No, they're in a good order. They make total sense as a layout if i stare at it for a few seconds. Just those two "Editing"'s give me a brief mental hiccup. Possibly because they appear in alternate positions. I've been trying to think of an alternative for "Editing Wikipedia" along the lines of "Advanced editing" (which doesnt work well). for easier glance-comprehension of the difference between the two. not sure yet. --Quiddity 03:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No matter HOW we word/arrange things, a percentage of users will be confused. We're just trying to minimise the percentage. :-) --Quiddity 21:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

double redirects

  1. Wikipedia:Getting help
  2. WP:HELP

these redirect to Wikipedia:Help. Anyone who changes Wikipedia:Help to redirect here will create those double redirects, and should therefore change those as well. -lethe talk + 19:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. WP:Help now comes here. WP:Getting help goes to the communication subpage. --Quiddity 21:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm testing a "back to Main help page" link (in noincludes) on the subsections. --Quiddity
The Wikipedia:Getting help redirect could also/instead go to Wikipedia:Questions or the "Getting started" help section... --Quiddity

Now the columns are unbalanced...

Perfect! helps drive home the fact that the menu is laid out the same way, allowing for quicker visual scanning once the overall menu is a snapshot in one's mind... I'm not sure about removing the menu from this page though. couldnt we just make a reduced version with local links? (all we'd really need to do is put the "To view all of this on one page, see: Help Site Map" line outside the boxes border). the giant lightbulb bothers me more than the menu did ;-) --Quiddity 09:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, i see from the history that heretohelp added the template purely SO that the two (menu and content) could be kept in physical synchonisation! i'm adding it back and removing the tipoftheday template, as that is already on the Help:Contents page. --Quiddity 09:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the template is that when clicking on a heading (link), the user is directed to that sub-page (just like Help Contents). Previously, when the contents were coded into this page, the link pointed to the relevant section of this page. Changing the template won't work as help contents would then be unusable. The solution, as I see it, is to ditch the template and code seperate contents for both pages. Maybe a note in the wikitext of help contents could be added asking people to mirror their changes here. Gareth Aus 07:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
fixed. --Quiddity 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Main Help link, and categories

I added 

<noinclude>[[Help:Contents|Main help menu]]</noinclude>

and 

[[Category:Wikipedia help| 01]]

to Help:Contents/Communication. Help me tweak this for clarity, and then we can add it to each of the subpages. thanks. --Quiddity 21:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Make it link to the site map (or just move the site map to the main help page, it's one less click!).
I'd be for moving the site map to the main help page. The Help:Contents page is 100kb total, the Help:Contents/Site map is 250kb. (including everything, most of which would already be in cache, so -50kb from each). Is that acceptably small? 200kb takes 4 seconds for a 56k modem? --Quiddity
And would "0" be categorized first even without the space?--HereToHelp 21:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, no, it just needs the space. sorry. fixing now. --Quiddity 03:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually the " 01" bumps it to after entries with just space (" "). see the tip of the day entry is entered as "...day| tipoftheday]] so it comes after the other ones, but before the A listings. (quick link: Category:Wikipedia help) all very overwhelming. i'm not even going to try to grok/fix the category scheme... --Quiddity 03:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC) (edit confl. posting anyway ;)
Give this page and the site map two spaces. Give the subpages one (or would that leave nthing else categorized by letter?)--HereToHelp 03:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll leave that someone else. possibly there exists a coherent plan for them all. ;) --Quiddity
Yeah. this is in for about 5 more overhauls anyway before 1.0 .--HereToHelp 03:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Quick help

I like the new template lethe. Good ideas.
I'm slightly against the redundant search box, but you did word the buttons perfectly concisely (in contrast to the search box on the proposed Main Page drafts, which was labelled "Find" of all things...). I'll see how the proposal to highlight the sidebar search box goes before i oppose this one though.
I do believe it's overall size needs to be decreased still, but that can be worked on over time. --Quiddity 03:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the new template as well, although it is a bit large. I'm also concerned with the fact that it pushes the tip of the day out of view, but that is a separate issue that may be able to be dealt with in another way. --Hetar 06:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not married to the search box. It is rather redundant. And it makes up a large part of the size of the box, so let's get rid of it. -lethe talk + 08:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I have shrunk the font size, removed the search box, and widened the layout. Now the Tip of the Day box almost fits on the page, at least with my monitor/resolution. Maybe more can be done. -lethe talk + 08:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
It looks even better! I may try to shorten some of the phrases on the first line (if possible), since they all seem to run together. We'll see how it turns out. --Hetar 03:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Tip of the day - should it be displayed on the Help page?

The tip of the say should not be on this page. The tips are rather complex, people who visit this page are looking for help not distraction, and people who are experienced enough to want the tip of the day probably don't visit this page anyway. I suggest it is removed from this page.--Commander Keane 22:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. -lethe talk + 22:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Where, then, do you suppose we put it?--HereToHelp 01:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Where else to put it isn't in the scope of the discussion, but you could try asking at the Wikipedia:Community Portal.--Commander Keane 01:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Edit conflict: Some suggestions might include Wikipedia:Tutorial, Help:Editing, or Wikipedia:Community Portal. But people seeking assistance are unlikely to need whatever the tip of the day might be, in my opinion. -lethe talk + 01:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
CBDunkerson has been adding browse features to the tips, to make them even more useful. After reading through the tips, a new user would have a much better grasp of how to use Wikipedia. There's also a list of tips a user can access. --Go for it! 17:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Thirded. It does nothing to actually "Help" anyone, and won't even begin to until April 20! as we've all learned due to its being everywhere.
More seriously, its presence could get users "used to" the idea of large graphic banners put places to advertise things. Then the userbox people will grasp that concept, and suddenly every wikiproject will have a banner extolling their virtues and needs. Please please stop with the AOL-ification of wikipedia. If you want bright icons everywhere, make your own css skin (and share that).
Is this (Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day) going to be planted on every page next? in your sig files? *tears out hair dramatically* --Quiddity 02:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I like the tip of the day on this page. While some of the tips are more advanced than others, a large number of tips are extremely simple and deal with basic issues such as images, creating accounts, etc.. While its not of much benefit now (since the tips haven't started yet) I think this is a useful place to display these tips to the community. --Hetar 03:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I might suggest a 'Daily content' portal or something of the sort. The main page redesign has somewhat reduced the need for that, but a page with 'article of the day', 'picture of the day', 'on this day', 'tip of the day', 'motto of the day', and whatever else might be viable. --CBDunkerson 03:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Since each tip is basically a key point taken from the help pages, it's theme is help, and there is no page which matches this theme better than the Help page. It's the most logical place to display it. Removing it from the Help page was premature, since no consensus has been reached in this discussion as of yet. Therefore, I'm putting it back. --Go for it! 17:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The announcement on that template is the main thing leading volunteers to the project to prepare it for its launch on April 20th. Without it, the project would likely suffer from attrition. --Go for it! 17:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Quiddity's statement that the Tip of the day doesn't help, is blatantly false. There is long established precedent in the software industry that tip features help speed up users' learning curve. And the many contributors to the project have made every effort to make the tips as useful as possible, providing among the best know-how available on Wikipedia. --Go for it! 17:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My top objection to TOTD was the size of the box, in proportion to other items on the help page. I have cleaned up the TOTD coding, resized the box, and tweaked the its placement on the Help page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant of whether or not it should be on this page, the Tip of the day (in its current side-by-side arrangement with the common links box) doesn't quite fit on my screen (800x600 resolution.) The right side gets cut off, including a bit of the light bulb. I can provide a screenshot if you require it. But I think it should be fixed.--Commander Keane 19:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning it. I've tried resizing the TOTD box and added some padding around it. Is it still cut off? There's probably a better way to code this, so that the boxes can wrap onto the next line, depending one's screen size. And, as you mention, my experiment here is aside from the issue of whether TOTD should be here at all. I don't have great preference either way. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes it's completely viewable now. Howeverm there is still a horizontal scroll bar (although I can't see why it's there since everything is visible without it).--Commander Keane 19:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
We can adjust the columns and boxes some more to get them to fit better, or try something totally different. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I just made TOTD slightly more narrow. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The scroll bar's have disappeared, good work.--Commander Keane 20:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
GoForIt: My statement was that it won't begin to help anyone for at least another 4 weeks. You misquoted me and ignored the more important 2nd part of my post. --Quiddity 22:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't misquote anything. Every tip we have is available right now, and anyone can browse them by following the tipster link provided on the template. There are tips on that page and on the page attached to it. So your statement that it won't begin to help anyone for at least another 4 weeks is false. Also, the template in its current form certainly helps volunteers to find the project. --Go for it! 03:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Meta Cruft

The pages Help:Reader and Help:Editor should be somewhat better now. Actually they're not important, nobody needs the "view this partial ToC alone" feature imported from Meta here. -- Omniplex 18:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A few other pages now work (again):

Help:Help imitating the style of that page on Meta,
Help:Moderator intro for the planned sysop's manual,
The help to start a new page should work again
WP:INTER (1st part) should be better, dito the help for images
a few other help pages are minimally better, e.g. Help:Inputbox

-- Omniplex 04:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to move the Help:Contents/Site map here

As discussed by myself and Heretohelp above. this would:

  • Reduce the number of clicks and "new pages" required to find help.
  • Reinforce visually the link between the header-ToC ordering, and the pages layout.

It would be more visually complex, but i believe that drawback is outweighed by its improvements. --Quiddity 22:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We can find some way to work in {{potd}} and the other info that's here while keeping all of those links.--HereToHelp 03:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The download time would be cumbersome for users with 56k modems. Note that modem speeds are measured in bits per second (bps), and 56k is short for 56kbps. It takes 8 bits to make a byte. (Wikipedia pages are measured in bytes, not bits.) So, 56kbps = 7KB/sec. Therefore, it takes about 28 seconds to transfer 200KB via a 56k modem. --Go for it! 04:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there someone on dialup who could verify how long it takes to load Help:Contents/Site map? thanks. (empty your cache first ;-) --Quiddity 02:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

More than five minutes for the icons, the text is okay. I'd guess that nobody uses the Help system here for long, it works much better and more reliably on Meta: no catbars or similar distractions. -- Omniplex 14:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't miss the icons. We don't need them on the help page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. boldly removing.
  • They are subjectively pleasant icons.
  • We have a low icon count because we want wikipedia to be accessible and pleasant and fast for Everyone.
-Quiddity 20:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore: Having help all on one page will mean pros can use/scan the contents more easily. and new-users wont get lost in a maze of off-page links.
We do need to tighten up the overall layout now that it is back on one page though.
I'm going to bump the MoS infobox down the section a little, to where it can expand better and obscure less. --Quiddity 20:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Specifically: the Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia intro needs fixed internal-page links, and possible rewording.
and the Template:Help contents contents toc could use a slight realignment for aesthetics. (centered, thirds, golden ratio, anything). (i've got to run for a few hours) --Quiddity 20:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The page looked a lot better with the icons. --Hetar 01:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It also loaded a lot slower for a large population of the planet :( and looked ugly or childish to a large portion. --Quiddity 03:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
There is still work to be done. A lot can be done with just text, as any good page on wikipedia can show.
It is a lot easier for all of us, if the people who WANT more icons add them through Wikipedia:Customisation#Skins or a stylesheet and javascript, than it is for those of us who DON'T WANT them, to remove them. I am strongly against the movement of wikipedia towards an icon filled playground of amateur designers gone wild, as are many others. We are Proud of the simple and smart presentation that is throughout wikipedia, and that is accessible to all aesthetics from hippie to supreme court justice, and don't want all these icons scattered everywhere. This isnt AOL-for-kids, or a chatroom/messageboard, it's a serious forum for discussing the creation of a noble project. Making any aesthetic inclusions beyond "Simple and Smart" will be alienating/respect-lowering in potential readers/editors. Look to our site logo for aesthetic inspiration. --Quiddity 03:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
But icons make the page more user-freindly (once it loads) and more welcoming. Those who need help need this reassurance: we're not just boring, endless, unfeeling, monotonous text: we have a lighter side, too.--HereToHelp 03:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The 28 second load time seems unacceptable from a usability point of view. And the icons weren't actually helping understanding, they were just there to make things pretty. Maybe you can make things pretty without the icons?--Commander Keane 04:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Icons make it warmer. It looks much harsher without them. Too stark. --Go for it! 17:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Go for it, aren't you the one who originally brought up the download speed issue as a strike against the inclusion of the FAQ? Well, you can't have it both ways. Either you want to help download speeds, or you don't care about them. Please make up your mind. -lethe talk + 18:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
No Lethe, I brought it up as an objection to having the entire SITE MAP as the main help page on Help:Contents. --Go for it! 18:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and it was decided that it is icons, not text, which slows down the download. If you care about speed, then you have to lose the icons. Now the question on the floor is: do you? -lethe talk + 18:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Who decided this, and where? I could find only one mention of it above, and it doesn't correspond to what I've seen. I've accessed the menu on a modem, and it didn't take 5 minutes. So I don't where that info above came from. --Go for it! 21:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I would strongly prefer no icons. The icons remind me of a time long past, when the internet was new and more of a novelty... people using cheesy clip art and icons just because they can. Web design has moved beyond that, realizing that simpler design without icons can be effective and that icons (images) use precious bandwidth. Aside from the issue of download time for each user, muliply the size of all these icon files with the number of people visiting the help page, and consider the bandwidth impact of this on Wikipedia servers. In all, the design can be quite effective and more professional looking without use of icons. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, once again, I ask you to take a look at Amazon, Ebay, Google, and other popular sites who undoubtedly pour a lot of money and effort into usability studies to maximize the effectiveness of their web designs. They don't use icons, but rather tend towards simple designs that use images more sparingly. The same principles should apply here. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please put the icons back

Where'd the icons go? The page look a lot nicer with the icons. --Go for it! 18:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are the sizes, according to my browser:

  • 68 KB current. No FAQ, no icons
  • 128 KB with the icons, but no FAQ
  • 224 KB with the FAQ, no icons
  • 276 KB with the FAQ and the icons

So using the icons doubles the size, and using both the FAQ and the icons more than quadruples the size. I note that the numbers above include quite a number of other icons that are still in the FAQ beyond the icons in the table of contents. The numbers for the FAQ might be reduced by removing those icons as well. -lethe talk + 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I missed something. What does the FAQ have to do with this? Also, where are you getting these numbers? My browser isn't showing anything. --Go for it! 20:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
FAQ, sitemap, whatever is the long stuff that was added that you object to. -lethe talk + 20:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And the columns are unbalanced for a reason, they are logically grouped. We could actually break the menu apart into 3 pieces.

  • the editing links from the left
  • the meta links from the right
  • the quick links and faq link
  • (and the totd underneath)

thoughts? --Quiddity 19:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thought about why it took my browser so long to load icons it cant't display anyway: The images come apparently from a different server, maybe it was especially slow at this time. Good compromises could be GIFs working with almost any browser, and only a small number of GIFs, e.g. one for all topics in Help:Reader, one for advanced issues (templates, magic words, etc.), one for media (image upload etc.), one for other info (guidelines, policies, shortcuts, what else), and finally one GIF for the main topics of Help:Editor. Less than ten over all, repeating those multiple times on the contents page would be no problem. JPG / PNG / SVG make no sense, the help pages should be visible with any browser (as far as it works for Wikipedia at all), old browser, mobile device, b&w printer, design it working for the worst cases. -- Omniplex 16:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Icons on submenus

Since there are only 1 to 3 icons on each subpage, they don't add much at all to download time there. So having them there doesn't do any harm. --Go for it! 20:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

But they add to the load time of /site map.--HereToHelp 21:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The menu with icons and balanced columns

Moving "More about Wikipedia" doesn't throw the logical organization off, as it goes well with the subjects in the "Getting Started" section at the top of the left column. Here's the menu with icons and balanced columns. Isn't this design a lot nicer?

Help menu

  Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

  Getting started
  Browsing Wikipedia
  Editing Wikipedia
  Images and media
  Tracking changes
  Policies, conventions and guidelines
  Communication
  The Wikipedia community
  Account settings and maintenance
  Resources and lists
  Technical information
See also the Directory of departments

Please restore this version to the help page. --Go for it! 20:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC) THIS IS NOT THE MENU I POSTED - Quiddity changed it. See my originally posted version below. --Go for it! 21:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you read ANY of the arguments above? Please reply to them.
Restating that you like your design and think it is "nice", in multiple new talk-page sections, doesn't somehow negate them. --Quiddity 20:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
in reply to this comment. Again, the links on the left are logically grouped as new-editor/new-reader links (how to and browse); the links on the right are logically grouped as meta links/advanced links. The FAQs link and the quick link box are a potential third grouping. The "More about Wikipedia section only contains 10 lines, is basically an "unsorted" list, and could be merged into one of the other subsection templates. I've changed your template(here) to reflect this.
The aesthetics are questioned above and suggestions are offered. --Quiddity 21:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, you changed my post above. You changed the menu I posted here, so now it looks like I'm talking about something different above than what I posted. Please don't do that again. Here's the menu I posted:
Help menu

  Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

  Getting started
  Browsing Wikipedia
  Editing Wikipedia
  Images and media
  Tracking changes
  More about Wikipedia
  Policies, conventions and guidelines
  Communication
  The Wikipedia community
  Account settings and maintenance
  Resources and lists
  Technical information
See also the Directory of departments

Again, I ask, isn't this a lot nicer? The above menu is part of this post. Please don't change other users' signed posts. Thank you. --Go for it! 21:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As Quiddity said above, there is a method to the madness. He breaks it down into three (really four) sections: (quote)
  • the editing links from the left
  • the meta links from the right
  • the quick links and faq link
  • (and the totd underneath)
The pages on /site map are organized like that (or should be), and the menu should reflect that.--HereToHelp 21:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, here's what I get with broken image icons instead of inline PNGs:
File:Helpmenu.jpg
-- Omniplex 21:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The menu shouldn't be decentralized

The menu, which comprises the bulk of the Help:Contents page, shouldn'g be hidden in a corner where it's harder to get to. I've restored the menu to its proper location, Help:Contents. Please discuss this here, rather than resort to a reversion war. Thank you. --Go for it! 18:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You made a point about download speeds. Several people agreed, and removed the icons. You restored them because of "warmth". Now please discuss whether you consider download speed worth considering or not. If not, then the FAQ may be restored. If so, then the icons should be removed. Please address this point. -lethe talk + 18:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about the SITE MAP, which is HUGE. Having the site map as Help:Contents doesn't make sense because of its prohibitive download time for modem users -- adding icons to the site map doesn't affect the download speed issue, because modem users aren't going to bother with that huge page anyways. The icons, which measure only 23x23 pixels each, don't add much download time to Help:Contents. And the page looks much better with the icons. --Go for it! 18:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Download speeds are determined not by the dimensions of the page when it's rendered, but rather by the number of bytes. Even a 23x23 pixel icon uses many more bytes than pages of text. -lethe talk + 18:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Especially when they all come from Wikipedia's image servers, which are usually the slow point of any page-load. --Quiddity 19:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So right now, the page is not using the template. If we are not going to use the template, then I suggest that Template:Help contents contents toc and Template:Help contents contents go to Templates for deletion. Right now, I don't care whether we use templates or not, but if we're not going to use them, then let's get rid of them. Also, can someone explain to me where there are two identical templates? -lethe talk + 19:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Template:Help contents contents toc was for the sitemap page, with the subsection links changed to be intra-page links. --Quiddity
Having a template does not decentralize it; rather, just the opposite. I noticed that the two pages weree undergoing changes and that the menu on one was very different from the menu on the other. The template keeps things consistent. Now that we have a link version and a toc version, however, they are redundant as they are only used once. I say subst: them and delete.--HereToHelp 21:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
So you favor templates. Let's go back to them. -lethe talk + 22:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
No. They now have different links and as such would be used only once (so there's no point in having them as templates).--HereToHelp 22:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh whoops, I guess I misunderstood you before. We should delete them, is your point. -lethe talk + 22:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Well i still believe that the Help:Contents/Site map should be the main help page. With 3 columns of headings (as described above). And a little more white space between the inclusioned subsection templates, to break it up.
It would be a long page, but it would have an intuitive contents menu and no maze of 13 pages to get lost in.
It also makes the browser-feature "search within page" more useful (search for "delet" and then click through 'next' 'next' etc till you find the one you want). --Quiddity 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
In general, I favor functionality over presentation. Having all links here increases functionality. I feel that the table of contents is extremely lacking in utility. -lethe talk + 07:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good articles includes expandable sections using JavaScript. If JavaScript is deamed acceptable it might provide a "best of both worlds" option. I feel a single page is too long and unwieldy. Clearly named and defined subpages should guide people to the appropriate help anyway. The solution above might also allow "quick scanning" as well.
re. the icon debate - maybe selective icons in a "professional" style would work. Saying that ebay, Google et al. don't use icons ignores the fact that other companies inc the notably stylish Apple, do, both in their software and on their website [3]. The amount of icons used before was too great and they were too "cutesie" - but this doesn't mean icon use should be scrapped altogether. It should also be noted that Wikipedia, being a website where editing is a major component, is selling itself through its help system more than the other websites mentioned above. Gareth Aus 08:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Pros and cons of icons

This is to settle the debate over the icons on this page. I will list their benifits and drawbacks:

  • Benifits
    • Makes the page looks friendlier and more welcoming.
    • Helps give the page a unique feel and makes it more distinct when compared against the Main page and Community Portal.
  • Drawbacks
    • Increased load time
    • "Tacky", "corny", or "ugly".
    • When 98% of the subsections have icons and 2% don't, it looks worse than if 0% did.
    • Visual clutter. Eyes jump to icons and read headings, skip over headings that lack icons.

Any others?--HereToHelp 21:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Contents/Archive_2&oldid=849600905"