Help talk:Contents

Which pages should we still link to?
I assume all the pages of the old help hierarchy that we no longer link to should be deleted in the future. (I've included Help:Introduction 2 in them in order to mark them.) Should we still link to Help:Introduction? Doesn't Welcome and Wikibooks:About cover the same information and more? I would like to keep a link to Help:Contributing to Wikibooks for a while because this was my primary source of information about editing (or at least of links to the corresponding pages). --Martin Kraus (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * @Martin Kraus Ndaba Sinothando (discuss • contribs) 08:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Should we include a link to Templates? I think it is about the only useful directory of templates. --Martin Kraus (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * i think so too Ndaba Sinothando (discuss • contribs) 08:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

PDF Books
I have spent the last 4-6 months working on the Commons Category:Pdf files and have created several subcategories. Many of the saves and deletions are books, University theses, manuals etc in Pdf format. It was suggested on a discussion page at one time that Pdf books and Theses go in wikibooks. If so how do I go about linking or moving these book files to here? WayneRay (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)WayneRay


 * You might want to discuss this question at WB:RR. I think University theses don't belong in Wikibooks because (at least in the Universities I know) they usually include original research, which should not be published at Wikibooks (WB:NOR). Moreover, you would have to convert the PDF files to the wiki markup language, as the hosting of existing books (in the PDF format) is discouraged (WB:SOURCE and WB:HOST). --Martin Kraus (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Last I heard in a recent reform of Commons' inclusion policy, PDF files are still allowed on Commons. I don't see any reason why they would need to be moved anywhere. They can be accessed from any project where they might be appropriate. -- dark lama  14:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Help cleanup
Some clean up effort has been going on for some time now, on and off again, to make Wikibooks' help more useful. I propose that Wikibooks' help space be treated like a book. By formatting pages like is done within our books, people unfamiliar with Wikibooks' style can quickly become familiar with how things are done differently on Wikibooks. Using this approach the help space can teach and help people understand how to do things on Wikibooks by following its own example. To this end, I think some requirements are a must: each page must include a 2 level heading with the page/chapter title; additional headings must use 3 level heading or greater; text must not come before the first level 2 heading; and the help space must have a consistent style, which means discussion needs to happen to develop a style guide for the help namespace.

I also think the help space could be made more useful by including more media, diagrams, illustrations, etc. However media should be used to compliment rather than substitute for missing information, in order to make Wikibooks' help accessible to more people, such as the blind.

Any thoughts, ideas, opinions, or any other suggestions? -- dark lama  14:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have any objections as such to treating the Help name-space as a book, but would caution against forcing it into that mold. First of all, I don't foresee anyone really reading this cover to cover. It should, therefore, be treated more as a handbook with a strong emphasis on structure to help readers quickly locate useful information.
 * Linear navigation aids will not necessarily be of much use for such a book. As for other Wikibooks conventions, I would think it more useful to point to various featured books for examples as there often exist multiple approaches to similar issues.
 * Whiteknight wants to take the book-approach a step further and deprecate the Help name-space all together. I'm not sure which approach is the best. I've so far just been trying to wrap my head around the sprawling set of pages that we have here. For the time begin, I think it would be best to implement changes in increments, first organising the available contents and then molding it into whatever we deem best. --Swift (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your saying what I really meant anyways. I was trying to suggest a strong emphases on structure, as well as a strong emphases on consistent style. I wasn't suggesting that there necessarily be a specific reading order or navigation aids. I guess I'm a bit ahead of you in that regard, I've already wrapped my head around the help pages, years ago. -- dark lama  18:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! It sounds like we have a similar enough a vision. Let's get to work! --Swift (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So, how will the redesigned help space be different from Using Wikibooks? One of the major differences between the current help pages and Using Wikibooks is probably that help pages are full of links (and should be in my opinion) while the pages in Using Wikibooks have less links (since they should be self-contained as in a good textbook). Do you intend to keep this difference? --Martin Kraus (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I guess to me the most obvious differences will be in presentation and audience. I think Using Wikibooks is intended to be read in a certain order and is intended to be read by an audience already familiar with most wiki concepts, while the help space is likely to depend less on a specific reading order and should be intended to be read by people not familiar with most wiki concepts. I would like to make the help space more self-contained and limit links to important things explained in greater detail that don't quite fit the beginner audience, by linking only to Using Wikibooks and to the MediaWiki website if I can. I think links should be used more sparingly than they currently are. Does that answer your questions?


 * It does, thanks. I wasn't aware that Using Wikibooks is intended for an audience who is already familiar with most wiki concepts. Since I'm rather new I often read help pages and in fact I'm often missing links. In particular, I often know that I have read some information but don't find the page to read it again. The most recent case was Help:Category which didn't link to the Wikibooks-specific information at Categories (I added that link); thus, I was searching quite a bit for that page. Thus, at least currently I think links to the Wikibooks namespace should also be included. --Martin Kraus (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I could be wrong about the intended audience or what assumptions Using Wikibooks makes. Even if there is some overlap, I don't think that is going to be a problem. I think linking to related Wikibooks policies like with your example is fine. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that links be blindly deleted. I just think the help space relies too much on external links in an attempt to make up for what is missing or what is lacking, rather than expanding the available help. -- dark lama  20:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting non-Wikibooks-specific pages
I've mentioned this to Darklama, but I figured I'd add this here in case others would like to comment.

We have a number of help pages that explain how to use markup. The problem is that they are unmaintained versions of content that rather belongs at Meta and the MediaWiki wiki. I've gone through these and have found nothing of use to describe Wikibooks related syntax. I propose that the following be deleted:


 * (See mw:Extension:EasyTimeline/syntax)
 * (See meta:Help:HTML in wikitext)
 * (See meta:Help:List)
 * , (See: mw:Help:Magic words)
 * (See meta:Help:Navigational image)
 * ,, Help:Turkish characters}} (See: [[meta:Help:Special characters).
 * , (See meta:Help:Displaying a formula
 * redirect to Help:Editing?

The parenthesised links indicate where I believe we should point users who might be looking for this sort of content. --Swift (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and this one too: --Swift (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Help:ISBN links (See mw:Manual:ISBN)


 * I don't think these pages are needed because the majority of the markup is described already in Help:Editing or should be described there. I think Help:Templates should also discuss variables and magic words. I don't think there will really be a need to point users to content on the other projects.


 * Also I think a lot of the help on Meta is in the process of being moved to MediaWiki, because its not specific to Wikimedia projects. I think there also has been some talk of using Wikibooks to aid in improving the mediawiki documentation. In either case the lack of stability is one more reason not to rely on Meta or MediaWiki much. -- dark lama  05:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the transfer from Meta to MediaWiki to the help namespace was abandoned after the MediaWiki Help namespace was put in the public domain (the manual and extension namespace are still transwikied). The MediaWiki Help namespace has since been built from scratch. It is steadily improving and I recommend that we help direct our non-Wikibooks specific documentation efforts there. --Swift (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it may still be happening. I have tried to improve some help on Meta for instance only to go back to it to find that the page had moved to MediaWiki. I have also occasionally went to a help page to double check something only to find that that its been marked to be moved to MediaWiki or a notice that updates should now be done at MediaWiki. I think Wikibooks needs to maintain some local documentation, because linking to Meta and MediaWiki doesn't seem to be enough for most users. I just think that these pages are unneeded because local documentation is either already present on another page or should be. -- dark lama  09:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|15px| ]] Done Whew! I've updated a bunch of links, but left most of those on pages in the help namespace as we'll have to go through those anyway. --Swift (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Page headings

 * The following discussion was moved here from Help talk:Tracking changes after it moved on to a more general discussion about the sectioning of content in the help namespace. --Swift (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just reverted part of an earlier edit. I removed a section header titled "Stable revisions" that spanned the entire page, and bumped the sub-section headers. If a section really spans the entire page, then the page should probably be renamed to its title.

I wasn't sure what the most proper page name would be so I checked mw:Help:FlaggedRevs which states that stable revisions are only revisions of a certain limit. On Wikibooks that limit is currently at the lowest (sighting). It might be more useful to keep a more general title for this page in line with the help page currently being developed over at MediaWiki.org. --Swift (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't think of it as a section heading, but as a page heading. Books do that all the time, its considered part of Wikibooks' style. This goes back to my suggestion on Help talk:Contents to make the help pages follow some basic book style guidelines. -- dark lama  14:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh. But we already have page headings: the page titles. I'd agree that designating the help pages with a certain look could be useful. Instead of a "page heading" we could adda navigation bar with a nice, helpful looking icon. The useful template helps with creating a standard look, but, ironically, isn't very useful itself. I'd be rather opposed to adding these page headings. --Swift (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. A page's title isn't a heading. The page title doesn't even show up in the TOC that is generated. Why would you be rather opposed to using page headings? I've been trying to add them to every help page I've edited for awhile now. I don't think a page's title is very useful on paper. I'd like the help pages to eventually be printed as a way of attracting more contributors to Wikibooks. Also I thought we had already agreed on Help talk:Contents that navigational templates shouldn't be used? I guess you could say I'd be rather opposed to not using page headings. -- dark lama  04:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The page title is a h1-heading. That isn't just technical hair-splitting as that's how it's rendered both on screen and in print. I remember reading in some W3C document on HTML recommending that pages have only a single h1 level heading each, but be sectioned up with h2 and higher. A single section for the entire page just seems redundant.
 * I consider it a feature that this doesn't show up in the generated TOC. The "Stable Revisions" heading in this version serves little purpose on that page and forces every other section to be pushed down one level. I, furthermore, prefer having the h2 level headings to section pages up into logical parts as they render by default with that line underneith and the higher level headings as rather small and similar.
 * If you'd like this type of page-wide sections to make it easier to stich them together in a print version, how about adding h1 level headings on the print version page (which I'd consider the the most logical approach) or create a collection?
 * I think I misunderstood you a bit in the Help cleanup discussion. I think we shouldn't necessarily conform to a linear navigation, but consider a template with an overview of useful pages, well ... useful. It might be useful to move these two topics to Help talk:Contents. --Swift (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First off I was using a h2 heading, not a h1 heading, so there was only a single h1 level heading on the page. I think h1 headings should correlate to the sections of the help (like Introduction, Browsing Wikibooks, etc) and h2 headings should be used to divide the help into "chapters". I think this is what books do, although the separation tends to depend on whether a book merely has chapters or needs to be divided further than that. From there h3 level headings and higher are used to further divide content. This still is in line with W3C's recommendation, so I don't see the problem.
 * As I'm sure you know, modules are often chapters or parts of a chapter. I think if a module is a chapter it should only have one h2 heading, or if a module is part of a chapter it should only have one h3 heading. I think doing this does serve a purpose beyond pushing page sections down. I think how the help is divided should be reflected in the use of different heading levels, and should reflect more than just how a module is divided, so that readers and writers understand how a book is divided. Plus I don't think there should be any text above a page's generated TOC. I think having text above a page's generated TOC interferes with or interrupts the flow of reading the page.
 * Some printed books don't require that they be read from front to back in a liner order. I think this could be considered that type of book, so that's why I don't see a problem with not using navigational aids. Feel free to move this discussion there. -- dark lama  08:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just moved the discussion here: Help talk:Contents. --Swift (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I know you used a h2 heading. I thought that was clear from the first paragraph of my previous comment: "[Pages should be] sectioned up with h2 and higher. A single section for the entire page just seems redundant." I do realise that you had a useful purpose in mind with your edits. I never said that "pushing page sections down" was the purpose, but noted it as the effect.
 * I think we may have been mis-reading each others comments a bit lately on issues where we don't see eye to eye. Do you see how I think you've misinterpreted my previous comment? Do you find that I'm misunderstanding you as well? I'd appreciate it if we could sort that out as I feel like we're talking in two different dialects and not progressing much because of it. --Swift (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(reset)

I still don't understand what you're trying to say or why you disagree with my approach. Whatever you were trying to explain wasn't clear to me from the context. I guess I don't understand your reference to h1 and W3C's recommendations. To me what you said suggested that you think I wasn't following W3C's recommendation because I was using h1 headings, which wasn't apparently what you meant.

I only see that I must have misunderstood your previous comment, but not how I misunderstood it because you haven't provided any further explanation. I can't tell yet if you've misunderstood me as well. What have I said that you think you've misunderstood? If I understand you right, you seem to think the purpose of section headings is to separate a module into sections. I on the other hand think section heads are for separating a book into sections and subsections. I guess you see each help page as standing on it own, and I see the each help page as being part of a book where each chapter can be read independently. Other than trying to explain in our own words what we each think the other person is saying and trying to clarify what is misunderstood, I'm not sure what else we can do to reduce any misunderstandings, without knowing what is misunderstood. -- dark lama  13:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply. What I disagree with is your use of a single section to encompass the entire page. I was concerned that you might think my approach didn't tie the sections of the page together tightly enough. Rather than just saying that I disagreed with the use of only a single h2 heading per page, I therefore lead into it with the reference to the W3C's recommendation. My aim was to clarify that I didn't think the sections should just dangle unconnected, and that the h1 section (the title) should &mdash; and already does &mdash; do this.
 * I don't, actually, think that I'm misunderstanding you a lot, but figured I'd still ask.
 * I think we have fairly similar ideas of what to do with these pages, but differ mostly on formatting (well, and that I want to "outsource" simple syntax stuff to ; but that's a different topic). I don't think the help pages shouldn't form a whole, but feel (like you) that it's important that they be able to stand on their own. I'm less interested in printing these out, than in having them accessible and organised for users. Would you be willing to accept the compromise to place h1 headings between page inclusions on print versions? I don't think we should be formatting individual pages in for how they should come out on print and should focus on how they display to online users of Wikibookians. --Swift (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Weeding
I'd like to get the community input before weeding out a few practically unused pages in the help namespace:


 * None of these is linked from anywhere useful. I suggest we delete them all. --Swift (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * None of these is linked from anywhere useful. I suggest we delete them all. --Swift (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * None of these is linked from anywhere useful. I suggest we delete them all. --Swift (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * None of these is linked from anywhere useful. I suggest we delete them all. --Swift (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * None of these is linked from anywhere useful. I suggest we delete them all. --Swift (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * None of these is linked from anywhere useful. I suggest we delete them all. --Swift (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * None of these is linked from anywhere useful. I suggest we delete them all. --Swift (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * None of these is linked from anywhere useful. I suggest we delete them all. --Swift (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * None of these is linked from anywhere useful. I suggest we delete them all. --Swift (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The only meaningful link to this page is from a ) --Swift (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The only meaningful link to this page is from a ) --Swift (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A borderline case in my book. The only link to it is through a redirect at and may not have been intnetional.  is in need of an overhaul anyway and I just don't see this to be very useful. --Swift (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A borderline case in my book. The only link to it is through a redirect at and may not have been intnetional.  is in need of an overhaul anyway and I just don't see this to be very useful. --Swift (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree on deletion of them all. I had never seen them before you pointed them out, so how would they be useful to anyone who might need to see them if regulars don't even come across them? Plus, they are either lacking in meaningful content or the results of over-importing from other projects without regard to redundancy with other help pages. -- Adrignola talk contribs 00:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Those interested can browse User:Swift/Help pages to see a (once full) list of help pages. I'm trying to merge, refactor or rewrite these to make our support pages more accessible. --Swift (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point people for WikiBooks to help new editors from Wikipedia?
Hi everyone. I'm looking to gather 1-3 contacts for WikiBooks who would be interested in serving as point people for new editors from Wikipedia. I don't expect that it'll be too time consuming, but, just in case we have a new editor stop by the Teahouse who expresses interest in participating in media contributions and you can be friendly and welcome them and perhaps direct them to an area that might interest them. You're welcome to respond here, or even better, on my talk page if you're interested in being added to this list. Thanks :D SarahStierch (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've copied your post to Reading room/General due to a likely lack of attention to this page; I linked to this discussion so that responses can be seen here by yourself, though posting to your talk page will be preferable, of course. – Adrignola discuss 17:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! SarahStierch (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)