Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spitfire (talk | contribs) at 08:45, 12 November 2009 (→Feedback page for the help desk: expanding comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

“I want to start a new page”

I’m questioning whether we are providing the best possible answer when we respond with a template containing information about how to start a new article. As an analogy, if someone came to a coach and asked how to go about running a marathon, and the person had never run in their life, do you think the right answer would start with selecting the right type of shoe, and making sure you properly pace yourself? Don’t you think the advice would include running some shorter distances first?

It’s possible a person who has zero edits can create a passable article. It’s also possible that a person who has never run can complete a marathon first time out. the probability of both are quite low.

I bet this is analyzable, if someone knew what they were doing. My guess is that the proportion of people whose first edit is a new page have under a 1% chance of having that page. If we knew this number, wouldn’t if be a more helpful answer to say something along the lines of “Experience shows that people whose first editing experience is the creation of a new article fail over 99% of the time. You are encouraged to try editing other articles first, perhaps ones that are related to your area of interest. After you have experience editing existing articles, your chances of success creating a new article will be much improved. If your sole goal is to see an article on subject x in wikipedia, consider adding to WP:REQ, where a more experienced editor may start the article. Or do both.” This is rough, and needs massive editing, but I think it is better advice than the current approach. I assume this issue has come up before. Does someone know if a discussion exists? I am surprised that the consensus has developed that new people with zero experience editing should essentially be encouraged to jump right in. I understand the concept of wp:bold, but this is a step beyond that, and I don’t think it is good advice.--SPhilbrickT 14:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, SPhilbrick - perhaps you could design a template in your user space which has the kind of message you think could be used? Then get people to look at it, suggests improvements, etc - and then put it up as a candidate for an official template (well, I know that officially there are no official/non-official ones, but you know what I mean!)... I don't know where you put it up, but that's something that could be sorted when the template is ready! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion, I'll try mocking up something. Probably won't have time until the weekend—in the meantime, I'll watch this space to see if someone strongly feels the current paradigm is the right one.--SPhilbrickT 17:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

<-I created a first draft at User:Sphilbrick/sandbox for new editor advice. Here's the possible text, which could be added to a template. As noted, I think we give bad advice when we tell with zero editing experience how to start a new article. I realize the "first article" page does suggest they should start editing first, but that isn't working, so this might make the point a little clearer. One nitty detail—I haven't researched the 99% claim, if we want to use a stat, we probably should back it up and I'll need some help figuring out how to do that.

--SPhilbrickT 14:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A few points - "different than what ..." should be "different to those which ...", "hearts" is the plural, not the possessive, of "heart" (should be "heart's"), and "If you want to ignore this advice, and attempt ..." sounds a bit bitey - how about "If you do decide ..." DuncanHill (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"different from those which ..." – ukexpat (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a whole new can of worms! DuncanHill (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You guys are quick, thanks.

• I thought it would be better to say "style and format" rather than "steps" so the first advice is affected by that.
• Fixed possessive
• I agree, too bitey, took your advice--SPhilbrickT 15:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed missing link to WP:BL. Looking good to me, Sphilbrick! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

<-Thanks for the postive feedback. I created two templates, both of which should be used with substitution (as we might tweak the language):

• {{subst:New editor advice}}
• {{subst:NEA}}

The second transcludes the first, so if there are further tweaks to the wording, the first should be edited.--SPhilbrickT 16:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation of merged articles

Moved to Help desk -  – ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In cases where a movie soundtrack article is merged with the movie article (as with Trailer Park Boys: The Movie), is it proper form to add the article to album categories (such as "Category:2006 albums" and "Category:Anthem Records albums") as well? -- WikHead (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing while logged out

For those with questions about editing while logged out, we now have Help:Logging in#Editing while logged out, shortcut WP:LOGGEDOUT. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  10:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I just created WP:LOUT to save typing. – ukexpat (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Editintro

Misplaced Pages:Help Desk/editintro is still hanging around from before the editnotice system. If there is no objection, I will delete it as unused in a day or so. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  18:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd just delete it per WP:CSD#G6 now. hmwitht 19:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. – ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  21:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility improvement to header

{{editprotected}}

For WP:ACCESSIBILITY by visually impaired readers, the header for WP:HELPDESK should mark its purely decorative icon Image:Blue question mark.svg with "|link=" instead of with alt text, so that screen readers don't bother visually impaired readers by announcing the image; please see WP:ALT#Purely decorative images. To implement this, please replace "?" with "link=" in Misplaced Pages:Help desk/Header. That is, please replace this:

]

with this:

]

Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done by User:MSGJ ≈ Chamal  ¤ 11:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Scsbot issues

Due to some corruption (described at User talk:Scsbot#Corruption in WP:RD.2FS) I've left a message on scsbot's talkpage, which I believe will cause it to stop working, presumably until its maintainer (who has been offline for several days) can attend to it. I guess this means it won't add the date header to this page tomorrow, so until it's fixed can I ask someone to take care of the header manually. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article wizard2.0

Hello all, I've added a reference to Misplaced Pages:Article wizard2.0 in the FAQ (WP:FAQ#CREATE), and also slightly re-written that part of the FAQ for clarity (I hope). Anyway, the Misplaced Pages:Article wizard2.0 (WP:WIZ2) is a great new tool for newbies to create articles, walking them through the steps - take a look and then consider when/where it might be useful to mention it. (Note that it does refer users to the AFC wizard if they don't want to sign up, which reduces the importance of distinguishing between anon and registered users when referring to it.) Also, any suggestions for improvement of it are very welcome (Misplaced Pages talk:Article wizard2.0). cheers, Rd232 13:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

ReqPhoto

Second time of asking - got edit conflict.:(

I've tried to add an appropriate cateqory via the reqphoto entry on Talk:Church of St Matthew and St James, Liverpool but it comes up as a red linked category no matter what I do. Where am I going wrong? Even more frustrating.--92.40.14.30 (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed myself. But why should this be a difficult process even for me as a fairly experienced wiki user???--92.40.14.30 (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet?

Why is my user name considered a possible "sock puppet"? --Jimmknows (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the Help Desk's talk page, not the help desk. I have moved your post to the project page, here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding #wikipedia-en-help to the header

I see some layout discussion that this was briefly considered but turned down for fear that new editors would not know how to use IRC (this thread). I would like to discuss it more specifically though - adding to the header at the top of the page:

For live help, click #wikipedia-en-help

or

For live help, click here for instant access

Doing so would offer a different help medium for people who need it, and one that is currently buried on Misplaced Pages:IRC making relatively unused. An IRC chat is more amenable to the users who still feel clunky with editing and talkpages and having to wait around for a response. It allows for in depth articulation in a more nuanced way that I think would be quite beneficial as well. The cons are that it might overwhelm the channel with users, or users who don't really have help-type questions. However, new wikipedians are decreasing. Bringing more wikipedians now requires better help for those who run into the usual road bumps that divert them. Thoughts? JoeSmack 05:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Im not one to use IRC often (in fact io havent since 1998) Im inclined to oppose this (but this is only my thought and others are open to their opinions) But I feel that a help furom for wikipedia should be centralized on wikipedia, not a help furom for wikipedia on a different medium. I think the help desk allows for giving more detailed (and accurate as your forced to think through and supply relevant links) responses. It may also draw away users from monitoring this page and decreasing the response time to respond to queries here. I know alot of experienced users like IRC, but many less tech savy indivduals may not be comforatble leaving wikipedia for help. These are just my thoughts Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess this proposal wasn't to say that the on-wiki help desk is worse than IRC, just that it is a different door to try. Like, behind door number one is the Help Desk, behind door number two is the FAQ, behind door number three is the IRC channel. Any door is the right door. I do think wikipedians need to 'learn by doing', e.g. editing and monitoring pages, but who is to say that they wouldn't do that with help from the IRC channel? And who is to say that they aren't tech savy enough to use IRC at all? JoeSmack 15:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

very true points you made. If this is endorsed by others to add the link, i would support the second link you posted be added. To me its a nice user friendly way of providing the channel. This is a bit more simple than learning IRC all together. anyway it could work. But your right we dont know (my instinct though is i think its introducing more problems, but I welcome thoughts from others. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No one intends to force users to use IRC. The proposal is to merely make people aware that it exists as an option. It is up to them how they wish to receive help. As a helper in #wikipedia-en-help, I have seen many instances of a user being helped far more quickly and clearly in IRC than they would on help desk or on a talk page. In other situations the reverse is true.

The help desk has the advantage of many eyes watching it, whereas the help channel has the advantage of being able to instantly clarify and ensure that everyone understands each other, as well as the ability to perform step-by-step walkthroughs. The two forms of help compliment, rather than oppose, each other. ∙ AJCham 15:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's worth a try.. can't hurt to test it out for a month or two.. see what kind of traffic we get in the channel. -- œ 05:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Already in the sidebar of the header there is a link to "Special help services" which includes IRC. I am not sure how relevant an IRC channel is to most Help desk clients and keep in mind clutter in the header.--Commander Keane (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The place you're talking about doesn't exactly receive prominence (waaay off to the right, very small font, have to find it in a subpage). Acknowledged that the header shouldn't be cluttered, but I think something can be arranged. Why don't you think people from the help desk can be helped in the IRC channel? JoeSmack 16:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in including it. It might increase requests at the channel, which might reduce requests here. Nothing bad about any of those. After all, the objective is to provide help, not to pile up help requests in our archive pages :) ≈ Chamal  ¤ 16:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I support adding a link to the header. The problems could be confusion when a new user opens up the IRC window (the 20 lines of connection stuff, and the instructions are hidden in the channel topic, not that there is a better way) and dissatisfaction when they ask a question and don't get a good answer (I'm sure not all Help desk regulars are in the IRC channel). Having said that, IRC does provide an excellent alternative way to answer questions and I support adding a link (probably to the webchat.freenode.net option), at least for a trial. Somebody needs to figure out how to incorporate a link into the current header though. Also, it could be too late when someone has arrived at the Help desk to forward them to IRC. Maybe most new users use the "Help" link in the sidebar? If so then adding the IRC link to Help:Contents should be considered.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Let's start with the header as it has the most general and wide impact, and go from there to see if a link on Help:Contents alone is better. Agreed, just a trial. Agreed, the webchat.freenode.net option. I actually think the aesthetic of the header is gonna be the harder part to get agreed upon, but I've put a few ideas down in my sandbox. ("Behold the turtle! He makes progress only when he sticks his neck out."). Here they are:

Help index · Help desk · Help chat (IRC) · Reference desk · FAQ · Editor's welcome · Tutorial · Cheatsheet · Glossary · Any questions?

Help index · Help desk · Help chat · Reference desk · FAQ · Editor's welcome · Tutorial · Cheatsheet · Glossary · Any questions?

Help index · Help desk · Help chatroom · Reference desk · FAQ · Editor's welcome · Tutorial · Cheatsheet · Glossary · Any questions?

Help index · Help desk · Reference desk · FAQ · Editor's welcome · Tutorial · Cheatsheet · Glossary · Any questions?

For live help, click here for the IRC help channel

I think the most appropriate place to put it in the header order would be third, so it is three help options in a row. The last one up there was kind of an afterthought. I like the top one ("Help chat (IRC)") best personally. Thoughts? JoeSmack 16:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Initially, I wasn't sure whether you were talking about adding an IRC link to Misplaced Pages:Help desk/Header or to {{WP help pages (header bar)}}. Either is possible.

I think the whole {{WP help pages (header bar)}} is due for an overhaul, with an explicit mandate to overhaul some of the pages it links to. eg the Misplaced Pages:Introduction is unlinked, and Editors welcome is a jumbled mess, and Misplaced Pages:New contributors' help page is unlinked, and Editor assistance possibly belongs somewhere in there?

We don't want it to get too big though (it already is!), because whilst we longterm editors know where all (or most) of those links will bring us, the majority of people will not, and will have to click through each to find the right target.

See also Help:Contents/Communication and Misplaced Pages:Requests for potential mergers/clarifications. (I get a headache just thinking about it...) HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, sorry, I meant {{WP help pages (header bar)}}. That is the top bar of links that is on many help pages. To be honest, overhaul is needed, correct. For now however, lets keep this thread focused on seeing this IRC link put in. It could have a fairly moderate change on how new editors receive assistance on Misplaced Pages, and keeping with this single change the effect will be more measurable for the moment.

That said, I'm actually glad I have your eyes too Quiddity because I really like your past mainspace/template work. Like you mention, we need a overhaul, and that'll be a much bigger discussion. I mean, I'm an experienced user and even I have confused moments about some of the help environments out there. Wikipedia_talk:Help_Project is one place I think that dialogue could be more centralized (prolly where this thread should have been really), unless you have another idea as to where to have it? You'll have my input either way. JoeSmack 21:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Of your 4 suggestions above, I agree that the 1st (or 4th) would be preferable. Go for it.

You might also want to tweak Misplaced Pages:IRC so that the lead paragraph is a bit shorter, and copy the links to the main en-WP channels to the top of the page (either in the lead sentences or in a box of some sort). We could potentially link to that page instead, if it were a bit more instantly useful to users of all expertise.

The Help Project is a bit understaffed, and could use all of your eyeballs. However user:L∴V is newly there and trying to get people to help do some overhauls, so now would be an optimal time to speak up, add your names to the participants list, and all that. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:IRC and Misplaced Pages:IRC/Tutorial are not layman oriented at all, and are kind of dated by now. I actually don't have a ton of specific expertise on IRC (although i've WYSIWYG'd using it for years now), but think the above web-connect one-click link put into the header will be a start for the time being. I'll hop over to Wikipedia_talk:Help_Project and offer up the total overhaul discussion as well.

I guess then i'll wait for any other comment until the end of the day and then throw the IRC help channel up into the header, using the first suggestion presented. I'll try and keep my eye on the IRC channel to see any (if any) effects on traffic there. JoeSmack 18:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, 3 2 1, liftoff! I'll leave some info of what I notice from the IRC channel back here if any. JoeSmack 04:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the channel got flooded or anything all day, and it looks like people are using it. Phew! JoeSmack 03:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Bit late for the party ... but good idea and Excellent! L∴V 14:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

ml.wikipedia Interwiki

Hi, Please add ] to Interwiki section. Thanks--Praveen:talk 15:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Bencherlite 15:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional help desk templates

I notice we get a number of users of other wikis asking questions here, presumably under the misapprehension that Misplaced Pages is in charge of or connected with all wikis. In response the {{astray}} template is often used, which is not entirely suitable. As such I have created two templates, modelled partly on {{astray}}, for dealing with these situations: {{Otherwiki}} and {{Otherwiki-sister}} for users of non-Wikimedia and Wikimedia wikis respectively, which produce the following outputs:

{{Otherwiki}}

Hello. Your question seems to be related to another wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software, of which there are thousands. Please note that you are at Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using this wiki. Thus, we are unable to assist you in matters concerning this unrelated website and the best course of action may be to seek appropriate avenues of help there. Alternatively, if your question concerns a problem or feature of the MediaWiki software on which many wikis are run, you could try the MediaWiki support desk. We also have a reference desk section dedicated to helping with computing related questions. Best of luck.

{{Otherwiki-sister}}

Hello. Your question seems to be related to one of our sister projects. Please note that you are at the English Misplaced Pages, one of hundreds of projects hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. Each project is operated independently of one another, including Wikipedias in other languages. This page is a help desk for asking questions related to using this wiki, so we may be unable to assist in matters concerning other Wikimedia projects. You may have more luck trying to find help at the project in question. Best of luck.

I hope people find these useful, but of course welcome any comments or improvements. DoktorMandrake 11:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Good templates herr Doktor. A few suggestions:

• When the question is about a feature or problem with MediaWiki software, which is not uncommon, the best place for them to be referred is mw:Project:Support desk I think. So maybe you should use this link instead of, or at least in addition to, the one to the computing reference desk.
• Minor grammar nit: I would get rid of the "the" just before "Wikipedias in other languages".
• In {{Otherwiki}} there's a great preponderance of the word wiki. I would modify "unable to assist you in matters concerning other wikis", to "unable to assist you in matters concerning this unrelated website", which also focuses back on the reason their specific question is not a good fit here, following the preceding explanation focused on teaching what a wiki is in general. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made the changes, although I was a little perplexed in trying to work in the link to the Mediwiki support desk. If any further improvements are required, feel free to be bold! DoktorMandrake 11:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've also been bold and added icons: for Otherwiki and for otherwiki-sister. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

• moved* --Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 16:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Formatting/Transclusion issue

The transclusion for the October 16 archive looks to be borked somehow. We're only getting half of it on the main help desk page. The section where the cutoff occurs is a lengthy discussion on templates, so maybe there is a stray noinclude or something; I can't figure it out. The archive itself is at Misplaced Pages:Help desk/Archives/2009 October 16. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have disabled onlyinclude tags on the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

About resolved tags

I noticed today someone adding a resolved tag to a discussion that he was not involved in. Over at the reference desks, we had discussed this, and come to the consensus that the use of the resolved tag should be left to the OP. I think that practice should be implemented here as well. Here is the discussion over at Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk. —Akrabbim 20:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree for the Help Desk and NCHP. Most times we don't even know if the OP has read the replies to their question. When it has clearly been answered, I am going to stick a resolved tag on it to make it easier for help desk patrollers to see what is and is not an active question. Similarly I will tag a clearly stale question as such. In fact I would be in favour of using the {{Ear}} templates here too - they work well at WP:EAR. – ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussions on this are here and here. I don't see any strong consensus either way in those threads. At the RD's, questions tend to be much more open-ended, especially at SciRef where the answer could use either Newtonian or Einsteinian physics. OTOH, at CompRef where the thread goes "1: My computer isn't working. 2: Have you turned the power on? 3: My computer works now, thanks!", a resolved tag is more appropriate.

I don't do tons of HD/NCHD patrol, but when I do I tend to read the resolved ones too, and sometimes check up on whether the editor was able to actually implement the advice. Unless it's something dead simple, I'm not big on adding a resolved tag just for the sake of having a list of green checkmarks. I would defer to massive patrollers like ukexpat though.

Asking / leaving it up to the OP to mark a thread as resolved is probably not workable here, given the nature of these help pages: almost by definition, the OP will not be aware of the "rule". At the RD's, I read the discussion more as "we the regulars are not going to put tags on threads, but if the OP does, that's fine". They really are different animals. Franamax (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback page for the help desk

We've been thinking at VPR to develop 'feedback' pages, to collect feedback, especially from novice users. We can use the new template {{Leave feedback}}. I created a feedback subpage for the help desk, Misplaced Pages:Help desk/feedback (it uses the generic {{feedback page}} at the top, which needs some work). The preload can be specified at Template:Feedback page/preload/Wikipedia:Help desk, and the editintro at Template:Feedback page/editintro/Wikipedia:Help desk, see the template documentation for more. You're welcome to make adjustments. Cenarium (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How are you going to tell users about it? I imagined it in use on reasonably static pages, as a section at the bottom. You made a "link" style version, to add to answer templates perhaps? Rd232 09:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hows this look?

	Please leave feedback to help us improve this page

It could be added to the /header page along with the rest of the templates. With the other templates it will look like so:

	Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

	Please leave feedback to help us improve this page

Spitfire 08:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

WATER

I dig a well in my home town that is south of Sri Lanka and i found some water and that water quality is totally differant to drinking water standard , i need some expert advice to know why such a differant when i send the water samples for checking and also what can we do with this grade of water

pl. chekc below the qulity report PHYSICAL QUALITY Max.Concentration

                                                                      Desirable/Permissible           

Colour ( Hazen unit ) Greater that 90 5/30 Turbidity ( N.T.U.) 160 2/8

CHEMICAL QUALITY

pH 7.0 7.0/8.5 - 6.5/9.0 Electrical Conductivity 9172 750/3500 pS/cm

                                                                           Results in mg/I

Chloride ( as CI ) 770 200/1200 Total Alkalinity ( as CaCO3) 100 200/400 Free Ammonia - 0.06 Nitrate (as N ) Less than 0.1 10 Nitrite ( as N ) Less than 0.01 0.01 Fluoride ( as F ) 0.5 0.6/1.5 Total Phosphates ( as PO4) Less than 0.04 2.0 Total Residue 6110 500/2000 Total Hardness ( as CaCO3 ) 2470 250/600 Total Iron ( as Fe ) 16 0.3/1.0 Sulphate ( as SO4 ) 222 200/400 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.195.184 (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see the reference desk. Ks0stm 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)