MediaWiki talk:Sidebar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Link to the introduction instead of the community portal

We need to better introduce Wikipedia to newcomers. The pages linked in the sidebar are crucial and should be chosen with great care. Thus I propose to link to the introduction in the sidebar instead of the community portal. The introduction is quite well done, not too complicated for new users; but the community portal is convoluted and really insider, I don't think it's of any major interest or use for them. It's linked at some point in the intro, too, so we won't lose it completely. The intro would have to be protected because it would become of higher visibility though. Cenarium (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The intro page could do with a higher profile for the reasons you state, but I blieve if we were to replace a link - the 'about wikipedia' would be the place to go, it is far too much information for a gentle intro compared to the intro page and is one of the first main links from the intro page anyway. Maybe the community page should link to a gentler overview of the community likewise ... L∴V 11:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd replace both. There are really far too many links on the sidebar (whose idea was it to put the "create a book" section there?) Looking down, "Featured content" doesn't need to be there (it's linked from the main page), "Current events" similarly, as proposed here we don't need either "About Wikipedia" or "Community portal" (well, I would keep the link label "About Wikipedia" but direct it to the introduction - or merge those two pages), "Contact Wikipedia" could probably go as well (people will get there from the other links), "Help" needs to be much more prominent, the books can go I'd have thought. So count me as a supporter of any proposals to do any of these things.--Kotniski (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know; having the community portal link is really useful for veterans who use the portal, as it's a central location where all the major events and goings-on are linked. Just because it's not useful for readers and new users doesn't mean it's not useful. Powers ^T 15:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

We really need to orient this towards our millions of readers, not a few hundred veterans. In any case it's easy for established editors to add their favourite buttons using javascript (though really it should be an explicit function of the software).--Kotniski (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

We have over a thousand admins alone; I doubt the number of "veterans" is smaller than that number. Regardless, I don't agree that the sidebar should serve only readers of the encyclopedia. Powers ^T 15:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And how many of those veterans ever click the Community Portal link? I know I never do. (And I don't know why you bother to argue about the numbers anyway - it's a tiny number anyway compared with the vast number of readers we have.) I didn't say it should serve "only" readers, but that should obviously be the main focus. It's trivial in any case (and this fact should be more widely publicized) for account-holders to add their favourite links to the sidebar or to the top row of links. --Kotniski (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I also think there is value in retaining the CommunityPortal link in the sidebar. 1. It's always been there, and all other sisterprojects and language variants have that, or similar, linked. 2. We want readers to become editors, or to at least improve their understanding of how Wikipedia works, which the CP is ideal for.

We cannot get rid of the "Contact Us" link. See this thread at Help talk:Contents for an overview.

Merging Wikipedia:About and the Introduction is a slightly insane proposal.

The Introduction is already linked on the Main Page (in an easteregg link in the sentence "...that anyone can edit"). That could be improved.

I'd also suggest that editing the {{WP nav pages (header bar)}} to make it (much) shorter would be more helpful, and possibly merging (either parts of, or all of) the {{WP help pages (header bar)}} into it would also be helpful. That might be the best way to get a link to the Introduction at the top of the CommunityPortal. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I never found much use for the community portal too, and many feel probably the same, even amongst 'veterans', so this is not an argument for retention. The community portal is, in my opinion, worthless for new users, the only section that could help them is the last one, but they won't scroll down till that point. It's terribly insider and complex, the signpost, wikipedia weekly, wikiproject collaborations, and the daunting maintenance aspect, it's really great to scare them away, not make them editors, while the introduction aims at that. I would go further that we should directly link a page on editing and creating articles. The introduction is linked on the main page in such a way that only a few will click it. As for other projects, it's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument. I'd rather keep featured content though, because it allows to bring more readers to our FAs, and the current events portal for the same reasons. Both pages are very popular among readers. As for the About page, it's already linked at the bottom of every page, and on websites, it's the common place (as on google), so it's not necessary to link it twice, imo, although I don't mind either way. Contact is traditional on this type of websites, and I think we should keep it, for readers puzzled on what to do with 'article problems' or are not sure how WP works; and as I expected, we'd need to discuss with the wmf before removing it, like the donate button. I also thought of moving recentchanges to the toolbox, below upload, as it's not of so much use for readers and new users. I'm also not sure we need the Special:SpecialPages in the toolbox. So the interaction section could become: Introduction to Wikipedia, Help, Contact Wikipedia and Donate to Wikipedia. While the toolbox would become: whatlinkshere, related changes, upload, recentchanges, printable version... As for create a book, it's difficult to deal with this since the wmf pushes it, we removed it once, it's been added back. We need to make a RFC and gather enough support to reduce the default interface to one link in the toolbox (the interface would then expand as we know it when activated). Latest, readers don't often look at what is too high, they wouldn't click in mass on the intro even if added in the nav pages, and it would be one click too much/late for most, especially if already daunted by the community portal. Cenarium (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion here. Why not use the page view stats site to see how many page views each link is getting? Those views won't all be due to the sidebar links, but lots will. And about the suggestion to remove the link to Special:SpecialPages, that is one of the links I use the most! I would be interested in finding out how many other people use this link, hence my suggestion of using the page view stats site. A table listing all the sidebar links and the amount of page views they got for a recent month, would be very helpful here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Here you go .... (for august 09) L∴V 21:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

page	view count
Main_Page	162492480
contents	802768
featured content	546990
current events	1049189
About wikipedia	799107
community portal	268300
recent changes	n/a
contact wikipedia	256244
donate to wikipedia	n/a
help	242452
and for good measure...
Wikipedia:Introduction( from the 'anyone can edit' )	76552
Wikipedia:Questions	55943

Centralised discussion

I have been on hiatus from addressing the help issues but had planned on getting the ball rolling, last year I meandered around attempting to make the help pages more succint, accessible and rational, but there was little action going on, seems we have some editors here who are inspired to improve things! One thing I was going to work on was to bring the pages into a project, best I could find was the [good intentioned but inactive] Wikipedia:Help Project, there is are several more defined projects. One of the main problems was that there are so many avenues and talk pages with no central discussion to link up interested editors, so I was about to go around tagging the intro/tutorial/navigation pages with their first project to enable this. As we can see from the above discussion the situation requires discussion above article level and covers a few areas. I am yet to join the project, but am sure they won't mind our new impetus, I know from previous attempts that a lot of what we want to achieve will require achieving consensus in a number of areas, but a central theme would be good - I think this suggested projected is the best place to go and would be most grateful if we collaborated there ... L∴V 01:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

One work to be done is to localize and optimize pages in Help namespace, many are general on wikis or wmf wikis, this is only more confusing for new users, we need to cover Wikipedia only, and thoroughly, to optimize usability, and we can also give a link to the general mediawiki help page. I also had the idea to use the mediawiki:talkpageheader to provide help links for new users at the top of all talk pages. There's a special configuration on fr.wikipedia which allows to do this, here is an example of what we could do. This can be dismissed, and permanently hidden for logged-in users. I also think we should develop a common introductory page to our internal policies and workings. We could also work on improving the tutorial, for example using editnotices in the tutorial sandboxes. Cenarium (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

These all sound like good ideas, check out Category:Wikipedia tutorials and user proteins redesign - although they haven't proposed them yet ... L∴V 18:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Donate to Wikipedia link

Currently the "Donate to Wikipedia" button links to [[1]], yes it's a wikimedia site, but I don't feel its quite right - suddenly the reader is thrown out of wikipedia ( layout and colours etc change) and asked for money! I am proposing that we have an interim page within wikipedia so that consistency is continued. We could then let the marketting / kudos guys give a little information and try to convince users to donate (i.e. wikipedia is non-profit, relies on donations, server costs etc) , point out that another way to contribute is to edit articles, and have a the donate button with a note something like 'Click 'Donate' where you will be taken to the wikimedia donation page for Wikipedia'. I have a gut feeling that this might draw in more sponsors rather than scare off casual browsers... L∴V 13:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

While yes, it would be nicer if there was a "local" donation page, we should not add extra steps to donation. Adding extra steps increases the transaction costs of donation in time and thought, which would likely reduce the number of donations we get. A donation page should be simple: an explanation and then a donation form. I oppose this proposal on the basis of low need (shifting to a different site is trivial) with potential for loss: decreased donations from impatient people who get tired of intermediary pages. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe then, the current donation page could be improved, e.g. moving the note at the bottom that says wikipedia is part of the mikimedia project e.g. '

Support the Wikimedia foundation, which includes the wikipedia project' although I suspect it is a general donation page so might have to something like ', which includes the wikipedia, wikicommons ... projects' L∴V 14:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary. I don't see any reason to change it, at all. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that individuals wishing to donate to wikipedia may be put off when the page comes up with the donate to 'wikimedia'. L∴V 17:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

In looking at the help for new users one of the first things we do is tell them to use a sandbox, we then provide example ones, but to create ( I know its easy ) but we have to then explain this. I have also been noting how many times I just want to quickly test something - or note it down quickly and quick access to my sandbox qould be very useful ( I know one can rearrange one's interface etc - but I haven't looked into that yet ). So how about putting a link to the users sandbox in the toolbox? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Link to 'cleanup' category?

It would be useful to have a sidebar link to a cleanup or backlog link next to 'Random article'. It might also encourage readers to become editors -- it's hard to figure out how one might edit a good article, but one that clearly needs work helps overcome that initial barrier. –SJ+ 04:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

About page - link update

{{editprotected}} Please change

Help:About|aboutsite

to

 Wikipedia:About|aboutsite

because the page was moved back to its original title.

(barely existent discussion, for both moves, is at Help_talk:About#Requested_move). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 20:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Prominence of help

Would it be possible to make the help link, in the sidebar, more prominent?
No doubt experienced users know where to find things, but they're not the ones that need help. I think the current help link is far too subtle; assuming a new user's eyeball starts at the top of the sidebar and works down (which is optimistic; mainpage design is likely to draw their eyeball elsewhere), the new user will eventually find an unobtrusive link to "help" in the twelfth line below the logo. Would it be possible to move "help" further up, or use a slightly more eyecatching font, or something else? Any suggestions would be welcome.
This suggestion arose from some discussions about improving help content, over on Help talk:Contents/draft. bobrayner (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? bobrayner (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Has been proposed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Moving the Help link in the sidebar. I've supported there. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Increase prominence of Disclaimer

{{editprotected}}

As per consensus built in Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler#RFC:_Change_prominence_of_site_disclaimer_link_in_default_skin, I would like to ask you to move the Disclaimer link from the bottom of the page, to the top of the interaction box on the left bar in the default skin only.

Unrelated, I notice above my post a post requesting for increased prominence of 'Help', and I think that my request actually decreases prominence. Perhaps 'Help' could go either as the 1st or 2nd entry in the interaction box, or the 2nd entry in the navigation box.

Thanks! Gabiteodoru (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's technically possible to do that for just one skin by changing this page. (Adding "** disclaimerpage|disclaimers" just below "* interaction" would change it for both Vector and Monobook, and other skins (if any) that used a sidebarish setup.) Probably the right place to change it just for Vector would be MediaWiki:Vector.js, which currently seems mostly unused; changing it in JS isn't as simple as adding an extra line like that, though. (It's probably best to duplicate the link between the footer and sidebar in Vector, to avoid the risk of accidentally removing it altogether in rarely-used skins.) --ais523 12:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Besides the technical issues, that RFC consensus is far too weak to make such an important UI change in my opinion. Please discuss more widely in a village pump. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added pointers to the RFC to Template:Centralized discussion and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). --TS 19:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Prominence of help: Can somebody make the change?

{{editprotected}} Earlier, it was proposed in a couple of places that the "help" link might be moved to a more prominent position in the sidebar; at least to the top of the "navigation" section. I raised the question over at the village pump and the community seemed happy to support the suggestion. Would any admin consider implementing this, please?
Thanks; bobrayner (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a note - i see no one suggesting that the link should be on top of the navigation section, where it would be even above the main page. I see that a few people argue it should be on top of interaction box, or under donate in navigation. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to increase prominence as much as possible - ie. at or near the top of the navigation section - but others seemed to prefer a smaller uplift and if that's what the community feels comfortable with, I'm going along with it.

bobrayner (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it to the top of "interaction". If any further movements are desired, please return to the discussion on the village pump. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Groovy; thanks. bobrayner (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Translation Language link alignment

We use this in our Common.css to produce center alignment in the Language list. This shows no preference to language reading direction.

#p-Google_translations.portlet li,
#p-Google_translations.portal li {
  text-align: center;
}

#panel div#p-Google_translations div.body,
#mw-panel div#p-Google_translations div.body {
  margin-left: 0px;
}

Example: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Welcome_to_the_Sugar_Labs_wiki

Please put a search link in the sidebar

I prefer to open up a blank search form in a new tab. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a script for customising the sidebar, because that'd sound more like it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There are various JS additions for opening search in a new tab. But they all have problems. The main one being that they only work for the few people who know about them. They don't help unregistered users at all. And none of them add a search link in the sidebar. I am talking about a link to Special:Search. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. There have been various requests to get search to open in a new tab, or to get to Special:Search in a new tab. For example:

• Bugzilla:35974. Preference or default setting to open search result lists and suggestions in new tab.
• Bugzilla:17808. Have search suggest results open in a new tab on middle click.
• Bugzilla:34756. [Vector] Shift + enter in search box does not popup the search in a new browser tab or window.
• Bugzilla:29448. Add "advanced search" link in the search drop down.

The simplest solution is to provide a fast method to get to Special:Search in a new tab. A link in the sidebar is simple. One right-clicks it to get to a new tab. So, search result lists and search suggestions no longer cover over article pages.

For more ideas and discussion: commons:User talk:Timeshifter/Open search in new tab.js --Timeshifter (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

New pages

Could someone add a link to Special:NewPages in the sidebar? It would be quick for New Page Patrollers. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 17:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. I'd suggest proposing it at WP:VPR. Anomie⚔ 01:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that Special:NewPages is valuable to NPP folk but not to the vast majority of other editors; maybe there are other places it could be linked, but not the sidebar. bobrayner (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You can already do this for yourself, with either:

• Removed see Gadget850's suggestion below.

• Or, use this script which "Adds a box in the sidebar that uses AJAX to update a list of new pages every 5 seconds": User:TheJosh/Scripts/New Page Patroller. (Found via searching Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts#Scripts for "sidebar")

HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

addOnloadHook is obsolete; please use the ResourceLoader:

mw.util.addPortletLink ('p-interaction', '/wiki/Special:NewPages', 'New Pages');

If you want it in the toolbar section, then use 'p-tb' instead of 'p-interaction'. I did not include an id, tooltip, accesskey or nextnode. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Recommendation for a couple more links

I recommend adding a couple more links to the sidebar that I think would help a lot of folks.

1. Add a link to the Article creation wizard under Toolbox
2. Add a link to the Teahouse under interaction

I think both of these are high value links that a new or even a veteran editor would find useful. The only negative I can think of would be an increased workload for the Article creation/New page patrollers. Kumioko (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposals like these are probably best made at the more visible Village Pumps. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 06:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. There are quite a few pages that could be considered for the Sidebar. From wp:VillagePump to wp:Introduction to wp:5P to others. Each addition makes the list more dilute, hence requires wide input. (Look at the page's history, to see how few times it's been changed in the last couple of years. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't dilute it. It improves it. Look at MediaWiki.org's sidebar. It has six menus. MediaWiki developers,or at least Wikipedia's implementers, are somewhat clueless in my opinion about the many improvements in web page design the last few years. Such as multi-level nested menus, quality use of hover menus, advanced search, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Decisions like "the raw quantity of links in the sidebar" are directly related to who each of us sees as "the target demographic". (ie. it's not simple). MediaWiki's site has a much more focused target demographic, hence they can get geeky and overwhelming - if you don't know how to browse detailed technical documentation, and content hierarchies, then you're probably in the wrong place (at their site)!

Yes, we could definitely be more experimental with interface design and navigation systems and etc. All good things in due time? (And: The volunteers code what the volunteers want to code.) (And: Do try to avoid using words like "clueless", it hurts the general civility, and doesn't improve any details of the discussion. Perhaps use a more descriptive characterization, like "mis-focused". Ta :) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia's audience is much broader. Therefore there should be more sidebar menus, not less than at MediaWiki.org. How long do we have to wait? I have seen many totally logical, but ignored, proposals for years. I, and others, have been asking the Wikimedia Foundation to hire more developers and technical staff for years. Instead of hiring so many non-technical people that the WMF hires. Clueless, ridiculous, out-of-touch, fanboy cliques is much more descriptive and accurate than "mis-focused". It is not a personal attack. This lack of honest discussion is part of the problem lately with Wikipedia. The number of active editors is going down while people wikilawyer and tiptoe around the many problems contributing to this decline in editors and admins. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It bloody well is an insult, and a non-useful one to anyone who isn't inside your head.

"They don't focus on what I want them to focus on" (summarized as "mis-focused") is an actual description of the problem.

It's not "tiptoeing", it's being smart about which words you choose.

(and you'd have to be clueless to not understand that! See, it's an insult ;)

If you want a solution faster, there are two options. (1) fix it yourself. (2) get better at explaining yourself, so that other people actually want to support you.

I agree with your goals, but some of your tactics currently suck. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad I rattled your cage, if it helped us get to some agreement on goals. And a generalization is not a personal attack. Calling me clueless is a personal attack. There is a difference between the two. And I did fix it myself. I have proposed or commented on various sidebar links several times in multiple locations, over years. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

So how long do I need to let the discussion on the village pump continue before we consider adding the links. Only a few have taken the time to comment and they all support. If necessary we can always remove them if it turns out to be a contentious situation. I suspect if 2 new links pop up and are truly not wanted the community will let us know pretty quick. Kumioko (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd support a link to the teahouse but not to the article creation wizard. bobrayner (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • To clarify my reasoning: Sidebar changes should always take care to support the needs of less experienced editors who certainly don't venture near mediawiki-talk-space; the small minority of experienced editors who discuss things like this are not representative, and in any case the experienced editors already know how to find stuff and gain little benefit from tweaking the sidebar. The teahouse is valuable for less-experienced editors. However, new article creation is a good way for inexperienced editors to get bitten. bobrayner (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks I was just going to ask you for clarification. For what its worth the I advertised the change suggestion on the Village pump and it would be for the Sidebar in WP. The Article wizard IMO is more for inexperienced editors. If they are more experienced they should need to be hand held through the article creation process. If the process is bitey then we need to squash that problem and encourage people to use it not drive them off. That's just my opinion. Kumioko (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Which village pump/subthread?! ;) (I found it, WP:VPR#Additions to the sidebar) Please link discussions the first time, so that others don't have to go manually search for them! -- Quiddity (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary server strain?

I see that several words and links in the sidebar such as "Interaction" and "Help:Contents" are being pulled from Mediawiki pages. Why not just specify the links explicitly, instead of running the PHP necessary to pull the words from Mediawiki pages (which seems to me a practice without benefit)? Then again, I don't know if the sidebar is cached or whatever, so it might be an immeasurable difference. Dzylon (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The entire user interface renders from MediaWiki pages, and there is a version of each interface page for each language. To see this in action, select a language to view this page:

--— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Curiously, the word "Contribute" doesn't change with language. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like MediaWiki:Interaction is a local implementation and does not have all translations. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Easy link to Special:Search in sidebar

Special:Search|search

That is all that needs to be added to MediaWiki:Sidebar to create a link to Special:Search in the sidebar. It will show up as Search. I tested this on a wiki at the Shoutwiki wiki farm, and that is how it works there. It uses MediaWiki, too. I don't know what "SEARCH" does in the sidebar wikitext. It does not add a search link in the sidebar here, nor on Shoutwiki.

Here is where I suggest placing it on MediaWiki:Sidebar:

• navigation
  • mainpage|mainpage-description
  • Portal:Contents|contents
  • Portal:Featured content|featuredcontent
  • currentevents-url|currentevents
  • randompage-url|randompage
  • sitesupport-url|sitesupport
  • Special:Search|search
• SEARCH
• interaction
  • helppage|help
  • Wikipedia:About|aboutsite
  • portal-url|portal
  • recentchanges-url|recentchanges
  • contact-url|contact
• TOOLBOX

By the way, the sidebar link to search will not show up in the preview. It only shows up when the page is saved. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what it does yes. But what problem are we trying to solve ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

See previous discussions. Is your question serious? --Timeshifter (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see the section higher up for the reasoning, and more info: #Please put a search link in the sidebar. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

contactpage

Hello, please replace "contact" with "contactpage" so that it uses the message with that name instead of the old one, otherwise pre-2009 translations will be shown (via Toliño). --Nemo 20:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the fix! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Contents link seems awkward

Interested parties, please see my comment/proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Change Contents link in Sidebar. - dcljr (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to overhaul the sidebar

Please participate in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sidebar update. Steven Walling • talk 05:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Ability to hide the Sidebar

More pronounced in split screen view, the Sidebar takes up valuable screen real estate. Could an option similar to the Python Documentation website be made available.

Cyan.aqua 05:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Support - If javascript is enabled then have a hideable sidebar, if not then display the sidebar as currently. JMiall₰ 11:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Support - Maybe some kind of optional gadget in preferences for a show/hide sidebar. Operated by clicking show/hide text and icon in the sidebar. Put it maybe on top of the page when the sidebar is closed. I agree with the poster in the next section too, about its usefulness when 2 pages are open side by side. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

remove sidebar

How can I hide or remove the left sidebar? When I am trying to use two windows side by side it takes up valuable horizontal screen real estate.

I have never clicked on a link on the left side bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperduc (talk • contribs) 16:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I've got some JavaScript and CSS to do it selectively (adds a "toggle sidebar" tab), or you can use CSS to do it all the time. Which would you prefer? {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 23:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

A "toggle sidebar" tab sounds great. I prefer being able to toggle it. Versus permanently hiding the sidebar. A gadget in preferences would allow a lot of people to use the toggle tab. Otherwise, if there is no gadget preference I will just copy and paste the code into my personal CSS and JS pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There are 2 userscripts to hide the sidebar (listed in Wikipedia:User_scripts#For_reading)

• User:PleaseStand/Hide Vector sidebar
• User:Blue-Haired Lawyer/Wide Skin

Perhaps someone could test them both out, and give feedback (or screenshots if useful) ? Quiddity (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I installed User:PleaseStand/Hide Vector sidebar. It works fine. But I doubt many people will use it unless it is added as a gadget to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. It allows the sidebar to be toggled open or closed instantly. It would be nice if there were a toggle button on the left top of the page instead of buried in a menu. Then it would be totally intuitive to use, and faster, since one wouldn't have to remember which menu it was in. I have more menus, and menu items, due to other gadgets being enabled.

If the toggle button was an arrow pointing left or right then it would not take up much space at the already overloaded top of the page. For example: >> <<. Only one would be seen (depending on whether the sidebar was open or closed). --Timeshifter (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Gadget or script to remove sidebar on watchlist page only

See discussion here: meta:Talk:Crosswatch. I would like a user script just for removing the sidebar from watchlist pages. That way there is less wrapping of items to 2 lines. Especially as the screen gets narrower, and the text larger. A script I can paste into, or import into, Special:MyPage/vector.js, on any Wikimedia wiki of my choosing. Gadgets in preferences would be even better. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 June 2016

• PLATAFORMA*

EricAlmieda.localiza (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Invalid request. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Add CentralAuth link to toolbox section in userspace

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think it would be useful to add a link in the form of [[Special:CentralAuth/{{ROOTPAGENAME}}|CentralAuth]] in the toolbox section of the sidebar when viewing pages in either the user namespace or user talk namespace. Should we or should we not do this? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Regardless to if this passes, you can add importScript('User:The Voidwalker/centralAuthLink.js'); to your common.js to get the same effect. Cheers -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 20:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • There's also m:User:Hoo_man/Scripts/Useful_links which adds links to ~5 tools (GUC/SUL/X!'s/CA/Rights). It places them in the top corner by default, but it can put them in a configurable location, e.g. Tools menu (p-tb) or "More" dropdown (p-cactions). Quiddity (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I'd find this useful to have more easily accessible. It would also help to remind (or inform) users who saw it on their own userpages, of the other projects, which is good. Quiddity (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Sounds like a sensible idea. It should be done using ROOTPAGENAME, not BASEPAGENAME, though, for people who have sub-subpages (or sub-sub-subpages, etc.). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Didn't know that. I've made the according change above. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support; not a bad idea at all. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Can someone please explain why this is a good idea? The majority of what I see above is "it's a good idea" and not "it's a good idea because X" (noting Quiddity's comment). --Izno (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Don't support. Voidwalker and Quiditty have offered alternate existing ways for doing same. Level C (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Izno and Level C: I proposed it mostly because I've found myself using CentralAuth more and more recently, and there is currently no conveniently-placed link to the page. For me personally it is especially useful when dealing with LTAs (some of them create accounts on other wikis in addition to on the English Wikipedia) and in my work as a global renamer. Since accounts are global now, I think it would be a decent idea to add a link to information about a user's global account when viewing pages in their user or user talk space. The reason I would prefer this method over optional use of one of the scripts above is largely per Quiddity, but also because awareness of the CentralAuth page seems to be pretty low among established editors, and I want the link to be available for those who might not know of the page and its usefulness or think to install the script. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    • So I'm an inexperienced editor. Please point me in the direction of how this would benefit me, if it's not too much trouble. Is this tool so that I could easily see the updates that one user has made on different wikis (English, wikidata, etc)? I think I can currently see this info now just by going to the user's page and finding the link for that info.P.S. - If it's too difficult to explain, please don't worry about it. I was a SQA for 15 years, so I might be able to understand. Thank you for your time.Level C (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support I found CentralAuth.. I guess that's the one global USER page that shows up across wikis unless I have a user page set up for those OTHER wikis. It's like your default User page. So if I'm on Wiki German or Wiki Arabic or Wiki Spanish, then I don't have to create a user page for each one. I can have one User page. So a link to that would be convenient. Level C (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• I think I'm going to oppose after sitting on this for a bit. The need for this to be more-readily accessible isn't sufficient (as documented above predominantly by Ks0stm) to add a link for all users. The cases where it is needed are either a) provided by a gadget already, b) can be added to a personal Javascript file, or c) have not been demonstrated (for those users who can do neither, i.e. anonymous users). It adds further clutter to the sidebar and the information provided on the page is especially low value for those people without specific need in what is otherwise a high-impact location. --Izno (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• oppose as too technical. Pppery 22:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

How do you add links to the Tools section?

Is TOOLBOX some sort of magic word? Are the contents of the toolbox configurable, or does that require a MediaWiki software update? I see a link to JS Wiki Browser in the Tools section now, was that added recently, and how was that done? wbm1058 (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Links can be added for everyone by editing MediaWiki:Sidebar (add items under TOOLBOX, like is done for navigation and interaction) or for yourself using Javascript. Adding User:Joeytje50/JWB.js/load.js to your common.js added that link, specifically the addPortletLink("p-tb",....

Oh, I see. Thanks. But What links here, Related changes, Upload file, Special pages, Permanent link, and Page information aren't items under TOOLBOX and I don't think I have personal javascript that put them there, so these must be system default in the software? We don't have any optional items added under TOOLBOX. wbm1058 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those are defaults in the software. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.