Wikipedia talk:Contact us/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Links formatting

Change links formatting from external to internal syntax for links to CC and Wikipedia, please. --ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 06:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Base: Which page are you talking about? Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects, Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing, or both? None of the others have external links that I can see. And which links do you mean in particular? For the Creative Commons licence link, I'm reluctant to change that, as there may have been legal reasons for linking to the official version. For the Wikipedia links I don't see any problem with changing them to internal link syntax, but I'd like to check which links you mean before I do it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The only thing on Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects that could be changed is <span class="plainlinks">[ leave a message on the help page]</span> could be changed to {{Plainlinks|url={{fullurl:Wikipedia:Help desk|action=edit&section=new}}|name=leave a message on the help page}}. On Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing, I agree that [ upload it yourself] should be changed to [[commons:Commons:Upload|upload it yourself]] and [ submit a request that another user upload it for you] should be changed to [[Wikipedia:Files for upload/Wizard|submit a request that another user upload it for you]]. The only other thing I could see on those pages that might be worth changing is removing the "http:" from all mediawiki external links and let the system choose what is appropriate between http: and https:. Technical 13 (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mr. Stradivarius:Oh, I didn't realize that I was redirected so forgot to clarify the page, sorry. It's Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing and things to fix are [ upload it yourself], [ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license] and [ submit a request that another user upload it for you]. --ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 15:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done I amended Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Redrose64: Sorry for bothering, but not fully done yet: there is an interwikiprefix creativecommons: for links to creative so [ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license] should be changed to [[creativecommons:by-sa/3.0/|Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license]]. Thanks --ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 14:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I didn't know that; it wasn't mentioned earlier. Done, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mr. Stradivarius was resistant to make that last change because of worries of legal implications of the link not being exactly showing that is going to creative commons itself. Redrose64 would you please revert that change until someone from the foundation (maybe Ironholds since they are the last to change the protection level of this) can comment? Thanks Technical 13 (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's the link, copied verbatim from the page: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. If I hover over it, the link "" is displayed at the bottom of the page in Chrome 32 and Firefox 26; whereas the link "" is displayed at the bottom of the page in IE 8, Opera 12 and Safari 5. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technical 13 (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the tooltip, which is often short, and varies significantly between browsers. What is displayed at the bottom of the screen? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing Rose
Technical 13 (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not done: My concern was linking to Wikipedia's copy of CC-BY-SA at Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License; I don't have anything against Redrose's formatting changes. The tooltip looks fine to me, so I'm marking this as not done. I suppose we could change the tooltip if we really wanted to, but that is getting firmly into WP:DEW territory, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bug 31591

We have 2 html div's on this page with the following style definitions which are causing issues on the mobile site (see 1) float: left; width: 49%; margin-right: 1%; 2) float: right; width: 49%; margin-left: 1%;

We actually have css classes which do this and are more mobile resilient:


Could someone with permission to edit this page replace the style attributes on these div with





Also after the last div to clear the floating is probably necessary


Maandishi ya kichwa

It has been our living culture, here in Tanzania, as the Chrismass day gets closer and closer, to find people wishing each other a merry chrismass regardless the religious beliefs one belongs. the mode of communication has been either through well concocted SMS or emails.

Most words so popularly used are HERI YA SIKUKUU YA PASAKA or simply Heri ya sikukuu. for the Christians particularly the Roman Catholics, the words 'Alleluya' are widely used.

For Haya people the popular words are MWAIHUKA NA EKILO KIKULU, or NAKUTONA OMWANA YAZALWA KWO,

the essence of doing all these in our own language is to make a clear expression of love and charity. for the closest friends, the communally have the meals and drinks together. some do move from long distances all way to join friends, partners, and relatives.



Protected edit request on 26 June 2014

Varadraj swami (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding a WMF 'technical issues' email address.

Discussion is here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Proposal_to_add_.22report_technical_issue.22_to_Wikipedia:Contact_us. WP:Permalink is here: [1]. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protected edit request on 10 December 2014

The info-en-o should probably be changed to a generic info-en; -o is a sub queue that shouldn't be receiving such requests. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 13:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you think that the courtesy queue shouldn't receive requests, User:Mdann52? We direct people to other specific queues, such as the vandalism queue also mentioned on that page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
-o is designed for emails on BLP's I believe, and many of the emails are nothing to do with it. In any case, info-en is watched more, so directing people there will likely get a faster response. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, -o is the courtesy queue, User:Mdann52. :) ("c" was taken for copyright.) -q (quality) is for BLPs. info-en is largely a sorting queue with some very broad form responses. Why don't you ask on the OTRS mailing list for preferences or ask people to come here to voice their thoughts? Obviously, whatever works best for people is what should be done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I'll look into this. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great. I'll keep an eye out for the larger discussion! :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protected edit request on 12 January 2015

I want to change my last name page because Meyers is no longer my last name.

Lateisha Pearson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lateisha Meyers (talkcontribs) 18:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lateisha Meyers: Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the wrong place - see the first box at the top of this page. Please also see Wikipedia:Changing username, but note that Wikipedia names need not bear relation to real life names - my name isn't Redrose64, although that is what my login ID is. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voice recordings

Please change:

donating photographs to illustrate your article


donating photographs (or a [[WP:WikiVIP|recording of your voice]]) to illustrate your article

More info at WP:WikiVIP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A recording is not an "illustration" is it? So I'm not sure about that choice of wording. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The core of the change is excellent and desired, but I am also unsure that "illustrate" is the best terminology when talking about images AND audio. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  20:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Do you think "embellish", "improve", ??? would be better? — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 22:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done by separating it from this part of the sentence [2] — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protected edit request on 1 July 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyadarshivishal23 (talkcontribs) 13:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC) The Book Source - Wikipedia page requested to add Country " India " under Asia. The people from india is not having any option " Find this Book " You are also requested to add like sites under these option - "1. Search many individual booksellers, 2. Individual online booksellers 3. Under Country - India . so the people from India Can Search Books with ISBN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyadarshivishal23 (talkcontribs) 13:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Priyadarshivishal23: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Contact us. You probably want Wikipedia talk:Book sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit tab

There is no "edit" button on the top right of each page as claimed in the directions confusing for newcomers on Wikipedia:Contact_us_-_Readers. It's an edit tab at the top, not a button, and not on the right. --Espoo (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One for you, Ironholds. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Espoo: it is a tab, but it appears as a button (or maybe a link?) - you don't know it's a tab until you've clicked on it. I'm confused by what you mean by "Not on the right" though; it is for me. What skin/editing environment are you using? Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgot to answer, sorry. I'm using the default skin Vector and Firefox. The edit tab is exactly in the middle of the page almost at the top (in the second row). It looks more like a link than a tab on its own, but it's right next to the Read tab, so it looks like a tab too. Definitely not a button. --Espoo (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

run-on sentence

Comma needed as shown here:

Edits are not the responsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation (the organisation that hosts the site) nor of its staff, and edits will not usually be made in response to an email request. --Espoo (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comma needed after "staff": ...nor of its staff and edits... --Espoo (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updating to CC-BY-SA 4.0?

Could we get this page updated so that it recommends that editors upload under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license instead of the now-outdated 3.0 version? That would be great! Also, I wonder if the page might be rephrased to be 1.) more encouraging for people to use Commons rather than suggesting that they might just as well upload to Wikipedia directly (when this is inefficient and usually not necessary), and 2.) to be less encouraging that people come up with some kind of declaration of consent on their own, "or use ours", when the fact is that unless they use ours, their statement will be rejected by OTRS, which is only a waste of time. Thoughts? Thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KDS4444: You don't say which page, but presumably you mean Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing. But has your proposal been approved by the Foundation's legal department? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know, it has not. Let me contact them and see what they say. Thanks for pointing this out to me. KDS4444 (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've now heard back from Legal. As their disclaimer specifically states that the recipient must not copy or disclose the contents of their messages, I will summarize what I was told by "Jacob": he offered strong encouragement that volunteers begin transitioning to the 4.0 licenses where possible, as he considered 4.0 to be better written and more flexible than 3.0. Apparently they (Legal) are planning on having a community-wide discussion on the topic of wholesale migration to 4.0 "at some point later this year" (whoops, I copied that), but are holding off until Creative Commons finishes translating their latest license into all of their intended languages. The legal team is also not entirely confident about the use of the 4.0 license for article content that was originally created in 3.0, but expressed only encouragement for the increased use of the 4.0 license with regard to images. Inasmuch as what we are talking about here is the uploading of images, I am taking this as a green light from them to update the recommended license from 3.0 to 4.0. How does that sound? (Also, as an aside, I believe Commons is already operating fully on 4.0— I don't know of any page there that mentions 3.0 except for historical purposes.) KDS4444 (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, so the next step is to get the upload forms amended so that they offer the 4.0 licenses (we already have the two necessary templates, {{cc-by-4.0}} and {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}). We should not recommend the use of a license that isn't available when uploading, it only causes confusion. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Redrose64: I agree completely. So... then we have the license available, yes? All we need to do then is change the text of the page mentioned above so that it no longer "recommends" cc-by-sa 3.0 but instead recommends... nothing? Or something? In either case, I guess my edit request still stands. Can this be done? KDS4444 (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's outside my area of knowledge, and the other 2,200+ watchers of this page are all silent, so I've left a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#License selection lists when uploading images. Also, we should somehow ensure that Commons update theirs too. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Redrose64: The licences for Special:Upload are at MediaWiki:Licenses, and the licences for the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard are in MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js (doc). The latter appears to have been updated by Future Perfect at Sunrise. — JJMC89(T·C) 08:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I updated MediaWiki:Licenses, and created Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 and Category:Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 files. Did I miss anything? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks,JJMC89, Edokter, Redrose64! My only remaining request is that the wording of the Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing page be updated to either reflect the 4.0 license or have its licensing recommendation removed. This is what got me started on all this in the first place. Can someone do that? I think the page is fully protected. KDS4444 (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should do a short inventory, because ohter pages linked on there, such as Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, also still list 3.0. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Edokter: Yeah, the thing is, if you look at the talk page for that page, I've already tried to get the declaration changed/ updated to 4.0 but no one was willing to implement it. I wasn't the only one making the request, either. But I wasn't able to establish what probably constitutes community consensus to implement the change. Perhaps now, with the permission of the legal department as mentioned above, we can move forward on that. Thoughts? KDS4444 (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@KDS4444: I believe Commons is already operating fully on 4.0— I don't know of any page there that mentions 3.0 except for historical purposes Try going to c:Commons:Upload, select "It is from somewhere else" (which is the same as "Already know the license, and its copyright tag? Go directly to the main upload form") at the bottom), have a look in the "Licensing" dropdown. Seven of the entries, and the templates that they emit, are:
  • Own work, copyleft, attribution required (GFDL, CC BY-SA 3.0) - {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0|migration=redundant}}
  • Own work, attribution required (GFDL, CC BY 3.0) - {{self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0|migration=redundant}}
  • Own work, copyleft, attribution required (CC BY-SA 3.0) - {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}
  • Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 - {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}
  • Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 - {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}
  • Attribution 4.0 - {{cc-by-4.0}}
  • Attribution 3.0 - {{cc-by-3.0}}
Only two are 4.0, five are 3.0. Now, also at c:Commons:Upload, if you go for "It is entirely my own work", and have a look in the "Licensing" dropdown, you will find (amongst others), these four entries:
  • Multi-license with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL (recommended) - {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
  • Multi-license with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and older and GFDL - {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|GFDL}}
  • Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 - {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}
  • Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 - {{self|cc-by-3.0}}
All are 3.0, there are no 4.0 in that selection list. Also, only one of these ({{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}) is common to both lists. None of the other options at c:Commons:Upload offer CC later than 2.0. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even after nearly eight years of doing this, there is still so much I do not know. Thank you for pointing these out to me, I am working on getting them updated! Are there others? KDS4444 (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to report apparently improperly re-used Wikipedia content?

So far, I have been unable to find any specific directions or recommendations for how one might best report web content that appears to improperly re-use Wikipedia content without proper attribution or with potentially misleading usage of Wikipedia logos. It seems to me that this page should have such a link or recommendation on it. Any suggestions from anyone else on this?


Scott P. (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia:FAQ/Overview#Site X seems to be violating Wikipedia's copyright. Do you guys know about this? It's mostly editors who are interested in reporting mirrors. Wikipedia:Contact us is not aimed at editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks kindly for the great cross-link. I followed the site that rated the worst "offenders" of our "WP content re-use licensing requirements," and none of them seemed to be as bad as the certain site that I stumbled upon this AM at Gawker-Labs, and all of them, so far as I could tell, appear to have been contacted by our legal department and to have subsequently removed whatever material may have been in question. Am hoping that the same might happen now with Gawker-Labs too. I've written a letter to the WP legal department about this. My guess is that yes, they will now soon be "reaching out" to Gawker too. We shall see. Be good (relatively speaking of course). Scott P. (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I wish to complain against the nasty and vile treatment afforded to me by the faceless admonistrators within this organisation. I took many months to research and compose an article on the Dublin Celts American football team. It took me many edits, and included references and the work that was lost is now irreplaceable, and I wish to state that I resent the heavy handed and nasty approach by the faceless individuals. I was making edits, and in time it would have been fully referenced. As for cut and pasting it was the easiest way to upload the article. The article in question was in relation to amateur sport, and did not show an political or obsene material in its content. I wish to register my disgust at the nasty and vile treatment afforded to me by this organisation. Kevinwsharkey (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kevinwsharkey: I guess you refer to the page currently at Draft:Dublin Celts. I'm not sure what you mean by "the work that was lost is now irreplaceable". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please also see the note at the top of this page, Kevinwsharkey: "This is not the place to ask questions, to report errors, or to contact Wikipedia". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Our recommended license is cc-by-sa-4.0 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Save to publish

The words "Save page" in Wikipedia:Contact_us_-_Subjects in the second para of the main text need changing to "Publish changes": Noyster (talk), 11:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs a link for reporting problems with the WP website

It would be helpful if this page had a link for reporting problems with the WP website itself: the serving of its pages to the public. That way, if the website has a problem, it can be reported to a person who volunteers to handle such reports. For example, I just encountered a transient error in connecting to WP and got an error message from my browser. If such errors are common, they will be of interest to the WP Webmasters. David Spector (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This is a very minor thing, but the Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects page uses a spaced hyphen in the body text, the Wikipedia:Contact us - Donors page uses an unspaced em dash, and Wikipedia:Contact us - Readers page uses a spaced em dash. Would it be preferable to have a consistent (though not necessarily MOS:DASH-compliant) dash style? Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your raise a good point, but in the wrong place, since it is not specific to this article. Please move your comment to an appropriate WP forum for discussing WP policies. You will have to research which forum is the best match for your comment. It does not belong here. David Spector (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David spector: it does belong here: Me, Myself, and I are Here is not asking for a policy change, but is calling out the discrepancies in punctuation between three pages: Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects, Wikipedia:Contact us - Donors and Wikipedia:Contact us - Readers. Ordinarily, this would be discussed on the talk page for one of the three - but all of their talk pages redirect here. So this is the correct venue. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I respect your opinion that the issue of dash usage applies mainly to this article, but disagree. It seems clear to me that there should be a WP policy for dash usage that will apply to many other articles, not just these three. There is no good reason to provide no general guidance to editors on this usage, either through a policy or through the explicit editing instructions. WP benefits from style standardization. An example is the standard or policy for titles of articles, which explains that the standard is to capitalize the first letter and use lowercase for the remaining letters, and also gives guidance as to the exceptions to this rule. The dash usage policy would be simpler than this existing title policy. QED David Spector (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are the phrases in question. I have added yellow highlighting to the hyphen or dash as appropriate:
Me, Myself, and I are Here is merely asking for consistency within these three pages, not consistency across the whole of Wikipedia. MOS:DASH shows that dashes are preferred to hyphens, and either unspaced em-dashes or spaced en-dashes are preferred to spaced em-dashes. So Wikipedia:Contact us - Donors has the correct usage, the others do not and should be amended. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Redrose64, for articulating my position better than I would have. I find the Manual of Style's guidelines on dash usage more than adequate; I'm just wondering if (since these three pages are related and somewhat prominent) we should have consistent usage (for style, mainly, and MOS-compliant, if nothing else, to set an example). Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protected edit request

The page Wikipedia:Contact us - Donors, where readers are told how to donate, should link to here, which appears to be the main page for donations, not just to here, which is "other ways to give". After I misread someone's request on the Teahouse, I realized Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia could easily be misinterpreted and I wanted an ideal place to send people.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: (Non-administrator comment) Your proposed link includes &country=US, forcing the target page to display donation buttons marked in dollars. Readers outside the US need the flexibility of the Ways to Give page. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you believe that's the best link? I was wondering how people would see the "official" message displayed on the page I linked to.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is my objective. I added to the hatnote on Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia because I misunderstood what someone asking for help on The Teahouse was asking for when referring to contributing. I realized someone might go to that page by mistake thinking that was how to contribute financially. I went to what appeared t be the best place, although the page for people outside the U.S. isn't quite as nice as the one with the "official" message from Jimbo, which does specifically mention dollars. I feel like that message should appear without a reference to dollars regardless of your country once you get to a page on how to donate from English Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vchimpanzee: There's a hatnote on the Donation article that links to foundation:Donate. There must be some clever software behind that link, as it gives me a page with buttons in pounds sterling. Do you see dollars there? That may be the link target you are looking for. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see dollars. Thank you. I'll make my change to Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia and it will no longer link to Wikipedia:Contact us - Donors.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 22 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

– Firstly, these are all de facto subpages of Wikipedia:Contact us. Implementing them as actual subpages will create a breadcrumb trail at the top of the page, will allow the use of Help:Link#Subpage links, will facilitate searching within all subpages, and will provide a technical manifestation of their relatedness. Secondly, the page titles should be updated to reflect how they appear in the navigation template on the page (thus the changes in the names). Thirdly, the current titles do not comply with WP:DASH in that they use a hyphen instead of an em-dash. If they are made subpages, this punctuation become irrelevant. Bsherr (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisted.Ammarpad (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is it written that page titles should use em-dashes? I can't find it in WP:DASH. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems like a logical move to me...but Mos doesn't apply to project space WP:PRJC (just for future reference).--Moxy (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Moxy. Not exactly, as least how I read it. Per Wikipedia:Project namespace#Content the project namespace "do[es] not generally need to conform to the same … style conventions as articles" (emphasis added). My understanding of the meaning of that is that the project namespace need and should not be in the same style as articles, but I think it's generally accepted that the grammatical, spelling, and syntactic rules still apply to the project namespace. --Bsherr (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Redrose. The rule is not specific to page titles. An em-dash is used to signify a break in text, for example as an alternative to a colon. A hyphen is never used for that purpose. --Bsherr (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, what I mean is that whenever WP:DASH mentions dashes in the context of page titles, these are en-dashes (–), not em-dashes (—). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're referring to the section "In article titles", yes? You're correct, it doesn't mention em-dashes, but only because en-dashes are more common in article titles. Other punctuation is not mentioned at all, but not with any intention. (The MOS is not intended to be exhaustive of all grammar and style rules.) The next section, "Punctuating a sentence (em or en dashes)" applies equally to titles. --Bsherr (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. It makes sense to organize these as subpages. bd2412 T 14:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom. On a related note, about a year or so ago, I had considered moving all of these pages proactively to the titles that the nominator is proposing for the subpage reasoning ... exactly per the nom and for organization purposes as it’s simpler to move subpages with its parent page than to attempt to find all related pages that are not subpages. However, I did not move the pages back then since all of these pages are move-protected. (These pages will have to be moved by an administrator.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move all pages that doesn’t use Commonwealth English variants to use the Commonwealth English variant as its title

Not an issue for Contact us. Referred elsewhere.

Many countries that speak English are part of the Commonwealth of nations, aka the Commonwealth, use the -our, -ise/yse, and -nce ending spellings, not the American/Liberian/Philippine spellings of -or,-ize/yze, and -nse ending spellings. The article Elevator can be an exception because Canada uses Elevator even though it’s part of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth uses lift except in Canada where again they use Elevator. MetricSupporter89 (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canada also uses the -ize/yze ending spellings as well even though it’s part of the Commonwealth. MetricSupporter89 (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opposed despite being Canadian I realize Wikipedia is based in the United States....Thus MOS:TIES and WP:RETAIN should be recognized in this case .... even though the MoS does not really apply to Administration pages.... it seems like a prudent rule of thumb to follow in this case.--Moxy (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This doesn't belong here. Take it to the village pump if you wish to pursue it. — JJMC89(T·C) 21:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible hatnote on the Donors subpage

I do some New Pages Patrol and occasionally come across someone who has copyrighted material he or she would like to donate to Wikipedia. I'd like to direct such people to WP:Donating copyrighted materials, the intuitive shortcut to which is WP:DONATE, which redirects to the Donors subpage. I'm not saying we should redirect the shortcut over there since the subpage does make more sense as a target, but I do think a hatnote to the effect of "'WP:DONATE' redirects here. You may be looking for WP:Donating copyrighted materials." should be placed at the top of the Donors subpage. I am aware of the actual shortcuts to Donating copyrighted materials (DCP and DCM) and use them, but one can't generally guess them without looking at the page itself. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 02:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. I'll make a specific edit-request Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please update the page Wikipedia:Contact us/Donors with the changes in this diff (I also fixed the click here instances and a number, in addition to the added hatnote). Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I endorse the change too, with one small style change: The namespace should be unabbreviated on the target link, thus:
{{redirect|WP:DONATE|donating previously published text or multimedia|Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials}}
--Bsherr (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Quiddity (WMF), is there a better source for the ~350, something other than [3]? Wikimedia Foundation could use updating. ~ Amory (utc) 01:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Amorymeltzer: Nope. I searched through G.News and elsewhere but couldn't find anything external. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bengal Talkies page has been deleted by Alexf on G8 deletion issue

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.

Hello Wikipedia team, I created a Wikipedia profile, Name Bengal Talkies. I want to inform you that today I release this profile, move to article, after that I added logo, and after that I saw Some Wikipedia user Alexf, who delete my profile, under section G8. I wants to tell you that, I already maintain all Wikipedia terms and conditions and Put the minimum information. I thought that when this profile will be published, I will add others information. But before I do that page was deleted, it's really frustrating. Please tell me how to back this profile, and I want to edit this profile information, Not create another one. Please guide me on how to solve this problem and how to recover my Profile. For further information, please mail me, My Mail id: Ranita Bhattacharya Whs (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that Bengal Talkies was deleted as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, not because of any other issue. You then vandalized User talk:Alexf/CSD which is not a place to add your comments or questions. Also please read the very prominent notice at the top of this page, stating that this is not the place for this. If you have any questions about how Wikipedia works, please ask at the Tea House. -- Alexf(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above 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.

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)Reply[reply]

Should this page be linked from the sidebar?

An effort to revamp the left sidebar is currently being planned. When considering this page, I noticed that it was also linked from the bottom of the screen next to the disclaimers. Given that (I'm assuming) the vast majority of people who come to this page would be better suited just going to a talk page or somewhere like the Teahouse, I wonder whether it might be better to deemphasize this link and include it only at the bottom of the screen. What would you all think of that? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 15:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mobile accessibility

I just checked this page on mobile, and it's not ideal, since (at least on my device) the left tabs appear beside the main area, creating a horizontal scroll. This isn't quite as urgent as it might seem, since most visitors to this page are presumably coming to it from the sidebar (which doesn't appear on mobile), but still. Evolution and evolvability, you fixed a similar problem at Help:Introduction (I think by adding flexbox css?) — would you potentially know what to do here? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sdkb: It appears that the templates are all forked from an early version of {{intro to}}. I'll look into whether it's best to update those templates, or to make {{intro to}} suficiently versatile to just use that. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 07:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sdkb: Ok, having looked into it, I think it'll be easiest to modify {{intro to}} so that the buttons at the bottom can be hidden via a parameter. That'll avoid having to keep additional templates up to date with changes or fixes. I'll start on it this weekend. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protected edit request on 24 April 2020

Where it says "For vandalism, it is best just to fix it directly yourself", please link to Help:Simple guide to vandalism cleanup over "fix it directly yourself". {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Izno (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Report harassment from Wikipedia editors

I would like to request information where or with whom I can contact to report harassment treatment and bully from Wikipedia editors..? Joannych Joannych (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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}}:


Thank you! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
What is calling the first page now, is that changing? Here is one set of the the request above:
 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)Reply[reply]

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.

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
 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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Evolution and evolvability, looks good to me. Shall we reactive the request? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Izno (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Protected edit request on 16 July 2020

In order to get the tab highlighting working, please:

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 23:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Izno (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Agreed that it could be rolled into item 1. Seems a bit silly as is. Ajpolino (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Proving that great minds think alike, I just made that change in the sandbox without even having seen this thread. EEng 00:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

  • Yes, that would be great. Good idea. Ajpolino (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    I've got no problem with the linking, it's that even what's visible on this one page has the sidebars separate and I'm not sure what else. Why isn't this one rendered page on one source page? EEng 03:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Needs a bit of a copyedit. Like most things 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)Reply[reply]

EEng, agreed. Perhaps whip up a sandbox version and we can make an edit request? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny, just what I was saying above. We must be psychotic psychic. EEng 02:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EEng, I've made some tweaks to the sandbox at Wikipedia:Contact us/sandbox. How does it look? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any way 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)Reply[reply]

Thank you
for your interest
in contacting Wikipedia
Before proceeding,
some important
Wikipedia has
no central
editorial board

Wikipedia:Accessibility dos and don'ts--Moxy 🍁 06:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trimmed the text and reduced the size of the logo. EEng 03:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • I haven't forgotten about this, just working my way back to it. EEng 22:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]

Fully-protected edit request on 8 September 2020

Please change <span class="plainlinks">[ 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)Reply[reply]

While we're at it, that should probably read "at the help desk" instead of "on the help page", no? --Bsherr (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've switched the link to use Special:NewSection and updated the text as Bsherr suggested. — JJMC89(T·C) 03:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 [4]). 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)Reply[reply]

Ping. EEng 00:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
OK, I removed the DR bullet. That still leaves my last point about the Readers link and so on. Thoughts? EEng 03:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I kept meaning to get back to this whole effort, and my apologies for not doing so earlier. I've made some edits to WP:EMERGENCY. EEng
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I agree with Sdkb's reasoning and think we should include the box. EEng 00:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
My mind is a blank but I'm behind whatever you guys come up with. EEng 03:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Just for fun, here's what EMERGENCY looked like before some of us nonprofessionals took it in hand [5]. Imagine finding a suicide threat and then landing on that meandering bloat-monster. EEng 14:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:EMERGENCY was largely written by ordinary editors.[6] 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[7], Twitter[8], Instagram[9], 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)Reply[reply]

Fully-protected edit request on 7 April 2021

All four pages have the same type of obsolete html tag Lint error. They use the obsolete html tag <tt>...</tt> and must be replaced (see this). All instances where <tt>...</tt> is used in the pages must be replaced with <samp>...</samp>. This gives the same output without error. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Once upon a time in Hollywood

 – {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another vulgar use of "via" instead of the appropriate preposition, in this sentence ...

"Please refrain from emailing about disagreements with content; they will not be resolved via [sic] email." Should be, "by email". Autodidact1 (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, fine as is. EEng 16:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Threats of harm (again)

I'm IAR opening this request, even though discussion stalled above without reaching clear consensus, since it is actively dangerous for us to continue to have no pathway from the contact us page (a plausible place to which someone encountering an emergency might go) to our instructions for emergencies. Please implement this edit, which adds a link to WP:Contact us/Emergencies to the sidebar, and full-protect that page to match the other contact us pages and prevent disruption. The discussion above from several months ago was about how best to format the link, and while that can continue, it is unconscionable for us to continue to have nothing. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: Has the Wikimedia Foundation itself been contacted to ask whether this change is a good idea? I understand the motivation behind this request, but I would like to get someone from the WMF emergencies team to OK this change before implementing it. They can be contacted at They're the ones that would be most affected by that change, and personally, I suspect the urgency of this request may be overstated. There is actually a risk that this proposed change may be counterproductive in that it may invite additional misuse: readers are going to see "Emergencies" as the first thing in the sidebar and assume that's a way to fast-track a fix to ordinary vandalism or a content dispute. This is problematic because it would dilute the WMF's resources. (IIRC they have to take time to submit an internal write-up for every request that comes in, regardless of whether they took action on the request.) Mz7 (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mz7, I hope people would be responsible enough to heed the instructions to use the address only for threats of harm, but yeah, that's a valid concern and I'd be happy to have WMF input. There's no way for me to email that address without going off-wiki; do we know who to ping? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sdkb, I recommend emailing that address if possible, since I think that let's them address the question as a team. You could ask them to respond on-wiki here. If you're concerned about privacy, I recommend creating a separate email address for Wikipedia-related activities. If you really want to keep this on-wiki, you could try pinging or leaving a talk page message for JSutherland (WMF) (I used {{noping}} here)—in my experience, he is quite helpful. Mz7 (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll try the pinging route first. @JSutherland (WMF): would you be interested in weighing in on this or passing it along to whoever it'd be relevant for? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sdkb: Thanks for the ping. I raised this with the rest of the team and we have concerns about including this information so prominently on what is by definition a reader-oriented page. I don't think volunteers are using the Contact us page to get in touch with the Foundation; there are editor-facing pages with this information, for example Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm and the relatively-new User:Emergency with its EmailUser functionality, which I know a lot of users have used. We have some concerns that its inclusion here, on a reader-focused page, would result in misuse of the service by those misunderstanding what kinds of "emergency" the team handles—we're quite a small team and we need to be sure we don't burn out on this workflow. I hope that makes sense—thanks for asking the question. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JSutherland (WMF), thanks for the consideration. I wonder about instances in which threats of harm might surface in reader-facing areas, but that's presumably a pretty low probably, and I defer to your judgement. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm a relatively experienced editor (or at least not a complete newbie) and it's still quite hard for me to find the right venue to report serious abuse. Where should I report visible and current death threats? What about older (already reverted) death threats that need to be oversighted? And suicide threats? What about serious harassment that does not explicitly involve death threats? I have reported instances of all these categories, sometimes to the wrong venue, sometimes to the formally right venue only to find it's not the venue that actually gets things done, etc. If it's cross-wiki, it's even harder to figure it out. Even more experienced editors couldn't give me definitive answers when asked privately. MarioGom (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @MarioGom: To answer your questions in the context of the English Wikipedia:
    • WP:EMERGENCY is for threats of physical harm, which include death threats and suicide threats. Therefore, if you see a death threat or suicide threat, you should report that to the WMF (e.g. using Special:EmailUser/Emergency). Additionally, you should also notify an administrator (e.g. using ##wikipedia-en-revdel connect) so that the threat can be revision-deleted and the user blocked (if necessary).
    • Serious harassment that does not explicitly involve threats of physical harm does not fall under WP:EMERGENCY, so you do not need to contact the WMF's emergencies team. The most relevant policy section here is probably WP:DWH. In this scenario, a bit of discretion is required: I'm not sure there's really a catch-all answer here because it depends on the nature of the specific harassment. If the harassment involves private (e.g. off-wiki) information, it may be best to email the Arbitration Committee (e.g. using Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee). If the harassment involves only on-wiki, non-sensitive information, you could also consider contacting an administrator by email or on their user talk page or reporting the incident to WP:ANI.
    This is generally what I would do in the situations you described. Mz7 (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Mz7: Thanks. That's more or less the processes I knew about and used for enwiki. It took me some trial and error to figure out that sometimes 2 or 3 venues need to be used and followed up (e.g. T&S email + #wikipedia-en-devrel IRC). When I came across cross-wiki or non-enwiki issues, I realized there was even more research needed to report anything effectively (e.g. does this wiki have local OS? what's the right way to ask for steward help?). My feeling is that the whole thing is not accessible for most users. MarioGom (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This thread prompted me to look at meta's "emergency" page [10], which would make me laugh if the subject weren't so important. Unbelievable. EEng 16:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The see also section of that page contains...WP:IAR. Whut {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contributing on Wikipedia is too complex for me and other Wikipedia beginners.

To the Wikipedia Staff and Users.

While I do enjoy updating Wikipedia articles on various pages on movies, TV shows, Video games, books and music pages. However the current editing user interface is too complex. I'm not very good at coding and I'm lousy at it and I'm an autistic man and I get nervous when I make mistakes as I'm trying to make the Wikipedia articles more user friendly. Can we please update Wikipedia to have a simplified user interface since I don't like the complex code editing. It's taking too much of my time to be a contributor and it's causing me unnecessary stress, and I would be grateful if we could have a simplified interface like Fandom has. Please make changes to Wikipedia and give me a simplified option for editing Wikipedia articles. CrosswalkX (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CrosswalkX: you can easily enable VisualEditor, which is pretty much the same default editor that Wikia (Fandom) uses. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor. Ben · Salvidrim!  21:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fix donation URL

Please improve the URL by removing the "/en" suffix in order to directly link to the parent now-multilingual donation page address on this page (last paragraph,the first link that reads "you can do so here"). Alfa80 (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. The main thing was actually to change the interwiki link from wmf:Ways_to_Give (the site now used for Wikimedia Foundation governance materials) to donate:Ways to Give where fundraising materials are now hosted. the wub "?!" 10:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have donated my copyright to Wikipedia

On December 29, 2021, I contributed the following article and all its pictures to Wikipedia.


Could someone please tell me what should I do so that the reviewers knowing that I am the copyright owner instead of using other people's works, so as not to be mistakenly identified as infringing others' copyrights and be deleted? Crescentnz (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Crescentnz: You can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online. the wub "?!" 11:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

user name change

want to change user name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diwakar359 (talkcontribs) 12:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fully-protected edit request on 3 April 2022

Hi there! Please change the link to foundation:Press room to FoundationSite:about/press/ as the page has been relocated. Thanks!🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 23:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please also remove the link to foundation:Press/Contact/Chapters and foundation:Press/Contact/Regional/Language, which have also been relocated, so 1 link can suffice. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 23:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done ish, bypassed the first link, unlinked the other 2 (one was deprecated, other was same as the press room link). — xaosflux Talk 15:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found an error on Contact us Page and want to notify you.

The last line on "Contact us" page is "emailing about disagreements with content; they will not be resolved via" here instead of semicolon(;) after the word "content" comma(,) should use. I'm making this edit request as a part of GSoC/Outreachy project Edit Request Wizard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhigya Pandey (talkcontribs) 16:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: @Abhigya Pandey: The semicolon is correct. Replacing it with a comma would create a comma splice (see also MOS:SEMICOLON). Mz7 (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it. Thanks! Abhigya Pandey (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]