User:Sm8900/templates/Sandbox draft template basic info

navbox code

Documentation[create] [purge]

Editors can experiment in this template's sandbox (create | mirror) and testcases (create) pages.
Add categories to the /doc subpage. Subpages of this page.

Links to pages

pages that are relevant:

• CURRENT proposal, at Village pump
• Prior discussion at Help:contents page
• previous proposal.
• original proposal.

Discussion and comments

thanks for your great work! this loooks really good. we can use this comment section, to discuss ideas and items. i am looking over all of your notations below. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sm8900: Thanks, I'm not quite finished yet but I need a bit of a break. I still want to tidy up the organisation within each section and there are a few more links that I want to have an in-depth look at (there's a lot of overlap in the image help pages, for example). 192.76.8.78 (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

sounds good. by the way, one note, I do want to retain the link to Wikipedia:Database reports. it is not a drawback to note that the average editor may not use it frequently; that is the point of including it. I don't view this navbox as being exclusively for new, inexperienced editors; it is also for existing editors who want to learn about the overall structure of wikipedia. and I have been at wikipedia for over fifteen years, and I had no idea the database page existed, until i started working on this template. that is the point of this tempate; it is perhaps a gateway or crossroads for editors at every level. and a broadly-encompassing page like the "database" page is exactly why we need templates like this one; i.e. to open a doorway into parts of wikipedia that might not be well-traveled, but which with a single page can open a door to entire useful sections of wikipedia. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sm8900: Hi Sm8900, I think the database reports would be a better fit in something like {{Useful links}} or {{Wikipedia technical help}} which are full of more advanced technical pages. The basic information pages, templates and categories are intended to be for complete newbies who've never used wikipedia before, as Category:Wikipedia basic information says, basic information technical pages do not assume prior knowledge about wikitext, MediaWiki, templates, etc. I think the database reports are probably a bit too complex and a bit too specialised to be in an introductory navbox. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

ok, I can accept your suggestion above. I made a few changes to grouping, and to links. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sm8900: I've changed the name of one of the links because I thought it was a bit ambiguous but apart from that I think it's done. The only thing left to deal with is the links in the "We need to think about these" section, they aren't included at the moment. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

ok, that sounds fine. as far as the Missing Manual, here is my thought; I think it does pass one basic test, namely of being an effective user-friendly resource. I agree that it is somewhat lacking in recent updates, but clearly someone way back considered it worthwhile to keep here.

it does fulfil one basic useful function. it models the type of resource that ideally we ought to have available here; and since in fact it is available, perhaps it might be worthwhile to keep a link to it in the nav box. that way, someone with some inspiration in this topical area, could use the existing document as a viable foundation for any potential edits or expansions that they might be inspired to implement. does that sound good? :) --Sm8900 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sm8900: I really am in two minds about the missing manual. On the one hand it's a really well written professional book that has the potential to be a fantastic resource, the style of writing is a thousand times better than the wikipedia legalese that most of our help pages are written in. On the other hand it hasn't been properly updated and is 14 years out of date. I read through a few pages of it before moving it to that section, while all the text was well written it contains some advice that made me say "Yikes". One of the sections I read was the speedy deletion section , which incorrectly tells editors that schools can be deleted under criteria WP:A7 and that you can make up your own criteria for speedy deletion if one doesn't exist, all illustrated with images of the 2008 era interface. I'm just not sure whether that's a good starting point for a newbie or not, I wouldn't object to addition or removal. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

well, you definitely make some very valid points about this. on the other hand, it turns out that perhaps wikipedia itself is of two minds on this as well. below is an entry that may be greatly interesting to you. as far as the outdated portions go... well, maybe I will adopt this manaual myself, and maybe start working on updating it here nd there. I'm not promising how thorough I can be, though! I will take a look, and will let you know. thanks!

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia - The Missing Manual . --Sm8900 (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Existing template

For comparison:

Existing

Sm8900's version

Links added

• Wikipedia:News - directory of newsletters, linked in the title of the new "Newsletters" section

Links Removed

1. Help:Musical symbols - Not "basic information", this is documentation for a niche piece of wiki mark-up. For scale the template that this page recommends the use of is used on only 7,300 pages.
2. Help:Barchart - Not basic information. The page describes a rather bizarre way of contorting the timeline extension to make a bar graph, rather than using the actual Graph extension.
3. Help:Reset password - this is already covered on the "help with logging in" page
4. Help:Link color - very strange page - half of it is a really in depth coverage of how links change colour when you click on them, the remainder is how to format links in colours, something only really used in signatures. Not needed in a basic information template.
5. Help:Books - Book namespace is deprecated, book creator is only half functional, this page is marked historical.
6. Wikipedia:Tip of the day Redundant to the Wikipedia:Tips link, the first section of that page after the intro is a transclusion of the Tip of the day with instructions on adding it to your own page.
7. Help:URL - half redundant, half too complex. The first half of this page is an explanation of how to insert links, which is redundant to Help:Linking, the second half is a detailed look at using index.php to construct links that perform certain actions, which is not "basic information"
8. Help:Page name - oddball page, most of the content here is an explanation of namespaces, which is redundant to Help:Namespace, a lot of the remaining content is just a repeat of Help:Linking, then there's some technical information on the database schema, some information on how URL's are formatted and a comment that the page name is the name that appears at the top of the page. I'm not seeing what makes this worth linking to - most of its content is in other help pages that are linked.
9. Wikipedia:WikiNode Useless page of dead links, hasn't been updated in a decade, marked historical 4 years ago.
10. Wiki#Editing - Not a useful page for people looking for information on wiki markup.
11. Help:Calculation - advanced feature that isn't really basic information, this is only really used in templates. Already covered in the "magic words" page. Additionaly we have no local content on this and have to send users to meta.
12. Wikipedia:Database reports - Rather advanced feature mostly of use to wikignomes, I don't think this belongs in a "basic information" template.

Links requiring more thought

• (a volunteer will visit you there) - I think that in 99% of cases editors would get faster (and probably better) responses using something like the teahouse or the help desk. Is telling people to use the {{help me}} template worthwile?
• The Missing Manual - 2008 era instruction manual that hasn't been kept up to date. Is this still a useful resource for new editors?
• Wikipedia:List of policies and Wikipedia:List of guidelines If we already have a link to the "list of policies and guidelines" do we really need the separate "list of policies" and "list of guidelines" too? It seems like redundant repetition to have the exact same material organised in three different lists. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)