→Threats of harm redux: Replying to Bsherr (using reply-link) |
→Threats of harm redux: reply |
||
Line 159: | Line 159: | ||
:::::::::: |
:::::::::: |
||
::::::::::I'm hesitant to try to modify [[WP:EMERGENCY]], since I'm not a crisis response professional, and I think writing that page is something we should be leaving to professionals (someone at WMF, presumably). But to the extent that that page is not appropriate for readers, I think the page itself needs to be changed, since it's possible readers or very new editors might come across it. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 16:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
::::::::::I'm hesitant to try to modify [[WP:EMERGENCY]], since I'm not a crisis response professional, and I think writing that page is something we should be leaving to professionals (someone at WMF, presumably). But to the extent that that page is not appropriate for readers, I think the page itself needs to be changed, since it's possible readers or very new editors might come across it. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 16:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::WP:EMERGENCY was largely written by ordinary editors.[https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Responding%20to%20threats%20of%20harm] Obviously, it is not WMF taking the initiative to include this information in the "Contact us". Strictly speaking, we don't have any professional advice on the benefits of presenting the information in the "Contact us" hierarchy, and whether or not context, as I propose, is helpful or even essential. But we can look to other websites that host user generated content that are not volunteer run, like Facebook[https://www.facebook.com/help/1553737468262661/], Twitter[https://help.twitter.com/en/safety-and-security/self-harm-and-suicide], Instagram[https://help.instagram.com/553490068054878/], etc. All of them contextualize the information, provide more in the way of resources, not just a notification process, and none of them have a top level link from their help/contact page to their page (rather, on all of them, it's a second-level link). Also, in contrast to concern about making changes to WP:EMERGENCY, the proposal already differs from the information presented on that page. It changes the title and truncates the sections on information for administrators and external links. The external links section might actually be essential, in that it links to WMF's crisis support resources page. So, again, if the intention is not to make any changes to WP:EMERGENCY, why are we not just linking to WP:EMERGENCY? If the intention is to create a more user-friendly presentation of the page, why aren't we doing that? --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 14:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
==Tabs sandbox== |
==Tabs sandbox== |
Revision as of 14:09, 12 September 2020
Wikipedia Help A‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
Archive 2 (Mar 2006 - Jan 2008) Archive 3 (Feb 2008 - 2010) Archive 4 (Feb 2010 - Feb 2014) Archive 5 (Feb 2014 - present) |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
See list of subpages of "Wikipedia:Contact us".
Jimmy Wales line
Is it really necessary to say in item 2 that Jimmy Wales isn't personally responsible for Wikipedia's content? Couldn't that be rolled into item 1 or just removed? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed that it could be rolled into item 1. Seems a bit silly as is. Ajpolino (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ajpolino, I tried rewriting item 1 to include it, but
Edits are not the responsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation (the organisation that hosts the site), its staff, or Jimmy Wales
sounds weird and redundant, since Wales is essentially a Wikimedia staff member. So I support just taking the line out. How many readers are really going to assume that he's responsible for the site's content anyways? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ajpolino, I tried rewriting item 1 to include it, but
Responding to threats of harm?
I notice that the WMF emergencies email address doesn't seem to be included anywhere. Should we at least link to Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm here? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be great. Good idea. Ajpolino (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- OK, but exactly how? Its key should be
If you see a threat of harm (including self-harm)...
EEng 02:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)- EEng and Ajpolino, I can think of two approaches: the first is to add a bullet point on the first page with something like
If you see a threat of harm (including self-harm), please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm.
The other approach is to add a tab to the list on the side so that goes to a page that transcludes most of WP:Responding to threats of harm (or we could just move WP:Responding to threats of harm redirect to this page). Which approach do you think is best? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)- How about if we create a scratch copy we can edit all together? But first... the structure of this page is quite baroque. Is there a reason for all the subpages and transclusions and stuff? Are these bits and pieces used elsewhere? If not can we just compile it all together? (I haven't looked closely so maybe I'm missing something.) EEng 02:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- EEng, I don't really have an issue with the overall structure. We don't want this to be a long page (that scares people away), so it's best to have the tabs, and readers can click on whichever one is relevant to them.
- Sandbox for the first page is at Wikipedia:Contact us/sandbox; let's have at it! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- How about if we create a scratch copy we can edit all together? But first... the structure of this page is quite baroque. Is there a reason for all the subpages and transclusions and stuff? Are these bits and pieces used elsewhere? If not can we just compile it all together? (I haven't looked closely so maybe I'm missing something.) EEng 02:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- EEng and Ajpolino, I can think of two approaches: the first is to add a bullet point on the first page with something like
Copyedit
Needs a bit of a copyedit. Like most thing's it's too wordy. For example, is it really necessary to say that the reason one might see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
is that it offers avenues available to resolve disputes
? EEng 02:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- EEng, agreed. Perhaps whip up a sandbox version and we can make an edit request? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Anyway to fix the sandwiching of text? For those with reading disabilities the following is very hard to read. --Moxy 🍁 06:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you
for your interest
in contacting Wikipedia
Before proceeding,
some important
disclaimers
Wikipedia has
no central
editorial board
Wikipedia:Accessibility dos and don'ts--Moxy 🍁 06:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 20 June 2020
Following up from the discussion above (which seems to have stagnated, despite an invite from the help project talk page), please adopt the version at Wikipedia:Contact us/sandbox. This makes a few changes, including adding a notice about threats of harm, adding a visual, and removing the line about Jimmy Wales. Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't really see an active consensus for any of those changes. I personally have issue with the big red box and that has no specific discussion. The line removing Jimmy doesn't seem to have any discussion specifically to removal, and I also don't see discussion about a big image on the right, and one participant already concerned about scrunching (which this image makes worse). The only thing I'd be willing to implement right now is the slightly less verbose pair of lines. Please achieve consensus on each component. --Izno (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- Izno, I made the edit request since EEng and I seemed to agree there's a need to address threats of harm, Ajpolino and I seemed to agree it's unnecessary to have a line on Jimmy Wales, and the image addition seemed uncontroversial since we have images of the same color/size on all the other "contact us" tabs after the intro (Moxy showed up after I submitted it).
- I'm happy to have further discussion, but (as with many pages in this kind of space) it's hard to draw attention (I sent an invite to WT:Emergency as well as the one to WT:Help project), and I'd prefer we not all forget about it and get stuck with the status quo. As much as I try to limit the number of VPR posts I make, I may post an FYI link there. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding Ajpolino:
Agreed that it could be rolled into item 1. Seems a bit silly as is. Ajpolino (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
. You removed the line but Ajpolino seemingly agreed to merging the line. - Regarding the image: Feel free to adjudicate Moxy's concerns then.
- As for the red box: EEng agreed to a link. Please convince me a red box is necessary. (I don't think it is, again, personally, without my admin hat on.)
- I am not particularly interested in forgetting the changes. I am interested in ensuring the integrity of a fully-protected, widely-viewed, page. As I said, please show consensus for each discrete change. --Izno (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Izno: That's reasonable. I addressed Wales above. For accessibility, I had opened a section on mobile accessibility below, which is inadequate in the current version and won't be made any worse by the image; for desktop it should display fine for any reasonable setting. Again, it's what we already have on the other pages. For the threats of harm, I went with the box to err on the side of caution, since it'd be tragic if someone came here after seeing e.g. a suicide threat and couldn't instantly find a pointer to the resource they need. That said, having never monitored the emergency@wikimedia.org address, though, I can't say whether that sort of thing happens here. Thinking about it, I think having a tab for emergencies that transcludes the main portion of WP:Emergencies might be the best option. I'll set that up; please let me know what you all think. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Update: the page is now set up at Wikipedia:Contact us/Emergencies. The tabs will need to be changed to what's at Wikipedia:Contact us/tabs/sandbox, and then the other pages will need to have the
|this=
parameter increased by one each. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Update: the page is now set up at Wikipedia:Contact us/Emergencies. The tabs will need to be changed to what's at Wikipedia:Contact us/tabs/sandbox, and then the other pages will need to have the
- @Izno: That's reasonable. I addressed Wales above. For accessibility, I had opened a section on mobile accessibility below, which is inadequate in the current version and won't be made any worse by the image; for desktop it should display fine for any reasonable setting. Again, it's what we already have on the other pages. For the threats of harm, I went with the box to err on the side of caution, since it'd be tragic if someone came here after seeing e.g. a suicide threat and couldn't instantly find a pointer to the resource they need. That said, having never monitored the emergency@wikimedia.org address, though, I can't say whether that sort of thing happens here. Thinking about it, I think having a tab for emergencies that transcludes the main portion of WP:Emergencies might be the best option. I'll set that up; please let me know what you all think. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding Ajpolino:
- I haven't forgotten about this, just working my way back to it. EEng 22:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- OK, if it's not too late for me to help, where should I look? I've lost track. EEng 01:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- EEng, Wikipedia:Contact us/sandbox has general tweaks to the intro page. The main questions are whether it's okay to add the visual and whether it's okay to take out the Wales line. For threats of harm, I'd like to add a tab, Wikipedia:Contact us/Emergencies, which transcludes WP:EMERGENCY, so the question is whether that's an okay way to do it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 09:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- OK, if it's not too late for me to help, where should I look? I've lost track. EEng 01:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 28 June 2020
I've a slew of simultaneous changes to request in order to get this page set working on mobile devices using {{intro to}}
:
- Moves
- Move Wikipedia:Contact_us -> Wikipedia:Contact_us/1
- Move Wikipedia:Contact_us/Readers -> Wikipedia:Contact_us/2
- Move Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article subjects -> Wikipedia:Contact_us/3
- Move Wikipedia:Contact_us/Licensing -> Wikipedia:Contact_us/4
- Move Wikipedia:Contact_us/Donors -> Wikipedia:Contact_us/5
- Move Wikipedia:Contact_us/Press_and_partnerships -> Wikipedia:Contact_us/6
- Edits
- Replace Wikipedia:Contact_us/tabs/sandbox over to Wikipedia:Contact_us/tabs
- Replace Wikipedia:Contact_us/1/sandbox over to Wikipedia:Contact_us/1
- Replace Wikipedia:Contact_us/2/sandbox over to Wikipedia:Contact_us/2
- Replace Wikipedia:Contact_us/3/sandbox over to Wikipedia:Contact_us/3
- Replace Wikipedia:Contact_us/4/sandbox over to Wikipedia:Contact_us/4
- Replace Wikipedia:Contact_us/5/sandbox over to Wikipedia:Contact_us/5
- Replace Wikipedia:Contact_us/6/sandbox over to Wikipedia:Contact_us/6
Thank you! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Evolution and evolvability: ummm what? You want to move a bunch of pages (assuming leaving redirects) and then promote sandboxes in to the redirect targets? Why should all these pages be redirects? — xaosflux Talk 18:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Xaosflux, this is a section following up from the one above about mobile accessibility. Evolution and evolvability is trying to do that by switching to using the {{Intro to}} framework (from the Help:Introduction series) as the way to structure the framing box and tabs, rather than {{Help intro frame top}} and whatever else this series is currently using. However, {{Intro to}} currently requires pages to be sequentially named with /1, /2, /3, etc., thus the move requests.
- I am very much in favor of consolidating the underlying framework between here and {{Intro to}}, since both pages have the same display format. The renamings give me a bit of pause, since the pages here aren't sequential the way the Help:Intro tabs are, so it'd be better to find a way to switch to {{Intro to}} without having to rename. But if that doesn't happen, I won't lose any sleep over it. Hope that helps clarify, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- This isn't very clear, doesn't address what pages are high risk and need protection, appears to be mixing protection levels throughout, and seems to be creating non-desired redirects. Evolution and evolvability, please explain this in more detail what the end result needs to be. — xaosflux Talk 03:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux and Sdkb: The edits from sandbox versions are just to change the formatting template to
{{intro to}}
, with the content otherwise kept the same. I've now updated the template to that it's possible to manually specify the prev and next subpages in the series. I'll therefore update the editrequest tomorrow to keep the subpages at their current locations and only change the formatting templates from the sandboxes. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux and Sdkb: The edits from sandbox versions are just to change the formatting template to
- What is calling the first page now, is that changing? Here is one set of the the request above:
- Move Wikipedia:Contact_us -> Wikipedia:Contact_us/1
- This will move the fully protected page to that other page, moving its protection with it and presumably you want to leaving a redirect behind (which will also be protected).
- Then you want to copy-and-paste the edits from Wikipedia:Contact us/1/sandbox in to Wikipedia:Contact_us/1
- Not done So why do we need all these new redirects instead of just updating the current pages, or also fixing Wikipedia:Contact us/tabs to bypass all the redirects you will have created? Deactivating edit request for now, reactivate when you think this is ready again. — xaosflux Talk 20:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 04 July 2020
@Xaosflux and Sdkb: Here's the updated proposal based on the discussion above. The pages are kept at their current locations. All that is needed is to update the pages below to use {{intro to}}
by copying over from the sandboxes.
- Replace Wikipedia:Contact_us/sandbox over to Wikipedia:Contact_us
- Replace Wikipedia:Contact_us/Readers/sandbox over to Wikipedia:Contact_us/Readers
- Replace Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_subjects/sandbox over to Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_subjects
- Replace Wikipedia:Contact_us/Licensing/sandbox over to Wikipedia:Contact_us/Licensing
- Replace Wikipedia:Contact_us/Donors/sandbox over to Wikipedia:Contact_us/Donors
- Replace Wikipedia:Contact_us/Press_and_partnerships/sandbox over to Wikipedia:Contact_us/Press_and_partnerships
That should do it! There should be no need to use numbered subpages, as override parameters now specified for the template). Optionally, to omit the "back" and "next" buttons entirely, you can just omit the |prevsubpage=
and |nextsubpage=
parameters on each of the subpages. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 07:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for working on this! I think the back and next buttons should be suppressed — someone who navigates to the correct page for their situation will typically have no need or desire to see the others. (Also, it'll be easier to get this request implemented if it doesn't make any changes beyond the mobile accessibility, and not having back/next buttons is the status quo.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, and the navbox at the bottom is another thing that we'll need to suppress. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Sdkb's proposed modifications. Would it be better to just create our own version of Intro to, instead of adding parameters? --Bsherr (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Bsherr, the best path would have been to create a core template for the box/tabs structure, and then have {{Intro to}}, {{Contact us}} (hypothetical), and anything else (does anything else using this structure exist?) modify it for their custom purposes as needed. But due to path dependency, at this point I think it'd be easier to just use {{Intro to}}, since it has parameters for everything except the navbox suppression, which would be trivial to add. I'd oppose a fork (which is basically what we have now) per Don't repeat yourself — let's remember that a fork is what led us here in the first place, since only the intro to version was updated for mobile friendliness. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- So then if we're continuing to use Intro to, we may be able to accomplish our purpose using Help:Labeled section transclusion, since the template contents we don't need is all coded at the bottom. I'm going to play in the sandbox. --Bsherr (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Bsherr, the best path would have been to create a core template for the box/tabs structure, and then have {{Intro to}}, {{Contact us}} (hypothetical), and anything else (does anything else using this structure exist?) modify it for their custom purposes as needed. But due to path dependency, at this point I think it'd be easier to just use {{Intro to}}, since it has parameters for everything except the navbox suppression, which would be trivial to add. I'd oppose a fork (which is basically what we have now) per Don't repeat yourself — let's remember that a fork is what led us here in the first place, since only the intro to version was updated for mobile friendliness. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Sdkb's proposed modifications. Would it be better to just create our own version of Intro to, instead of adding parameters? --Bsherr (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, and the navbox at the bottom is another thing that we'll need to suppress. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit protected}}
template. Izno (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@Bsherr and Sdkb:. There's always a tradeoff between avoiding forking where possible versus complicating the template with optional parameters and #if functions. For the moment I'm leaning towards futureproofing and avoiding manual duplications if possible, but I can see the value in having multiple specialised templates that adapt transclusions of {{intro to}}
. For now, I've made the |navbox=
an optional parameter in {{intro to}}
(with the defailt as [[tlx|}}) and updated the sandbox versions of this page to omit the prev and next subpage buttons, and omit the navbox. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 06:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Evolution and evolvability, looks good to me. Shall we reactive the request? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Done Izno (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Izno! It looks like we've lost the shading for the tabs. Adopting Wikipedia:Contact us/tabs/sandbox for Wikipedia:Contact us/tabs should fix that issue, I think. Let us know if there are any problems with the page previews. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- It did not correct the issue and moreover is now sending users through redirect links in the tabs. --Izno (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Evolution and evolvability: Any idea how to fix this? To clarify for anyone confused, I'm referring to the light grey shading that is supposed to highlight the tab you're currently on. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, so looking at {{Intro to tabs}}, it seems to be dependent on pages being named with /1, /2, etc. That might take a bit of work to figure out how to overcome. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- It should work by putting the subpage name in the
|number=
parameter (have implemented in Wikipedia:Contact_us/tabs/sandbox). The only one it doesn't work for is the first tab, since that has no subpage. Edit request below. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 23:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- It should work by putting the subpage name in the
- Hmm, so looking at {{Intro to tabs}}, it seems to be dependent on pages being named with /1, /2, etc. That might take a bit of work to figure out how to overcome. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Evolution and evolvability: Any idea how to fix this? To clarify for anyone confused, I'm referring to the light grey shading that is supposed to highlight the tab you're currently on. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- It did not correct the issue and moreover is now sending users through redirect links in the tabs. --Izno (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Izno! It looks like we've lost the shading for the tabs. Adopting Wikipedia:Contact us/tabs/sandbox for Wikipedia:Contact us/tabs should fix that issue, I think. Let us know if there are any problems with the page previews. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 16 July 2020
In order to get the tab highlighting working, please:
- Replace Wikipedia:Contact_us/tabs/sandbox over to Wikipedia:Contact_us/tabs
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 23:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Threats of harm redux
Okay, so now that we've got some of the technical aspects in better shape, I wanted to follow up about WP:Contact us/Emergencies, which transcludes WP:EMERGENCY. Does it look alright to you all? If so, I'll put in an edit request to add it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- On the matter of the emergency tab: My understanding is that the Contact us page is meant to face readers, not editors. Since the issues raised by WP:EMERGENCY are going to be on user and talk pages, is Contact us a relevant place to include this information? But if it is, wouldn't a link to WP:EMERGENCY be better than a transclusion? --Bsherr (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- Bsherr, those are good questions. This is definitely a reader-facing page, but I think there's still reason to have information about emergencies. That's partly because it is possible a reader might come across an emergency situation in mainspace (e.g. vandalism that includes a threat of harm), but also because someone who sees a threat of harm might reasonably click on the link in the sidebar and come here, and we definitely wouldn't want them to be stranded.
- Regarding a link versus a tab, I think either could work alright. The important thing is that, since emergencies are time-critical, the information should be reasonably prominent and no more than one click away. I previously mocked up what a link from the first page might look like here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Sdkb's reasoning and think we should include the box. EEng 00:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- I understand the reason to make it prominent, but may we place it at the bottom or side instead of the top? With placement at the top, it becomes the first thing a reader reads on the page, even though it won't be the reason most readers come to the Contact us page. Also, some context might be helpful, so as not to alarm readers who may not be familiar with the "anyone can edit" concept of Wikipedia. --Bsherr (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hmmm. You do have a point. I guess it might make the uninitiated think, "What kind of place is this?" But we want it prominent.On the whole i'd leave it at the top. If it's at the bottom it's like we're deemphasizing it, but then reemphasizing it with the box and red triangle and stuff. EEng 04:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Bsherr, sorry I never got back to this previously. The current approach is to have WP:Contact us/Emergencies as its own tab in the sidebar, rather than a box at the bottom or top of the initial page. Are you on board with that? (If you are, that'll be 3-0, which will hopefully allow us to implement.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking. I still think it would be better to just link to WP:EMERGENCY from the introduction tab instead of transcluding it on its own tab. If consensus is for the latter, however, I think Template:Transcluded section should appear at the top. --Bsherr (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- To me, the burden to overcome for transcluding over linking WP:EMERGENCY is whether we are putting the information in WP:EMERGENCY in context for readers. For example, like I said above, explaining that, because anyone can edit, and because Wikipedia has talk pages for discussing improvements, a reader may encounter another user experiencing a crisis. If we're just regurgitating WP:EMERGENCY, I don't see me why we wouldn't just link from the introduction page, which would involve the same number of navigation steps as a tab (one). --Bsherr (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- My mind is a blank but I'm behind whatever you guys come up with. EEng 03:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Bsherr, I think we definitely want WP:EMERGENCY to be part of the reader-facing area of Wikipedia, for the reason above that readers conceivably might have reason to use it. I think it's decently good at that currently, given that it doesn't have a whole lot of room for detailed explanations the same as a normal page would. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, but my question remains: What is the purpose of transcluding the page instead of providing a link? --Bsherr (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Bsherr, I think it fits better with the overall structure, which is for the introduction page to serve as a portal directing you to different ways in which you might want to contact Wikipedia, each of which is represented by a tab. We could always have the tab link go directly to WP:EMERGENCY, but that then makes it harder to navigate if someone clicks on it and then realizes, "oh wait, discovering a defamatory allegation on the Wikipedia page about me isn't actually an emergency according to this". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: Let's say we do go with the tab. Firstly, I agree with the notion that "Emergency" is a terribly ambiguous name for the page and tab. WP:EMERGENCY is a shortcut; the actual name of the page is Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. That's the only emergency that page and the proposed tab deals with, so wouldn't that be the better name for the tab? Secondly, if we are taking the time to make a reader-facing tab based on WP:EMERGENCY, wouldn't we take the opportunity to tailor the information for that audience? Specifically, I mean providing context for the information, as I described above, and also distilling the information to only that which is likely to be useful to the likely audience. The person who arrives at this tab is probably not going to be an administrator, is probably not going to know how to contact other administrators by email, and is probably not going to be on IRC, so that information should be trimmed. Then a link should be added to WP:EMERGENCY. If that all seems reasonable, those changes would justify not merely linking to the page. --Bsherr (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Bsherr, my proposal for the tabs is here; I use the description to make the page's purpose clear.
- I'm hesitant to try to modify WP:EMERGENCY, since I'm not a crisis response professional, and I think writing that page is something we should be leaving to professionals (someone at WMF, presumably). But to the extent that that page is not appropriate for readers, I think the page itself needs to be changed, since it's possible readers or very new editors might come across it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- WP:EMERGENCY was largely written by ordinary editors.[1] Obviously, it is not WMF taking the initiative to include this information in the "Contact us". Strictly speaking, we don't have any professional advice on the benefits of presenting the information in the "Contact us" hierarchy, and whether or not context, as I propose, is helpful or even essential. But we can look to other websites that host user generated content that are not volunteer run, like Facebook[2], Twitter[3], Instagram[4], etc. All of them contextualize the information, provide more in the way of resources, not just a notification process, and none of them have a top level link from their help/contact page to their page (rather, on all of them, it's a second-level link). Also, in contrast to concern about making changes to WP:EMERGENCY, the proposal already differs from the information presented on that page. It changes the title and truncates the sections on information for administrators and external links. The external links section might actually be essential, in that it links to WMF's crisis support resources page. So, again, if the intention is not to make any changes to WP:EMERGENCY, why are we not just linking to WP:EMERGENCY? If the intention is to create a more user-friendly presentation of the page, why aren't we doing that? --Bsherr (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: Let's say we do go with the tab. Firstly, I agree with the notion that "Emergency" is a terribly ambiguous name for the page and tab. WP:EMERGENCY is a shortcut; the actual name of the page is Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. That's the only emergency that page and the proposed tab deals with, so wouldn't that be the better name for the tab? Secondly, if we are taking the time to make a reader-facing tab based on WP:EMERGENCY, wouldn't we take the opportunity to tailor the information for that audience? Specifically, I mean providing context for the information, as I described above, and also distilling the information to only that which is likely to be useful to the likely audience. The person who arrives at this tab is probably not going to be an administrator, is probably not going to know how to contact other administrators by email, and is probably not going to be on IRC, so that information should be trimmed. Then a link should be added to WP:EMERGENCY. If that all seems reasonable, those changes would justify not merely linking to the page. --Bsherr (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Bsherr, I think it fits better with the overall structure, which is for the introduction page to serve as a portal directing you to different ways in which you might want to contact Wikipedia, each of which is represented by a tab. We could always have the tab link go directly to WP:EMERGENCY, but that then makes it harder to navigate if someone clicks on it and then realizes, "oh wait, discovering a defamatory allegation on the Wikipedia page about me isn't actually an emergency according to this". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, but my question remains: What is the purpose of transcluding the page instead of providing a link? --Bsherr (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Tabs sandbox
I've also gone back (and here again I apologies for being late to the party) and made some fairly extensive edits to the Wikipedia:Contact_us/sandbox (see [5]). Most should be uncontroversial, but there are three places (called out in edit summaries) that might bear further scrutiny:
- a change in the text about who's "responsible" for edits/content
- dropped the help desk as a listed place to go for help, leaving just the Teahouse and IRC
- dropped the bullet about Jimbo.
I hope it's not too late to consider taking this revised version live.
However, there's a lingering issue I want to raise. There are two different places telling what to do about content issues:
- In the main list it says
If you disagree with an article's content, or are involved in a content dispute, see Dispute resolution
. - But in the "tabs" there's link
Readers – How to report a problem with an article, or find out more information
which takes you to a more elaborate discussion.
I don't think we should have both, and I think it's the dispute resolution that should be removed – the sort of person who lands on this page will be chewed up and spit out by Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution.
[Needs more discussion below]: Furthermore, in the Readers link I don't know what "find out more information" means – more information about what? What it really is is what to do if you're concerned about article content, but only if you're not the article's subject -- the next tab is for article subjects. I'll leave this point for now while people digest what I've already done, but I think this stuff needs rationalizing. EEng 00:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Ping. EEng 00:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- This all sounds good; I'm still very much down to remove the Jimbo bullet point, which just doesn't seem at all appropriate in 2020. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Fully-protected edit request on 8 September 2020
Please change <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit§ion=new leave a message on the help page]</span>
to {{edit|Wikipedia:Help desk|leave a message on the help page|section=new}}
. The latter is cleaner and more resilient in the face of possible API changes. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)