Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2020 left sidebar update

This proposal changes the ordering of the sidebar links in the manner shown at right. Only a section is renamed, and no links are added or removed. The "In other projects" and "languages" sections are ignored in the previews.

The main rationales here are to improve prioritization (by placing important links high up) and categorization (by placing links in more intuitive places, grouped with other similar links). For prioritization, important links like WP:About are moved up. For categorization, the vaguely-named "interaction" section is renamed to the clearer "contribute", and universal editor-focused links are consolidated there, while page-specific editor-focused links are consolidated in the "tools" section. Reader-focused links are consolidated in the top ("navigation") and "print/export" sections.

• Support all changes as proposer. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no big change here. The 40 percent of our readers that do see this will not have more or less trouble finding links with this order.--Moxy 🍁 21:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support seems reasonable enough. SemiHypercube 22:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, except that I think "Special pages" should stay within Tools. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 22:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; I maintain sidebars globally as an interface editor and the drawbacks outlined above are a growing problem for wikis. It is time to improve and simplify our sidebars. ~riley (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – This is a better layout. I also agree, though, that Special Pages should stay within Tools, but this is an improvement either way. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Special pages is the same, no matter which page you go to it from, thus the move from "tools" to "contribute". This is in line with the original intention of the two sections for one to be page-specific and the other not to be. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support except that "Special pages" should stay in tools since new editors will not find that page comprehensible (who looks at Special:LintErrors besides gnomes?). — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a great idea.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Any changes (other than simple renamings) to what appears below "Tools" link on the Vector skin do not appear to be technically feasible. (Any changes above that section can be implemented by editing MediaWiki:Sidebar) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support – subject to technical feasibility, including not negatively impacting other skins - Evad37 [talk] 01:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I don't think we should worry about technical feasibility. The WMF is already working on the UI, so a consensus here will help demonstrate that they should fix this restriction. MER-C 10:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Current technical feasibility is irrelevant; this will be implemented somehow if consensus exists. The label "Contribute" is much more inviting than "Interaction"; adding "Upload file" to it is a logical choice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support reasonable proposal per above. --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 19:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Should improve navigability. --Yair rand (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if technical difficulties can be overcome. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support more logical + easier to find stuff. buidhe 23:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with "special pages" in tools. Contribute is a much more logical header than Interaction. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although as I look at it more, "Help" also has information for readers too.... —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it's a small improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. Thanks for proposing this! Ajpolino (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport, a clear improvement. Also suggest adding another heading to split up the first section between browse main content links (Main page, Contents, Featured content, Current events, Random article) and other interaction pages (About Wikipedia, Contact page, Donate to Wikipedia, Wikipedia store). Maybe call this section "Interaction"? Renata (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, looks good. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We need all the ways we can get to attract more contributors and make it clear that anyone can edit. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, clear improvement assuming technical feasibility. – Teratix ₵ 12:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support: clearer structure and more readable. Would be better if we could add a subsection "Donate" containing "Donate to Wikipedia" and "Wikipedia store" (if we're not going to just remove the links outright, which we should). — Bilorv (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. "Interaction" has always been an odd and inaccurate header. Changing to "Contribute" together with the moves suggested here makes the sidebar much better structured. the wub "?!" 20:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was initially inclined to agree with KarasuGamma and Levivich about Special Pages, but found sdkb's rationale convincing. Renata's and Bilorv's proposals have merit, perhaps a separate discussion is required about splitting the top section. (I haven't read through the rest of this page yet, so may need to return here if anything changes my mind.) Pelagic (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC) I feel that Contribute is an improvement over Interaction; toolbox changes subject to technical feasibility per Discussion below. Pelagic (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. these changes all sound very helpful. I totally support this. I appreciate the proposer of this, for proposing and formulating these changes. I hope they will continue to look for and to suggest ways to improve features and items in various places. well done!!!! cheers!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. These changes should help Jcoolbro (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I literally just commented that it's odd how the two non-specific links are in the middle of the Tools section surrounded by article-specific links. Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Definite improvement, though would prefer Special pages in 'Tools'. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a clear improvement. Always found the sidebar a bit of a mash of links. Having better defined structure will only help. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, this seems to simplify it well.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I agree with Nick's comment above about keeping Special pages in Tools, but it is not a big deal. --MarioGom (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - As others have stated, it would delineate things much more clearly for new users. - Axisixa T C 03:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - All looks good and sensible to me. -- The Anome (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not happy with changing the section header from "Interaction" to "Contribute". I like the old title better. But if it is changed, I feel the links "Donate to Wikipedia" & "Wikipedia Store" are more intuitively placed under "Contribute". As with many others, I would keep "Upload page" & "Special pages" under "Tools", since they are tools. -- llywrch (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. "Contribute" is a much stronger call to action than "Interaction". — Newslinger talk 09:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Except "Special pages" under Tools. As per Wugapodes above. comrade waddie96 (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the "Tools" section and everything below it is defined directly in the software, rather than being defined by MediaWiki:sidebar -- how do you plan to implement this? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: I'm not a technical expert, so I won't be the one doing the implementation. If it's defined in the software, some assistance from WMF might be needed (the folks at the WMF Desktop Improvement Project are aware of this RfC). I think the best course of action is to establish what the community consensus is here first, and then figure out implementation subsequently. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to establish community consensus first and figure out implementation later, then I propose adding a link to the sidebar that, when clicked, will send the user a million dollars. :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a terrible idea and obviously a joke, but it's still a better use of funds than the Fram ban or the upcoming rebrand. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SGrabarczuk (WMF), if there is consensus here, would you or someone else at WMF be able to assist with implementation? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a great use case for phab:T249673 I think DannyS712 (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is this meant to work in other skins like Timeless?

• View this page in the skin:
  
  • MinervaNeue (mobile)
  • MonoBook
  • Timeless
  • Vector legacy (2010)
  • Vector (2022)
• View Funabashi (city) in the skin:
  
  • MinervaNeue (mobile)
  • MonoBook
  • Timeless
  • Vector legacy (2010)
  • Vector (2022)

- Evad37 [talk] 01:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Evad37: This is a proposal for the default Vector skin (which I'd assume is used by 99%+ of desktop visitors). Whether/how to update Timeless is a separate discussion, and one that wouldn't need such widespread input. There are some things I like about Timeless, but my understanding is that a proposal to make it the default was rejected a while back. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I missed that the top section said it was for the default skin only. Still, if there is consensus, then other skins do have to be considered in the implementation details, lest we end up with duplicated links or missing links in the non-default skins. - Evad37 [talk] 01:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the inaccurate notice in the top section that states this only impacts the default skin only. Any changes to Mediawiki:Sidebar are sitewide and impact all skins that include a sidebar; the only skin that would not be impacted would be Minerva (mobile). I am not sure what the notice was intended to indicate, and have no opposition for a corrected notice to be re-added. It felt inappropriate to leave the notice and await further discussion when it gave inaccurate information during active voting. ~riley (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@~riley: I was going off what Sdkb wrote just above here. Sdkb, can you clarify? If this proposal is to affect other skins, that should be mentioned in the top section instead of just saying Vector, and my query about what is proposed for other skins like Timeless is relevant. If not, can the removed notice or something similar be restored to the top section? - Evad37 [talk] 14:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Evad37 and ~riley: I'm not a technical expert when it comes to skins, so someone else can probably provide better clarification. My intention is for Timeless to be unaffected as I stated above, and I wasn't the one who added the notice to the top. Given that Timeless already moves some links around (e.g. "upload file" is in a separate tools section than "page information", unlike Vector), I assume that its creators have at least some flexibility and could choose to either mirror the relevant changes to Vector proposed here or stay the same. - {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Evad37 and Sdkb: To be clear: Anything on this RfC that involves changing the top sidebar (Main page, contents, featured content, etc) and the interaction sidebar (Help, About W, community portal, etc), as listed on Mediawiki:Sidebar, impacts all skins. Based on that, 95% of what I am seeing in this discussion impacts all skins. Any references that say "proposal for default Vector skin" or for "default desktop skin" are incorrect and misinforming voters. Those disclaimers can go into individual sections (i.e. if voting on changing the "Tools" sidebar in Vector) if needed. Please make these corrections sooner than later as this is an open RfC. ~riley (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I too am concerned about any impact on Timeless. Pinging Isarra who is the main magician behind that excellent skin. Oh, Evad37 has notified them on their talk page, please consider the ping as a mention not a summon. Pelagic (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note split into collapsed menus at the bottom of that table. I see now that medium-width Timeless (tablet in landscape mode) has four drop-downs for Navigation, Wiki tools, Page tools, and Other projects; in narrow layout (portrait mode) they are icons and the latter two are below the red line. Only Navigation draws from Mediawiki:Sidebar, I guess the others are coded in the skin somewhere and shouldn't be affected by this RFC (see #Technical underpinnings). It does give us a good precedent for separating Page tools from Wiki tools (and using those names) as discussed elsewhere on this page. Aside: This digression on Timeless deserves its own section, but I don't want to relegate it to the bottom of the page where it will be seen less. Pelagic (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How this would actually affect Timeless would very much depend on how you intend to make the changes. Timeless takes the core sidebar as part of the assembled array of all the navigation, and them sorts the contents into its own arrays in order to do the multiple sidebar blocks and cactions and whatnot, so if the changes are intended to be to that array, Timeless is likely to not even be affected, beyond the MediaWiki:Sidebar stuff. Other than that, I don't even know. There's a lot going on here. -— Isarra ༆ 21:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this is the wrong section for this comment. I think the proposal looks great. The one thing that stood out to me was putting "Cite this page" under "Print/Export" (whereas it seems to fit quite naturally as a page tool). Curious what your thinking there is? Also, it might make sense to rename "Tools" > "Page tools" so it is more explicit, especially to let people know that those tools are specific to that page. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to use BibTex so when I think of citations I do think of exporting the citation rather than looking for a citation tool, though I appreciate that I am likely a minority. In that sense, I prefer "Cite this page" as an export method rather than a "Page tool". — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AHollender (WMF): My thinking with that is that citing a page is something a reader might want to do, so it should go in a reader-focused section, whereas tools is an editor-focused section. Print/export is the section for reader-focused page-specific tools, and it's our good fortune that this can be added there without needing to change the section name. Regarding the name of the section, I think both your suggestion and Wugapodes's suggestion of "editor tools" would be an improvement over the status quo. I'll start a new renaming section for a fuller discussion on that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like "cite this page" was sort of just slipped in to the mockup in this section, but there was no mention of it above. Citing isn't about "printing and exporting". — xaosflux ^Talk 02:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That way "In other projects" and "Languages" are shown together and not separated by a random tool section.

• Support as proposer. Renata (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, makes sense. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support sounds fine to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support logical. – Teratix ₵ 14:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This makes more sense and should probably be done by default on all sites, not just English Wikipedia. the wub "?!" 20:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great suggestion. Nouill (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support keeps similar links together. Makes sense. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency and readability.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, yes, please. This is pretty obvious. --MarioGom (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Provided it is technically feasible. - Axisixa T C 03:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Desktop Improvement Project made it clear that casual readers had no use or understanding of "tools" section, but they understood and could use "print/export" functions. Therefore, proposing to move the section up above "Tools" [which could get very bloated in some namespaces] to make it easier to find. Editors will find their tools regardless.

To clarify: if both this and the #Move "In other projects" under "Print/export" are agreed on, then the order would be: Print/Export, Tools, In other projetcs, Languages. Renata (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. Renata (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support strongly. A clear application of WP:READER. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as it's a short section. >>BEANS X2t 12:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both moves, the resulting section order has a nice progression. Pelagic (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pretty much as above. Print/exporting options are more useful to the reader than the tools section. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for usability.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. And I would support moving Tools to the last section anyway. It's just way too advanced for most people. --MarioGom (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If both this proposal and the one above, #Move "In other projects" under "Print/export", pass, then we'd have print/export, then tools, then "in other projects, then languages. That seems alright to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends on which order you apply the proposals in. It would be truer to the intent of the first proposal (to avoid splitting "print/export" and "in other projects" with the "tools" section) to apply this second proposal first (move "print/export" above "tools"), then the first proposal (move "in other projects" under "print/export"). This results in a new order of "print/export", "in other projects", "tools", then "languages". – Teratix ₵ 01:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I proposed both moves, so I clarified above what the final order would look line. Essentially, what Sdkb said. Renata (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. It's obvious where the donations will go. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. SemiHypercube 21:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support don't see why not.--Moxy 🍁 22:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This change is in line with the KISS principle. Interstellarity (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, same reasons. I would suggest changing the tooltip to "Support us by donating to Wikipedia". —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 22:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ~riley (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Good but please make another mock-up that includes the proposed renamings because details matter. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per proposer. –dlthewave ☎ 02:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 09:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with caveat. A change like this might seem very simple, but could have positive or negative effects on the volume of donations received through the link. I'd propose that if this is supported we work with the WMF Fundraising team to ensure that we can track data about how many times this donation link is used, and if this change has an adverse effect, to revert the change. Sam Walton (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Samwalton9: Good thought! If we know anyone on that team, perhaps it'd be good to ping them to see if they have any thoughts on this or the Wikipedia store → Merchandise change. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinging @Seddon (WMF): Sam Walton (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • This could be A/B tested. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Donate" is the default text, so presumably there's no issue. Still, we've had it this way for over a decade, so there could be ramifications. Worth testing, perhaps. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I actually went 'Huh, that should be renamed to just Donate' right before scrolling down and seeing it was included in the proposal GoodCrossing (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for simplicity and accuracy (donations go to the Wikimedia Foundation, via country chapters like Wikimedia Germany for some users, and are not only used for running Wikipedia). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Yair rand (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Donations go to the Wikimedia Foundation for use on all projects, not only Wikipedia. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with caveat from Sam Walton above. "Donate" seems common and simple enough, but it's also best to have a backup in case it has adverse effects. - Whisperjanes (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A/B testing to see which version is more effective. buidhe 23:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Equally clear with two fewer words. Ajpolino (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, seems clear to me. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The Department of Redundnacy Department strikes again. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per ToBeFree, with Sam Walton's caveat. – Teratix ₵ 13:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support regardless of whether it increases or decreases revenue, because as Kirbanzo points out donations don't really go to Wikipedia at all, but to the WMF for use on all projects. Suggest renaming the tooltip to "Donate to the Wikimedia Foundation". — Bilorv (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: It's not being donated to Wikipedia. It's being donated to the Wikipedia Foundation. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 01:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to "Donate to WMF" to make it clear to readers that they are donating to the Wikimedia Foundation (which has no financial problems), rather than directly supporting editors. feminist #WearAMask😷 07:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as conciseness is one of the goals of this RfC. >>BEANS X2t 12:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support because the donation's aren't only spent on the 'pedias. Pelagic (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, no objections from WMF. We’ve done very occasional a/b testing of the desktop sidebar "Donate to Wikipedia" link, and it’s something we would potentially like to revisit in the future, so we may come back to this later. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for letting us know, Quiddity. This conversation seems ready to close to me if anyone uninvolved wants to go ahead and do so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• SupportIt is obvious where the donations are going to. Jcoolbro (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (I would like some A/B testing first) seems logical that the donate button is the donate button for the website in question. However, some A/B testing would be a good idea. Donations run the servers / WMF after all... Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The donations aren't used exclusively for Wikipedia anyway.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove link entirely per WP:CANCER. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. If, after the fact, the WMF shows this leads to a reduction in donations, I wouldn't mind them reverting the change. Per Sam Walton's comment. I doubt it would be significant anyway. --MarioGom (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is the standard practice in many other websites for a good reason. Although it probably would reduce donations slightly, the WMF has enough as it is. - Axisixa T C
• Support ... make it cleaner. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --- should always have been one word. Actually, all menu entries should be as short as possible, on the "Cut", "Copy", "Paste", "Undo" model. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. There's no need to label this as "page". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "page" is redundant. SemiHypercube 21:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support don't see why not.--Moxy 🍁 22:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This change is in line with the KISS principle. Interstellarity (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, same reasons. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 22:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer "Contact us" as well. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 06:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ~riley (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer "Contact us" ~riley (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support –dlthewave ☎ 02:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 09:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Prefer "Contact us". MER-C 13:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but "Contact us" would sound better. Sandstein 10:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandstein: I agree. Many websites include a place to contact the site owners. I see those same exact words on a lot of websites. Interstellarity (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as 'Contact page' sounds like some sort of carbon copy. Strongly support 'Contact us' as per Sandstein GoodCrossing (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with preference for "Contact us" per Sandstein.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Contact us": That's even the name of the linked page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, either "Contact" or "Contact us". --Yair rand (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. No need for the "page". —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm okay with either "contact" or "contact us". —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Agree "Contact" is clearer. Ajpolino (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Contact us as it's pretty much standard across the web. Renata (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Contact us As the universal standard CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Contact us per ToBeFree, with "contact" as a second choice. – Teratix ₵ 14:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Contact us" as first choice, and "Contact" as second choice. And can we get this implemented 15 years ago? — Bilorv (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Contact us" as first preference, "Contact" as second preference. the wub "?!" 20:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Contact us, and we probably should include more prominent links on that page to WP:TH/WP:RD instead of telling readers to leave comments on never-visited talk pages. Or create a tool that allows them to make edit requests easily. feminist #WearAMask😷 07:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the "page" is confusing; it's not clear that you are going to a page about contact rather than contacting the page in question. I'd favor Contact but given that we're going to Wikipedia:Contact us, that's probably the better option. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, otherwise we might as well rename it to "View the page on infomation to do with contacting us" >>BEANS X2t 13:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, but prefer Contact over Contact us. The latter sounds more corporate to me. P.S. good one, Beans! P.P.S. who is Paige and why are we contacting her? Pelagic (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either Contact or Contact us. It is clearer and more concise. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, there's no advantage to having page tacked on the end. "Contact" is much clearer and in-line with the rest of the internet.
• Support - slight preference for Contact over Contact us. --MarioGom (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Not only is the additional wording needless cruft, but it is also antiquated. - Axisixa T C 03:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ... this is a no-brainer. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, can we not take even these "why wasn't it like that already" actions without the full nine yards of timewasting discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. I have proposed a new link called "Logs" below, and this title is less ambiguous anyway. Note that this one appears only in user/user-talk space and on Special:Contribs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This is for the logs that are only on a user page right (i.e. MediaWiki:Log) correct? Perhaps "User's logs" would be more descriptive here. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support though I prefer "User's logs" as more obvious. Maybe even "User's logged actions" though that's pretty long. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Point 4 of the proposal is "The names for some links are overly verbose or unclear. Brevity is the soul of wit, and of good Web usability. We should not use two or three words where one will do." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – "We should not use two or three words where one will do." Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Logged actions" or "User logs" as more clear, "logs" can refer to a lot of different things. buidhe 23:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "User logs" as the clearest label. So that is follows the same format as "User contributions". Adding 4 letters won't kill anyone only will potentially alleviate some confusion. Renata (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as "User('s) logs". —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 07:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: in this case one word won't do, because a reader couldn't work out what clicking on "Logs" will do without either clicking on it or using superhuman powers of abduction. — Bilorv (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "User logs" for increased clarity and the parallel with "User contributions". the wub "?!" 21:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Wub, "User log" is better; I'm either way on the s. I do this myself, actually. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support User logs a clearer label that is consistent with "User contributions". – Teratix ₵ 01:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "User logs"" for consistency with "User contributions" per Teratix.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Levivich. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "User logs", conditional to related proposal. Logs is highly ambiguous in this context. However, if #Separate "Page tools" and "User tools" passes, then it should be just "Logs". --MarioGom (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose we know the logs have actions, and there doesn't need to be two words when we can have one. CrazyBoy826 16:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter and starts with an action verb like every other user-related link (e.g. "email user" or "block user"). Renata (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. Renata (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If I had a dollar for every time I clicked "User contributions" instead of "User rights management" I could run the servers for an hour. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - clarity improved, no observable negatives Nosebagbear (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This wording is only shown to administrators. Others see "View user groups" in the same place. Thus, "Manage user groups" would be more consistent than "Manage user rights". Technically, we're not assigning rights (Special:ListGroupRights); we're assigning groups. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  And the local title of the page we land on for clicking it is.... User groups management. So let's use "groups" in there. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Don’t really see a reason to change this. No real positives. No real negatives either. People might be confused though. I’m not typically a fan of changing things people use without a good reason. Neutral but don’t see the point. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per proposer and Wugapodes. – Teratix ₵ 14:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Change user groups" which is actually the MediaWiki default now [1], and would make us consistent with other sites. "Groups" is technically more correct than "rights" as has been pointed out. Second preference support for "Manage user groups". the wub "?!" 21:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Change user groups" first, "Manage user groups" second and "Manage user rights" third (and oppose the current "User rights management"). — Bilorv (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Kind of agree with Tony here — not broken, etc. I'd actually prefer changing both this and the header on the page to just User rights (default for the page itself): the page is useful beyond just changing user rights, it shows the rights themselves and the log. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amorymeltzer: actually it doesn't the show the rights at all, it shows the groups :) The "rights" are listed at Special:ListGroupRights. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's clear we're being colloquial, at least until everyone comes around to my "say sysop instead of admin" position. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for consistency. >>BEANS X2t 13:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I'd like this to just say "User groups" - for most users (non-admins) it just SHOWS the user groups, for other it shows them and allows you to change them. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I was the one who changed this in core MediaWiki several years ago (see The wub's comment) and I cannot see any good reason why the old name should be preserved on this site. This, that and the other (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Change user groups" for admins and "User groups" for non-admins, or as a second option just "User groups". As this page allows you to add or remove a user from user groups if you are an admin, or allows you to see the groups a user is in it is better to use "groups" instead of "rights" to clarify the purpose of the page. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - More consistent and unique, as others have said. - Axisixa T C 03:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, it's a small improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I keep thinking this has something to do with my or that user's preferences that they set in Special:Preferences. This is really trying to mute a user, not preferences.

• Support as proposer. Renata (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Per the proposal reasoning. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 00:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Issue: The text would stay the same even if the target was already muted. "Mute/unmute this user" would be more accurate, but unwieldy. I'm unsure whether "mute this user" would be a positive change. --Yair rand (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The premise of this proposal is flawed. The text means this is a link to preferences about Mute feature, not a way of "muting preferences" themselves as the proposer incorrectly assumed. The link can also be used to unmute user, therefore the proposed name is not quite accurate. "Mute preferences" is more appropriate as it shows you're clearly going to a certain preference page to activate some settings which include, muting and unmuting of mention and email. These are four different settings and so using the proposed "Mute user" to represent them is inadequate. "Mute/unmute this user" is what can serve as a possible name, but in comparison to current "Mute preferences", it can be easily dismissed as a cosmetic change that's no benefit. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I am undecided about this proposal but recommend that "user" be changed to "editor" as that is the terminology used throughout most of the project. (I also acknowledge that this is inconsistent in some areas with "user" appearing to be used more often in more technical areas e.g., user rights.)ElKevbo (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for clarity, I have also experienced this confusion.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for clarification. SemiHypercube 13:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but prefer "Mute user" as more consise. - Axisixa T C 03:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attracting new contributors is of the utmost importance to the project. I therefore propose the addition of a link going to an introductory page. Personally, I believe this should be Help:Introduction, the gateway to our recently revamped tutorial set that has been made the primary button in our new standard welcome message, but other possibilities could be Help:Introduction to Wikipedia (the first module of the tutorial set), WP:Contributing to Wikipedia (a single-page intro), or Help:Getting started (which links to tons of different intros). I would prefer the location directly beneath "Help", with the label "Tutorial""Editing tutorial"^{Changed 14:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC) per below} and the tooltip "Learn how to edit Wikipedia".

• Support Help:Introduction as proposer, with Help:Introduction to Wikipedia as second choice. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:Contributing to Wikipedia..should not link pages that don't work for those with no mouse or screen readers or TV boxes or mobile view concerns and will take an hour to go over. This would be the opposite of our kiss principle.. that seems to be applied everywhere else on this page.--Moxy 🍁 22:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support absolutely and 100%. A great idea and a clear way for new editors to start editing --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support an introduction page. No opinion on which one to use. Interstellarity (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:Contributing to Wikipedia; oppose anything that is not accessible by screen readers or those without mouses per Moxy. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Moxy recently brought Help:Introduction to WikiProject Accessibility for review. No one else there seems to be having any issues with it that would make it less accessible than a normal page. Further discussion about this should probably be centralized there, not here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps it's better phrased as: I support any that are accessible. Whatever set that is, I'm in support of that one. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Introduction.... 60 plus pages to click through is definitely not user friendly - even worst then collapsed content because you needs to load.every page. click -load..-click -load.click -load.etc...60 more times.--Moxy 🍁 06:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support addition of one of the proposed pages. SD0001 (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 09:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very good idea to have an accessible link to an editing tutorial. --Yair rand (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no brainer. buidhe 23:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Absolutely, we need all the help we can get to include more new editors. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure as first choice and Help:Introduction as second choice, and oppose the other suggestions. I'm afraid I don't think the accessibility concerns in this case outweigh the concerns I have that Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia is useless, and readers would leave within 0.5 seconds of opening the page. Help:Introduction isn't great, but it is at least immediately obvious to sighted readers what the page is about and what they can do next. Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure is an excellent resource, a large part of the reason I'm an editor today and one of the few links that would actually get interested readers feeling like they're contributing or learning something immediately, rather than sending them on an endless path of writings about our policies. I don't know how accessible it is, but even if it isn't then it's still useful to some group of people at least. — Bilorv (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really wish choice of help pages was based on editor retention and accessibility. The idea of the Wikipedia:Adventure that has a 50 percent drop in views by the second page....with a loss of 90 percent by page 3 simply a bad idea. I can see why the adventure is visually appealing but according to data on how users navigate it's a bad choice. --Moxy 🍁 22:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Help:Introduction per Sdkb and the recent decision to make it the main introduction linked in the welcome template. Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia is a huge wall of text which is far too daunting for newbies. The Wikipedia Adventure is nice, but per its talk page is "only semi-actively maintained" and doesn't cover or work with the VisualEditor at all. the wub "?!" 21:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

66 pages vs one with a TOC is less daunting? O well...perhaps best the new generation learn for themselves what works and doesn't work.--Moxy 🍁 22:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a link to some kind of introduction. Neutral on which one, however, it should be accessible and clear. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We have too many new users already, many of whom are blocked within days of starting. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chris troutman: The majority of new editors want to help Wikipedia become the best encyclopedia it can possibly be. Although many new editors get blocked, you are forgetting about the new editors that want to contribute here positively and want to know where to start. Interstellarity (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Interstellarity: The majority of new editors are partisans, cranks, and crazies who want Wikipedia to represent their own views. The new editors that make useful contributions figure it out for themselves without our endless efforts to explain how. You imagine influencing editors that don't exist. If you can't figure Wikipedia out for yourself, you probably don't have a future here, anyway. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support WP:Introduction sounds good. --MarioGom (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you want to link a giant tuorial that is losing us thousands of editors? Should have a separate talk for this link with those familiar with how to retain and gain editors

page view stats showing the loss of interest editor's by thousands . --Moxy 🍁 18:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - If most people wanted to become a "Wikipedia editor", (as opposed to editing a stray mistake), they wouldn't know where to start. The name of the link should make its primary goal (editing) clear though - perhaps "Editing introduction"? - Axisixa T C 03:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Axisixa: good point about the name; we don't want it to seem like it's a tutorial on how to read Wikipedia. I'm going to change my proposal to "Editing tutorial". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, with Help:Introduction as first choice. I'm not concerned about the drop-offs in the pageview statistics; based on what I see on social media, readers often only look at the lead section of articles, and I expect very few people to complete the tutorial in Help:Introduction or read most of Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. The 1% rule of Internet culture applies to Wikipedia as it does to any other site, but we should still make sure that the 1% of readers who become editors have easy access to information that helps them make contributions. Help:Introduction presents the information in the most approachable form for most readers, and other guides are linked at the bottom under "For more training information, see also:". — Newslinger talk 09:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  On accessibility, I think it would be helpful to have a note in Help:Introduction explaining which of the resources under "For more training information, see also:" are compatible with screen readers. — Newslinger talk 04:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with something like Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_160#RfC:_Add_'create_an_article'_option_in_the_interface in mind. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the idea that this would go away for "experienced" users? Not sure how feasible that is, and without that I'd certainly oppose adding a new, useless link for experienced folks. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• We need a helpful, accessible, readable, community-backed tutorial before this proposal is implemented. – Teratix ₵ 02:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a new page that actually follows Wikipedia:Help Project/Guidelines. Disheartening to see us going down a path that doesn't follow our basics. Wonderful to see new editors involved in the help page system..but some choices as of late have been detrimental.--Moxy 🍁 03:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Teratix: I think the general view is that Help:Introduction is all of those things, Moxy's lone dissension notwithstanding. If you haven't explored it before/recently, I'd encourage you to check it out. @Moxy: I'm interested to see what you create. Is there a reason you're working on a new page rather than making/suggesting edits to an existing one? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your view of what is good for accessibility is based on what you like....not the raw data or the experience of longtime editors or are guidelines. As for making a new page....best to start from scratch..--Moxy 🍁 05:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My view is based on the feedback we received when you brought the page to WikiProject Accessibility. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps best review gudlines project page you just joined Wikipedia:Help Project/Guidelines....telling someone to collapse every section and removal of a TOC leads me to believe you have not see the projects recommendations. It would save us loss the interest of thousands of potential editors -Moxy 🍁 06:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]