Talk:Welcome to Wikipedia (Bookshelf)/2013 edition/text/1

From Outreach Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments from Biosthmors[edit]

  • Why link the community portal? I don't think the community uses it because the w:Wikipedia:Community bulletin board was outdated with something from July. I made that edit. We should just link people to the Village Pumps and link them to the Signpost and tell them they can put w:Template:Signpost-subscription with {{Signpost-subscription}} on their user page. They should also have a link to the course page on their user page per WP:STUDENTUSER.
    The community portal is intended to be the general find-out-how-to-get-involved landing page. It is linked from the sidebar, and gets visited much more than the village pump, which is primarily used by experienced editors. On English Wikipedia, the community portal gets about 7000 hits per day, versus about 400 for Wikipedia:Village pump (and the same order of magnitude for the individual village pumps where people post). The community portal also corresponds to pages with the same purpose on most other languages. It's unfortunate that the bulletin board section of the community portal is out of date, but in general it's (sadly) the best thing we've got for the purpose of giving newcomers a window into the diversity of the 'meta' side of Wikipedia. (Ours on en.wiki has prominent links to the Signpost, the VP, and other useful places.) One of the goals is to create a brochure that (even without translation, for readers who know English) works well for most Wikipedias, not just English Wikipedia.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm leaning towards thinking those 7000 views are "dumb" views only directed through default links (perhaps to the detriment of the community). 7000 people a day were looking at outdated info? Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Hmmm.... Seems like such a crappy page... Biosthmors (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
      • And is this WMF intent or community intent? Biosthmors (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
        Biosthrmors: Community intent. Maryana and the E3 team did some experiments with trying to make it a little more useful on en.wiki (with limited measurable success, if I recall correctly), but the portal has been serving more or less its current role since before I joined Wikipedia at least. The links in the sidebar can be changed by any admin, and there have been periodic discussions about which ones are most relevant. (You may notice that Outreach has a "village pump" instead on the sidebar.) Basically, whatever the most relevant 'get-to-know-the-community-and-what's-going-on' link from the sidebar is will probably make the most sense for each language to put in place here.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's remove the "expand a stub" thing. Not all stubs need expanding. This is a misconception. I recently started en:Colin Mathers. It is fine where it is. No expansion is necessary or beneficial for the project on that article. We need quality not quantity. At least on English Wikipedia... Biosthmors (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)\
    A stub is usually a term for a short article that ought to be expanded. (This is explicit in the en.wiki stub template, although I'm not sure how universal that is.) If a short article ought not to be expanded any more, then it probably should not be listed as a stub. The need for expansion part is noted in the glossary entry for stub, so I think it's okay.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe English Wikipedia needs its own version. Can't that happen? Biosthmors (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
    It's a cost-benefit thing. I'm confident that we can make a brochure that works well for English Wikipedia while avoiding details that are specific to en.wiki, without too many sacrifices. (And since the source files are available, anyone could make an version tailored more specifically if they wish.)--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternative to Photo[edit]

Suggestion of having the photograph of an experienced wikipedian is good. The selection of the wikipedian for that may be contentious on most wikis. Getting quality photos in the wikipedian's environs may require qualified photogrpahers as well. Contributions need not be done with users revealing their real names and photos as well. I suggest providing an alternative of providing few drawings of wikipedians of different countries in typical attire (for example Indian lady dressed in a saree for Indian langauge versions) with an assumed name may be helpful, if the consensus can't be reached. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

We do have a nice diverse set of high-quality photographs that were created for the fundraisers, which would probably provide plenty of good choices if a community is having trouble deciding on an editor from their wiki to feature: wmf:Thank You All
The one we're (tentatively) planning to use in the English version is Adrianne Wadewitz.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
We did not have any one featured from Telugu Wiki in the cited list. BTW, was there any link that you can point to about how the selection was made for featuring on English version.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Arjunaraoc: It was made informally for the English version. LiAnna and I wanted a high-quality photograph of an active and well-respected en.wiki contributor, preferably a woman for the sake of heading off the idea that Wikipedia is a boys club where women are not welcome. Adrianne was a good fit on all those criteria — and is in general a great spokesperson for Wikipedia in general and outreach efforts in particular — so I asked her if she was willing, and she said yes. The designer who is working on this project with us will be creating a guideline for photos to make it easy to make compatible portraits for localized editions. Of course, having an editor of Telugu Wikipedia would not be strictly necessary, especially if you think the process of selecting someone to feature would be more trouble than it is worth. It's just a nice opportunity to make the local versions more meaningful to the communities that will make and use them.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Vision statement[edit]

Wikimedia's Vision statement has been misquoted on the front cover of the guide since its inception. I corrected it here. -Pete (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions from Arjunaraoc[edit]

I'm moving Arjunaraoc's suggestions from the draft text to here, so they don't get mixed up with the the draft itself.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I added my edits to the draft page as the process instructions allowed that. Any way, no problem with moving. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

p 8[edit]

  • Add a footer that Visual editor is available for several wikipedias and will be deployed for most wikipedias in future.
    Since we hope this brochure will last for a while, I'd rather avoid any specifics related to the deployment of VE. It should at least be available as an option in just about every language in the not-too-distant future, but there will probably be some users for whom it isn't available. But page 9 notes about wiki code that "on some browsers, it will be the only form available".--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

p 11[edit]

  • Emphasize the need for citing a reference before creating a stub or warn that the stub may be deleted with out it
    Because creating a new article that meets the community's standards is such a complicated topic, it's one that we thought it would be better to leave out of this brochure altogether, and instead point to a place where users could find more detailed and up-to-date info about what it takes to make a new article that will stick around. At some point within the life of this brochure, we expect that a lot of this will change as the developers create software support for walking users through the creation of a new article.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Irrespective of any new development need for a reference is the basic one which is not going to change. We are struggling to patrol all the stubs without references on our Wiki all the time. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC). Reviewed again and found the content fine. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

p 13[edit]

  • Introduce echo notification briefly, as it is much better and helps keeps the discussion at the right places.
    That's what this page is intended to do: the Mention notification is the Echo notice for when someone links your username on a talk page. Hopefully this will be more clear when the visual elements are added.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I checked that. Talk page notification existed earlier as well. Giving an example of notification due to quoting the user on article page will introduce the new feature and help keep the discussions focused on talk pages. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

new page: Wikipedia in other languages[edit]

Wikipedia in other langauges[edit]

  • Describe ULS setup with example of one or two languages and their keyboards and an image from one of the language Wikipedias. Check Proposed Telugu edition appendix and brochure used for Telugu Wikiacademies. Close to 75% edits in English from India are from people for whom English is not the mother tongue. A section like this helps the other languages a lot. Latin script based language edition can include specific information relevant to the languages in this place.
    Can you elaborate on what newcomers need to know in order to use ULS? If possible, I think the right place to include that kind of information would be the "navigating Wikipedia" spread on pages 4-5.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The ability to select language and keyboard layout need to figure prominently. The links I provided in my initial comment(see above) had several screenshots and pictures, which could be useful.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Arjunaraoc. I've added an entry for the language settings icon to the "navigating Wikipedia" spread: "These settings allow you to change the language used for menus and select your keyboard layout." I'll talk with LiAnna about whether to have something more prominent. Adding a page is not feasible (as the printing format means we need a total number of pages that is a multiple of 4), so something more prominent than a callout highlighting the language settings and describing its purpose would need to be squeezed in somewhere else.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Sage Ross (WMF). The previous version was produced with Cheatsheet as 2 page flap to the book of 16 pages. Adding another two pages can help may be worth while, while making the total again a multiple of 4, as majority of the people who will receive the booklet in countries where English is a second language, will find this beneficial. Irrespective of the final decision making for English version, producing a two page draft will help other language teams adapt it as appropriate either for language selection or for additional features related to their language. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Arjunaraoc: The extra 2-page flap in the previous version added quite a bit to the printing cost, and it turned out to be prohibitively expensive for most or all of the translated versions — and so it generally was just left out. It might be possible to create a separate page in the same design style that goes into more detail about changing the language and input settings, which could be included as a supplement where needed. But I'm not sure whether that will be within the scope of the current project. Can you tell us more about your experiences with Telugu Wikiacadamedies and what the audiences needed in terms of language/input settings guidance before they could get started?--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Mobile Wikipedia[edit]

It will be nice to put visuals of Mobile Wikipedia screenshots as that is one major difference from the previous edition.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, particularly since we now have mobile editing that is quite usable. Maybe something about mobile editing (and the existence of the featureful mobile interface) would make sense as part of page 6 on "ways of contributing", since both small text edits and photo contributions are especially well suited to mobile.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Free license[edit]

In the glossary where 'free license' is defined and CC BY-SA is named, can it also specify the link? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ License mention is pretty meaningless to someone who doesn't know what it is.

Janeatcc: the license link (to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA ) will appear on the same page as the glossary, in the small print that includes the credits for the brochure. It makes sense to include the shortcut at the end of the glossary, though. I'll add that.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

draft Version 2 comments[edit]

Draft version 2, 2013-12-04

Comments from Sage Ross and LiAnna Davis[edit]

LiAnna and I discussed these things together yesterday, and will talk over them with the designer tomorrow. I wanted to post them here just so it's easier to follow the changes — and add other perspectives — during these last phases of the project. Now is a good time to give design feedback, suggest additional text tweaks.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Cover[edit]

Overall, looks great. Hopefully seeing this will prompt Adrianne to write a new introductory blurb herself.

new subhead: "A guide to improving content on the online encyclopedia" (to make it two lines like the others in the series)

The photo doesn't convey the idea of being a user avatar very well. Perhaps rounded corners and/or a border on all the photos, to evoke a buddy icon / profile picture?

page 2[edit]

Overall, this inside cover seems a bit bland. Include the WP:Shortcut legend here. Shortcuts do get mentioned within the "Navigating" spread, but buried within the Search callout and easy to miss.

Text edit

"In this guide, we will walk you ..." -> This guide will walk you ...

page 3[edit]

Make quoted text larger? It's a key point in plain language, and there's plenty of room.

Text edit

"... topics not already covered on your language Wikipedia" -> topics not already covered in your langauge.

Add a globe logo?

page 4-5[edit]

Use the simple line styling for the callouts.

Separate the "Language settings" callout (which should point to that gear icon) from the "Languages" callout (which should point to the left side of the list of languages like the other sidebar callouts do).

The emphasis here is on the interface, but the interface takes takes up little of the page, and the body of the article too much. Would the image work better in larger size (making it wider, while cropping it within the list of languages)? Somehow, we should make this visually emphasize the interface more, relative to the article itself.

[I initially suggested having some of the callouts covering the body of the article, like what the original brochure did, but LiAnna ponted out that the transparency / covering up of other elements was often a problem point for localization.]

If the styling of the callouts gets changed to a line style more like page 8, the "Edit" callout should also point to one of the inline [edit] buttons.

Stylize "WP:HELP" in the Search box (and everywhere they occur throughout the brochure).

page 6[edit]

Is this image a placeholder for something more like the block of user photographs from the initial discussion? I rather prefer some sort of layout that is more chaotic and visually complex, instead of essentially a list of tasks to read from start to finish. When the eye is drawn here and there to find the different ways of contributing, it reinforces the idea that there is no hierarchy of tasks and it's about finding your own role(s) in a community.

page 7[edit]

Overall, this page looks great.

Text edit

"Rather, you should summarize what has been written in reliable sources about the original topic or research. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis off published material that goes beyond the sources themselves."->

Rather, you should summarize what others have published in reliable sources about the topic. Articles may not contain any new analysis, and they should not synthesize published materials to reach broader conclusions beyond what the individual sources say.
Text addition to the end of the Copyright and plagiarism section

(Public domain and freely licensed content may also be added to Wikipedia as long as it is properly attributed.)

Text edit

"Conflicts of interest" -> Conflict of interest

page 8[edit]

Title should be "Editing with the VisualEditor"

Overall, this page looks great. We'll probably switch the example article on pages 5-6 and 8-9 to Encyclopedia, and probably want to switch the image to the center, to align with a redone page 9 image in parallel.

Text edit

"and lead section goes on to summarize" -> and the lead section goes on to summarize

page 9[edit]

Title should be "Editing with wiki markup"

Text addition at the end of the introductory paragraph

For more wiki markup help, see the Wiki Markup Cheatsheet on page 15.

The image here isn't very effective. What I had imagined was a more explicit stylized / abstract representation of a page full of wikitext in oversized font, with only the syntax elements (and associated content, such as the text between the link brackets) readily visible, with the rest faded and fuzzy. A more vertical image / set of images would be easier to do this with, as we could add the same types of symbolic break points as used in the VisualEditor illustration to highlight different parts of the article that include all the elements we want to show. I will work on a base layout of the wikicode text for the new Encyclopedia example.

I like the text portions, especially the monospaced fonts demonstrating the syntax placed right next to the blue headings.

pages 10-11[edit]

The pictures are just placeholders, and the article will need to be replaced with a stub related to Encyclopedia. I will provide better pictures soon, which will make this spread make a bit more sense. It might be good to have a little box at the top listing numbered steps (as sort of a summary of this whole spread):

  1. Find an article you can improve, and a reliable source to use.
  2. Click edit and add more information.
  3. Add a reference to the source you used.
  4. Save the page.

Stylize "Special:GettingStarted" in Adrianne's quote

pages 12-13[edit]

Text edit

"If want to contact another user" -> If you want to contact another contributor

(missing "you" and user->contributor)

We definitely need to rethink the illustrations on this page. There's no need for a full screenshot for the userpage redlink. It could just be a cutout of the personal tools links at the top of the page, then a slice showing the header when you're creating a user page ("Creating User:Jean le Rond d'Alembert"), then the completed user page as in the second screenshot.

The place to highlight for the Talk page is the Talk tab (rather than the talk link next to username), since it emphasizes that every page has a corresponding talk page. The "Every article has its own Talk page" text should come before the photo-and-quote.

page 14[edit]

text edits
  • "brochure, mentioned below in the resources section." -> brochure (see below).
  • "The brochure covers what Commons is" -> The brochure covers what Wikimedia Commons is
  • "best practices for educator looking" -> best practices for educators looking
  • "part of the course curriculum" -> part of their course curriculum

Remove the extraneous " at the end of Evaluating Wikipedia subhead.

Add urls for each of the highlighted brochures:

page 15[edit]

text edit

"These are the shortcuts most frequently used when editing Wikipedia articles." ->

These examples cover the formatting needed most often when editing Wikipedia articles with wiki markup.

We'll want to change several of the examples to fit the theme:

  • William Shakespeare -> Denis Diderot

[White House website] -> Library of Congress website

(single brackets for external link)

Example should be Example.jpg, not .png. An actual photograph related to the theme should appear. I will find one.

Bulleted list is listed twice (instead of Numbered list). Both lists should show the examples of standard list format with no indentation:

  • Wikipedia
  • Encyclopédie
  1. Encyclopædia Britannica (A-B)
  2. Encyclopædia Britannica (C-L)

Add period at the end of the example reference in the Display references entry, to match ref above.

page 16[edit]

Use stylized shortcuts like previously.

text edit

"Commons synonyms include" -> Common synonyms include

Versions 5-7[edit]

Version 9 draft, 16 December 2013

Initial comments by LiAnna Davis.

Cover
  • Quote: "I've been a Wikipedian since 2004. I contribute because I like helping to create a free, reliable reference work for the entire world. I'm happy to help you learn how to contribute, too, so you can add your knowledge and make Wikipedia better." Wadewitz (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd put a younger person, around 30 years old. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
How do you know she isn't "around 30 years old?" SarahStierch (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I find the cover design a bit unalluring. It is also slightly inconsistent with both rounded edges and pointy edges. Maybe reconsider the look... --Sebastian Horndasch (WMDE) (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    Regarding the edges, I agree. I'd like to see how it looks with rounded rather than truncated corners on all the portraits.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Page 2
  • Still looking a little bland. Maybe add the globe here?
Page 3
  • Now that I look at the additional shortcuts copy closer, I don’t like it. How about instead: “Want to see up-to-date statistics about Wikipedia? Type WP:STATS into the search bar as pictured above. The text WP:STATS is what’s known on Wikipedia as a shortcut. You can type shortcuts like this into the search bar to pull up specific pages. In this brochure, we designate shortcuts as <<stylized shortcut>>.”
    This reminds me that we need WP:STATS in the search box of the screenshot.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website in the world". This probably is not a problem to be addressed here because I know there is precedent in using this statement, but this is not properly conveying the project's brand or transmitting the information of most use to consumers. Wikipedia is the fifth most visited web property, because the Alexa ranking as I understand is adding traffic from all language versions, and this is not even relevant information because there is little reason to compare Google to YouTube to Facebook to Wikipedia. I would like to say "Wikipedia publishes the world's most popular, read, consulted, accessed, and studied articles on almost every topic" or "In almost every topic, Wikipedia's articles are among the world's most popular, read, consulted, accessed, and studied." Eventually the WMF should organize a definition of the brand, but I suspect they have a conflict against wanting to do this. My perspective is in medicine, and it is in my interest that people know just how influential Wikipedia is in my field. Other perspectives, like the WMF perspective, probably have in their interest a desire to divert attention so that they are not pressured by external forces. I am harmed because the public mostly discounts or does not know how to respond to claims of "fifth most popular website" - that claim has not publicly caused any significant partner to jump to reaction so far as I know. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    I agree that "fifth most visited website" isn't very useful in this context, to convey just how widely articles are read. (The WMF branding around that is out of scope here, but I think it's just something that nobody has thought of a satisfying solution to for the more general use case where comparison to other websites actually is relevant.) How about this: "...Wikipedia is read by hundreds of millions of people on a regular basis." That's based on the monthly unique visitors stat, which now tops 500 million, but it focuses on readers without getting too specific about comparison to other sources of information or generalities about it being the most-used resource of its kind.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    Either the change you propose or its original presentation is good enough. This discussion is out of scope and not a burden for this book. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Adrianne is using the word "commons" as a generic term. If possible, I wish that Wikimedia materials would only talk about Wikimedia Commons and never "the commons" because these are different things and there is already enough confusion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm actually OK with this. In the academic world that Adrianne and I work in (liberal arts) it's a fairly frequent term in digital humanities - and it is true - your work does enter into the commons for anyone to use. I think it just depends on who we see the audience being here. And the audience isn't Wikimedians or Commonists. And if Wikimedia Commons is mentioned, I expect it to be capitalized to show the difference. SarahStierch (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
My view is that they are different, but they are both important. In this case, the "commons" in the generic sense is given specific context in the next sentence. More broadly, it's unfortunate that we have this branding confusion, but if the alternative is to abandon the more general concept of Wikimedia projects as contributions to a cultural and intellectual commons, then we have to suffer that point of continual disambiguation.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC).
  • Not a necessity, but, it mentions Wikipedia in "your" language. Perhaps a shout out that it comes in XX amount of languages? Not a deal breaker for me. Just a mere suggestion. SarahStierch (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    "Hundreds of languages" is in the first paragraph on this page. We are intentionally vague here, with the accompanying pointer to on-wiki statistics, to make sure it doesn't become quickly out of date.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Pages 4-5
  • Suggested intro copy: “Before you start editing articles, it’s helpful to familiarize yourself with the navigation of all pages on Wikipedia.”
    How about instead: "As you get started, it's helpful to familiarize yourself with the interface and how to navigate Wikipedia pages."--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    Sounds good to me! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Featured content blurb needs a serial comma after photographs.
  • Too much info here and on page 5. Have fewer markers. I suggest cutting out things just to keep too much text off the page. On page 4 cut Community portal, language settings, and toolbox. Community portal and toolbox simply are not documented well enough to be explicable to new users and language settings is too much when language is there. Perhaps expand other options. On page 5 cut the search explanation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    We made this a two-page spread focused exclusively on the interface because there are a lot of important things to cover. While it covers a lot, in the latest designs it does not seem visually overwhelming to me. The language settings, while not relevant for most (who will be viewing Wikipedia in their native language/script), is very important to the people who would be likely to need it. The community portal isn't that good on English Wikipedia (or any other that I have seen) but its intended purpose is important; it's the closest thing we have to a portal to introduce users to the community and the meta side of Wikipedia. The toolbox is not vital, but I think it's valuable as a place to explore how Wikipedia works. The search box is less critical now that we introduce shortcuts in the inside cover, but I think it still makes sense to highlight as part of the overall interface.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Your opinion is probably a majority opinion. Get other opinions if you like; I expect that I am an outlier. I suggested cutting out the things that I do not present when I do this demonstration in public presentations, and maybe that makes me biased against what works in print. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Page 6
  • Although Adrianne does participate in the education program, I think having her larger than anyone else gives that task extra prominence. Maybe give her “add new text and references” so it gets the largest priority? Then you can have Noopur monitoring new articles and recent edits, and give Peter the assigning students part since he also participates in the program. (So does Chanitra, who’s currently copy editing articles.)
    This has been totally redone for version 6, which I like much better.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Page 7
  • An overview of the rules without WP:V? Users can figure everything else out if they start by understanding that everything on Wikipedia has to have a citation. I know this is just an English policy but it ought to be everywhere. No harm would come to Wikipedia at all if the entire project were better cited. I often tell people that if they do not understand anything else, start with citations and then someone will help them with the rest. Someone coming with an understanding of all the rules presented here but no citation will still have a lot of problems. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The "Reliable sources" paragraph is incredibly confusing because it doesn't make clear that the sources are being used to verify information being added to Wikipedia. And I agree with Bluerasberry - Verifiability should be mentioned. Wadewitz (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree about verifiability. I'd like to be able to pass these books out to academics and students at universities where I do workshops. And verifiability is one of the biggest conversations I have, next to reliable sources, during Q&A sessions and post-workshop. ("I am the source, I can verify it all, as I did the thing with the person so what the hell do you mean I need a reliable secondary verifiable source?" SarahStierch (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Bluerasberry, User:Wadewitz, and SarahStierch. I'll expand that reliable sources section to go on specifically to talk about verifiability and citing sources.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The sentence in the NPOV section is a bit funky: "Wikipedia is not the place for argumentation or advocacy." I think the word "argumentation" is what sticks out to me - people argue on the talk pages, not on the actual article itself. Is there a different word we can use or perhaps remove it? Or suggest that any comments about the subject matter that aren't neutral should be kept on the talk page... SarahStierch (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    I agree. How about "Argumentation or advocacy does not belong in Wikipedia articles."? That gets around the talk page issue without digressing.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Great summaries! Despite a few hiccups, I really do like this section. I intend on using it to simplify my own language when presenting about Wikipedia. Well done. SarahStierch (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Page 8
  • Appendices and footnotes copy needs a period at the end of it.
  • Half the "g" in changes in the first line of the lead is missing. Could be an unavoidable thing, but the Virgo in me would not let is go by. SarahStierch (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    I don't see this. If you mean the one in the phrase "what your changes will look like", it looks fine to me.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Page 9
  • This page is looking a lot better! But let’s standardize with the spacing — blurred text has extra space after the / in reference tag, whereas it doesn’t in the explanation; explanation has spaces around internal links, but the sample doesn’t, etc.
    References tag should include the space, as that's the conventional way of doing self-closing tags. The extra space around the internal links is helpful for illustrating the structure, especially for piped links, but I guess it will be okay without them.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'm fine with having space/no space on them, just want to make sure the explanation and sample both have the same spacing for each, whereas both examples are the opposite right now. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    I agree about the virtue of having them match, and removing the spaces is the better place to converge.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Page 10-11
  • I think we need to move the “Before editing” section here so we know what has been added; I didn’t get it the first time I looked at it, until I’d looked at page 11. How about:
    • Cut “Pick a topic you’re familiar with” and everything after that from the intro copy.
    • Create actual steps: “Step 1. Pick a topic you’re familiar with that’s missing some information.” (show screenshot of “Before editing”)
    • Step 2. Find a reliable source that covers the topic better than the current Wikipedia article.
    • Step 3. Now comes the fun part. Click the Edit button!
    • (now on page 11) have current screenshot of editing window.
    • Convert first three paragraphs currently at the bottom of page 10 into steps 4, 5, and 6.
    • Show after screenshot, then at the end say “And don’t worry, if you make a mistake, you can always make more change or restore a previous version of the article.”
I like this concept, and the new copy. We could include those steps 4, 5 and 6 alongside the "during editing" screenshot.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The text at the bottom looks rather lonely. I think some color or boxes around them might bring them to life. As a reader, I almost passed right past them to move on to the next page. I'd also improve the size of the "before editing" and after text. It's too small on such a page with so much white space. I'd make them a bit bolder. Perhaps above their respective screen shots. SarahStierch (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The added text could be pointed boxed or pointed out, or the subsequent page (with pre and post edit) will be hard to understand.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Page 12
  • Update crop on the third image, so you now see the blue “Ephraim Chambers” copy.
    Whoops, I provided a higher-res image this morning that repeats the same crop without the now-blue username. Will redo.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Use a username that someone could recognize as a name. "Ephraim Chambers" does not seem like a name. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I know he's an encyclopedist, but...it'd be nice to have a contemporary name or a real username, like Wadewitz. I'd rather see a non-English white male historical username, for the sake of systemtic bias, too. SarahStierch (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I would recommend a nickname rather than a recognisable username as it will the newbies to know that names need not be real names.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
No love for Ephraim Chambers? This makes me said. How about Herrad of Landsberg? It's further in form from a modern real name — so, more like the forms usernames often take of some historical or cultural reference — and (as Sarah pointed out in a recent discussion elsewhere), Herrad of Landsberg is an historical woman encyclopedist.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Start with Ada Lovelace and then propose digressions. Convince someone that there is a better choice than her. I have respect for Ephraim and Herrad but if you had not told me they were people I would not have thought that they were. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm... upon further reflection, Herrad of Landsberg (a nun) introduces a religious element that could be a liability for the brochure in some contexts. As for Ada Lovelace, although she's become something of a Wikipedia icon, she's well outside the encycopedia / encyclopedist theme. The comments are pulling in different directions here, in terms of whether the name should seem like a modern personal name or actively avoid that in favor of a clear nickname / online handle. I'm not completely settled, but for now, I'm going to stick with Ephraim Chambers.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This line: "Once you’ve started editing, you might want to start your user page to let others get to know you a little bit," reads a little odd to me. Perhaps something like "After you've made your first article edits, create your user page" or something like that. I always suggest people make their user page either as a first or second step in editing (i.e. "make your userpage and then make an edit in the article space" or vice versa). While some folks don't want to make user pages, it's a helpful thing for most newbies to have. SarahStierch (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    I agree that it's helpful for most newbies... that's why the brochure encourages it explicitly here, with instructions and an example. I'd rather make it any stronger than encouraging, since it's not and should not be mandatory. The phrasing could be changed to de-emphasize the order, though. How about this? "As you start editing, you might also want to create your user page to let others get to know you a little bit."--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Page 13
  • Sage, I know you’re already updating these screenshots.
    Indeed, although I'm still a little hazy about exactly what we want with this page. I sent a few screenshots that might be relevant to David.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Point out that Adrianne is getting excited about the red box, and that is why she clicked. A lot of people do not notice this box. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    This is confusing because the username is not mine. Perhaps a small detail that most people wouldn't notice, but I found it strange. Wadewitz (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    Ah, thanks. I meant to change quote, so that it doesn't refer specifically to you getting a notification.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd move the statement "Every article has its own Talk page, too. These Talk pages can be used to make suggestions, post new sources, point out problems, and discuss changes that contributors disagree about." to page 12. It looks rather lost and lonely on top of 13 when the screen shot shows a notification and an article page. I would then add some text explaining what the screen shot is about. Wadewitz's caption is nice, but it's a little lonely down there. I'd maybe have her bubble connecting to the notification, or have a statement explaining that if your username is mentioned on another page you'll get a notification and a notification each time a message is left on your talk page. SarahStierch (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    These pages look quite a bit different today (that text you suggest moving has been moved, and now there is an actual talk page illustrated), but we still have some more work to do on them... especially on highlighting the Notifications and explaining the basic concept of them. We tried to figure out ways to specifically explain the concept of Mention notifications, but it's too complicated to explain in enough detail to let newcomers actually utilize mentions effectively.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Page 14
  • The line: "many are very good, but some lack depth and clarity, or contain bias, or are out of date. " I would make it "but some lack depth and clarity, contain bias, or are out of date." instead of "or" being used twice. But, perhaps my grammar is incorrect and that's the right way to do it. :) SarahStierch (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    That's a good change. Both are okay grammatically, but yours is a little easier to read.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Page 15
  • Last entry on display side needs a period at the end.
Back cover
  • items under free license, markup, and template need stylized shortcuts.
  • Commons one needs a serial comma after videos.
  • I suggest making template plural, so it reads "templates". This harmonizes with language in the description.--Exbrook (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    Sounds good. I'll add it to the list.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources and verifiablility[edit]

Per suggestions above, I drafted this new version of the "reliable sources" segment on page 7:

Information in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, based on reliable published sources. You should add citations to the sources you use, so that others can check for themselves. The most reliable sources for Wikipedia are third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking, such as books published by academic presses, peer-reviewed academic journals, and international newspapers. You should be using sources that represent significant viewpoints, rather than one-off studies or fringe work. Try to find the best and most reliable sources available on the topic.

Suggestions and improvements welcome.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"You should include citations for the information you add to the encyclopedia, so that others can check it for themselves." 23.243.143.3 23:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
"In general, self-published sources such as blogs and personal websites are not considered reliable." 23.243.143.3 23:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I replaced the relevant line with the first suggestion. As for the second, adding an additional sentence to focus specifically on self-published sources, I think that goes too far into the weeds for this brochure. The gist of RS is already covered, and without a little more context, singling out self-published sources as generally not reliable can even be a little misleading. The longer the section on rules is, the more readers will gloss over it and not pick up even the main points.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Great work Sage. Thanks for taking our suggestion to heart and putting it in here. And yes, the longer the less people will read it. I'm the same way :) SarahStierch (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

requested changes[edit]

[synthesized by me from the above discussions.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)]

Cover

YesY Done New quote:

I've been a Wikipedian since 2004. I contribute because I like helping to create a free, reliable reference work for the entire world. I'm happy to help you learn how to contribute, too, so you can add your knowledge and make Wikipedia better.

YesY Done Portraits (here and throughout): try rounded corners? We're still not totally happy with the styling on these. Maybe try adding usernames beneath?

Page 2

YesY Done Still looking a little bland. Maybe add the globe here?

Page 3

YesY Done New text at the end of the first paragraph, replacing the second half of the last sentence: Wikipedia is read by hundreds of millions of people on a regular basis.

YesY Done New text for the shortcut explanation: Want to see up-to-date statistics about Wikipedia? Type WP:STATS into the search bar as pictured above. The text WP:STATS is what’s known on Wikipedia as a shortcut. You can type shortcuts like this into the search bar to pull up specific pages. In this brochure, we designate shortcuts as <<stylized shortcut>>.

Page 4-5

YesY Done Intro copy: As you get started, it's helpful to familiarize yourself with the interface and how to navigate Wikipedia pages.

YesY Done Featured content blurb needs a serial comma after photographs.

YesY Done In "Create account", change "userpage" to "User page".

Page 6

YesY Done Put these roles with these pictures (which think are all true, to some extent at least):

Page 7

YesY Done (This copy was tweaked further after it got updated) New text for "Reliable sources": Information in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, based on reliable published sources. You should include citations for the information you add to the encyclopedia, so that others can check it for themselves. The most reliable sources for Wikipedia are third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking, such as books published by academic presses, peer-reviewed academic journals, and international newspapers. You should be using sources that represent significant viewpoints, rather than one-off studies or fringe work. Try to find the best and most reliable sources available on the topic.

YesY Done Text edit for "neutral point of view", change last sentence to: Argumentation or advocacy does not belong in Wikipedia articles.

Page 8

YesY Done "Template" heading should be "Templates" to maintain consistency with "Images" and "Citations".

YesY Done Appendices and footnotes copy needs a period at the end of it.

Page 9

YesY Done Remove spaces in the internal link explanation: [[article title|text]]

YesY Done Remove spaces in the template explanation: {{template name|parameter}}

YesY Done Add a space in the references tag explanation: <references />

YesY Done straighten all the slanted single quote marks

YesY Done In the WP:MARKUP note, change "a reference page" to "the reference page".

Pages 10-11

Crystal Clear app clock-orange.svg In progress

  • Try a layout that has explicitly numbered steps, like this:
    • Cut “Pick a topic you’re familiar with” and everything after that from the intro copy.
    • Create actual steps: “Step 1. Pick a topic you’re familiar with that’s missing some information.” (show "before" screenshot)
    • Step 2. Find a reliable source that covers the topic better than the current Wikipedia article.
    • Step 3. Now comes the fun part. Click the Edit button!
    • (now on page 11) have current screenshot of editing window.
    • Convert first three paragraphs currently at the bottom of page 10 into steps 4, 5, and 6, which can be placed alongside (rather than below) the "during" screenshot", possibly with lines to highlight the relevant part of the screenshot for each step.
    • Show "after" screenshot, then at the end say “And don’t worry. If you make a mistake, you can always make more change or restore a previous version of the article.”
Page 12
  • Per complaints about my choice of example user, I'm likely to redo these. No changes on your end image-wise for now, except to consider some kind of visualization of clicking the link for the username redlink. (I could also do this as part of the screenshot.)

YesY Done New text for the second sentence of the first paragraph: As you start editing, you might also want to create your user page to let others get to know you a little bit.

YesY Done Capitalize the page types that are highlighted in blue:

    • User page
    • User Talk page

YesY Done Capitalize the other three instances of "user page" (User page) in the second and third paragraphs.

Page 13

YesY Done The screenshot for the top of Talk pages should be the one with the red Notification symbol rather than the one with the flyout after you click the symbol. The flyout itself isn't critical, but if it is shown, it should probably be isolated instead of reshowing the rest of that talk page. Alternatively, the red "1" symbol could be composited in over the "0" in the flyout screenshot. We could actually show the discussion from the middle of the Talk page first, since that is more illustrative of the concept of talk pages. Then after that comes the Adrianne's quote alongside the top-of-the-talk page illustration with the red "1".

YesY Done New text for Adrianne's quote (which is intended as a response to seeing that red Notification symbol): Look, a new Notification! These let you know when someone mentions your username, thanks you for an edit, or leaves a message on your User Talk page.

Page 14

YesY Done Slight edit for the end of the first sentence: but some lack depth and clarity, contain bias, or are out of date.

Page 15

YesY Done Change "Instructions" to "Description"

YesY Done Change "Heading Text" to "Heading text", to set the right example for header capitalization

YesY Done Change link description to "Link to another Wikipedia page (Internal link)"

YesY Done Change piped link description to "Link with different text"

YesY Done Change external link description to "Link to another website (External link)"

YesY Done Change numbered list examples to these (which are the subjects covered in the first two volumes of the Encyclopédie):

  1. A - Azymites
  2. B - Cézimbra

YesY Done Change signature description to "Signature and timestamp (for Talk pages)"

YesY Done Change ref description to "Citation".

YesY Done Last entry on display side needs a period at the end.

Back cover

YesY Done Items under free license, markup, and template need stylized shortcuts.

YesY Done Remove the entry for Infobox, as this no longer shows up in the brochure.

YesY Done Add a new entry for Notification: A message for you that shows up at the top of a Wikipedia page. If you want to let someone know you replied to them, you can create a Mention Notification by including a link to their User page in a signed Talk page message.

YesY Done Change template to templates (plural) to harmonize with the text.

YesY Done Commons one needs a serial comma after videos.

General comments[edit]

  • Great document, I can't wait to get my hands on copies to participants at the university workshops I have scheduled for 2014! SarahStierch (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I was surprised to see that there is no mention of creating an account. I know it's a fairly easy process online, but, newbies often want to know how to do it, and what type of username to use. (Real name, pseudonym). I was surprised not to see a mention of it in this guide. SarahStierch (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I really liked the previous version but one thing that would be extremely useful from an international perspective - a version in international paper sizes! That would be awesome. Thanks to everyone involved for their efforts so far. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    +1--Chandres (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    Although I wasn't part of the discussion on sizing, I know that — for both this and the previous version — the dimensions were a careful decision. With a full-sheet aspect ratio of 1.4, it's nearly but not exactly the aspect ratio of A series paper. It's also not a standard American paper size; I think the idea was to make it close enough to work with multiple different paper size standards. That's my understanding of the thinking behind the dimensions, at least. I'll ask for clarification from LiAnna Davis and David Peters.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    It's B5 size paper, a decision that was made as part of the Bookshelf project due to its common usage by printers internationally. I wasn't part of the Bookshelf team, so I'm not sure about how that was decided originally (Lennart Guldbrandsson from Sweden was one of the project leads helping with internationalization, so he may know), but it's certainly not a standard American paper size; it was designed to be one that printers all over the world would understand. Stevie, Charles, have you found that not to be the case? Do printers in the UK and Switzerland not have B5 size paper? -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The screen capture have only the "edit" button, I think it would be more consistent to have all the visual with "edit" and "edit source". --Chandres (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    It's a tough choice, because in most cases for the screenshots, it would not be "edit" and "edit source", but rather "Edit source" and "Editbeta". Because we weren't sure if or when the default interface would change — at present on English Wikipedia, the default is simply "Edit" unless you opt-in to using VisualEditor — we decided to show as simple an interface as possible. That's based on the assumption that the word "edit" will always be around in one form or another, and users will have an easier time figuring out whatever additional options are present than trying to make a connection between what current screenshots with "Edit source" and "Editbeta" would show and whatever the default interface looks like six months or two years from now.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

4 new pages[edit]

I think we're going to expand the brochure to 20 pages, to include a few additional key topics. Here is the preliminary plan:

  • "Contributing" (p 6) becomes a two page spread, and it explores both how each of these folks contributes and also *why* they contribute.
  • "Preparing to edit" (p7) gets a companion page about Wikipedia writing style, which presents an example of inappropriate essay-like tone and appropriate encycopedia-style text about the same subject.
  • After "Interacting with the community" (p. 13) there is a page about mobile editing.
  • After mobile editing, possibly a page that focuses on good things to know about that are specific to English Wikipedia, with the idea that the format is simple and when it gets translated, people should use that page to include whatever they think is particularly relevant for their language version that isn't covered already. (Alternative ideas for this last extra page are welcome; for saddle stitch printing, the total number of pages needs to be a multiple of four.)

--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The new version has first takes on most of this new content.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Sage Ross (WMF), Adding four pages is a good idea. I just completed the Telugu wiki version draft based on the previous draft and tried to include language relevant text in appropriate pages as we have to get this to print soon. We will explore to see whether we can get the additional pages. I did not find the logo of Wikimedia Foundation in this new edition. I think it is useful to add the same. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Arjunaraoc. One of the new pages we settled on is a page covering specific things to know about English Wikipedia. The idea is that this page text should be fully replaced by whatever topics are most relevant for each localized version. In your case, this space could be used to cover the language and input settings. I'm sorry that we weren't able to get the final version in place as soon as we expected, as I know it makes it difficult for your printing deadline. At this point, we hope to have the final version ready about a week from now. David Peters will be spending some time after that cleaning and organizing the source files, although we could send you the InDesign version before that if it will be helpful.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Front page background colour[edit]

The front page colour background is not very attractive to me on my computer monitor. Please check and see whether another color that will be equally appealing on computer as well as when printed could be used. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

We're set on the colour for that page at this point, but you may certainly adjust it for your localized version.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Credits section on the back cover[edit]

Credits section for the text, document design is missing on the back cover.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This will be added shortly.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

links to additional resources are not correct on the version 7[edit]

The evaluating link is pointing to Education wiki main page. I think it should point to https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Evaluating_Wikipedia_article_quality_%28Bookshelf%29 .And the same problem with second link http://education.wikimedia.org/illustrating .--Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Those will redirect to the specific brochure links once ops puts in the redirects (before the brochure is printed). -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Version 12 draft, 23 December 2013

Final comments needed by 23 December 2013![edit]

Version 11 comments[edit]

Page 9
  • Style "Britannica and the Future of Encyclopedias" as a two == header, as you've done on page 19. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Not sure I like the vague highlighting here -- I think the callout lines are good enough. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • We're missing italics on Britannica once in the inappropriate section and three times in the appropriate section. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Add serial comma after "culture" in appropriate section. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Stylize footnotes as superscript in appropriate section. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Page 16
  • Cut IOS top (battery, time, connection lines) off both secreenshots. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Page 17
  • The shortcut box spacing on the right side of the WP:WIKIPROJECT box on the WikiProjects section is too far from the end of the T and too close to the "and". -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Page 19
  • Rename "Link with different text" to "Internal link with different text". -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Overall comments[edit]

  • Does it look weird to anyone else that when we have sentences that end with a shortcut, we do not add a period after it? -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I would have liked an icon for a short cut and shortcut name rather than flowing it with previous text.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with having the shortcuts inline with the rest of the text, but I agree that periods after shortcuts should be added at the ends of sentences. Let's go with that, David.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it may be nice to have the front page include a screenshot of Wikipedia on smartphone or wikipedia app screenshot. I think it will inform the users of Wikipedia keeping up with tech advances. Hope that design change for the same can be done complementing the message conveyed by present elements.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
    We aren't considering major changes to the cover at this point (although of course, anyone is free to substitute a different cover design for their purposes).--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You may consider giving an email for feedback on the last page, as some people may prefer to give feedback via that mode. --Arjunaraoc