Wikipedia talk:Community portal/Archive 6

People are copying wikipedia!

http://www.midnightwiki.com/go/Main_Page

Just for thoughts

Doesn’t anyone think that wikipedia is a little too constitutional? I mean, there are tons of clubs, many of them having a few members, and every single one of them has a charter, restrictions, and such. I mean, it seems all a little extraneous. Besides, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a public forum. - EKN

Nope. Osbus 21:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I mean, seriously, do we need the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, or the Ten Commandments of Wikipedia? What next, the Seven Wonders of Wikipedia?EKN 19:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

New Proposal - Artists of the Month

I think that in today's world, many intellectuals cherish the arts. Having said that, I think that Wikipedia should begin an Artist of the Month program, whereby a nominated artist's article is rectified and brought to featured article standards, and brought more towards the front pages of Wikipedia, via a link. --Jwhites (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea- an Arts Collaboration of the Week could be worthwhile. Ral315 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you mean we don't have an Arts Collaboration of the Week? That's a little surprising and we definitely should Osbus 23:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Spawning help and absorbing news

I've just moved "Help portal" to Wikipedia:Help portal. I would suggest that we implement the changes proposed at User talk:Trevor macinnis/sandbox/community portal fixup in the following order:# Polish Wikipedia:Help portal

1. Move Wikipedia:Help portal to Help:Contents
2. Remove The "Help" and "Writing resources" material from the Community Portal and add a pointer to Help:Contents instead.
3. Merge Wikipedia:Goings-on into the Community Portal
4. Pull recent Wikipedia:Announcements into the new Community Portal, to make it a one-stop shop for community information.

This will help us keep Help and Community info pages in usable condition while they are being improved. -- Beland 23:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• FYI, work on this suggestion is ongoing, but slowly. There's lots of things to be sorted through at Wikipedia:Help portal. -- Beland 01:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Community Portal gets hammered... should we lock it and make a development page?

I'm sort of a newbie to Wikipedia, but I have been noticing that the Community Portal gets hammered, as I'm sura goes. Is there any way that we could get it locked, and then setup a Wikipedia:Community Portal/Development page that would allow people to still participate in making the Portal? I just think the main portal is getting changed and reverted way too much and it is too important to have to worry about it, of all the things that there are needing maintenance on Wkipedia already...

...what do you guys think? --ymmotrojam 05:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• For the moment, I prefer to keep things as they are.--File Éireann 10:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's just would be a complete hasle to get admins to change some little thingies on the portal. As for vandalism... take a look at George W. Bush... Renata3 12:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand other pages are not doing so great, but the portal is important to Wikipedia because it brings a lot of useful Wiki related help/support/maintenance information into one place. Regular articles shouldn't be locked, but I think this should be one of those exceptions. It seems someone has locked it already. --ymmotrojam 14:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It gets protected once in a while because there might be some persistant vandal interested in this page only. Like any other page. It think its quite enough to have main page protected. And it's a hassle to get an admin to change it... So, I think we can deal with portal unprotected. Renata3 19:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should try out our shiny new semiprotection feature? — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 04:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Community Portal - further development

As a developer of WP:AID and WP:COTW I notice Community Portal is dull. I have therefore inserte

WP:COTW section

The ===Other collaborations=== subsection wastes space because it ends up below the open tasks template in another table, leaving a giant gap in that blue table cell. Other than looking ugly, it's a giant waste of space, more so because there is quite a lot of space on the page already. x42bn6 Talk 08:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

agreed. it should be moved off the page and simply linked to. I don't think it's of dire importance to have all those links on the community portal. --ymmotrojam 08:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed, but I agree it takes up a lot of space, so I've made the text smaller. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it still looks like it takes up a lot of space. -.-; x42bn6 Talk 02:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I shifted things around quite a while ago (now it looks pretty ugly as templates have changed; but idea is still good). But dear Talrias reverted everything. So you decide. Renata3 18:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, your version appears to have two ===Article Improvement Drive=== headings, so that was why it was reverted, my guess. Personally, I think it's best if it was something like Template:Afd, where we can put it in a dropdown, but that also looks ugly. So I really don't know. Now that this page is protected, there isn't a lot we can do, anyway. x42bn6 Talk 02:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I say have a link. This also means that we can have other collaborations (like those of the WikiProjects) listed without wasting space on the very valuable CP.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the links should be kept on the CP as they provide invaluable exposure for the smaller collaborations. However I agree the current layout is a bit of a mess but I can't think of any way to make it better. the wub "?!" 12:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we can move them down to the bottom of the page, below the what is currently the last box, and have to two collumn list there of ALL the collaborations, because as I said there are probably more out there.--HereToHelp (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder...could we put them in the "ongoing projects" section?--HereToHelp (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

AS/400

how do i get free notes on AS/400 how do i get free e-materials on AS/400 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.103.174 (talk • contribs)

Please try the Reference desk next time. This is questions only pertaining to the Community portal. I have moved your question to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#AS.2F400. x42bn6 Talk 13:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Double link

In the About Wikipedia section, there are two 'About Wikipedia' links, one pointing to Wikipedia:about, the other to Wikipedia. -- Ze miguel 15:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually one is a link for Wikimedia --ymmotrojam 15:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. -- Ze miguel 19:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary

Wiktioary is revamping its dull old community portal, and the changes are taking place at here. It's taken this page's colour scheme, and maybe you guys could help out making it prettier? Cheers! --Dangherous 15:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Some way to take out the table of Contents all together? Happy someone got around to doing this.Banana04131 01:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Im happy too[[--Teal6 14:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)]]

Community Portal has been finished. --Dangherous 19:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Most wanted articles

Somebody swapped the "Wikipedia:Most wanted articles" link for the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles" in the requests section. Could you swap it back please? The most wanted articles are clearly in the nature of a request by the community, whereas the encyclopedic links are only requests by that project. I was a little irked to find that one of my favorite section had been arbitrarily displaced this morning. Thanks. :) — RJH 15:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks to be fixed now. Thank you. Of course now the AfD link has just vanished. sigh — RJH 15:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Request

REQUEST REQUEST REQUEST REQUEST Can someone tell me how to request a page?

Just go to Wikipedia:Requested articles, just place it under the right section and sub-section. Renata3 06:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

is there no way to get a better interface? most people have javascript its just that its all so very confusing- maybe that is supposed to put most people off? NO indication where one is supposed to join up/post/ pages and pages....protocols... and all the jargon offputting you need to attract people who dont necessarily have computer knowledge but subject knowledge you should make it easy for eg. my grandfather, who is an expert on aviation history to contribute to this online resource- its all so very confusing!!!!!

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry to hear you find the process of contributing to articles confusing - while we constantly try to make editing as easy as possible for newcomers, there's certainly some room left for improvements. If you want to contribute, I guess it's best not to worry too much about the technical stuff at first and just jump right in and edit - that's as easy as clicking the edit link on top of the article and start editing (all the finer points like formatting, images etc. will probably be taken care of by more experienced Wikipedians). I've left a welcome message on your talk page that contains soem additional links - if you have any further questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page :) -- Ferkelparade π 11:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability -- Zondor 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes there's a bit of a learning curve involved. My experience has been that it's best to start slowly. Try looking around to see what other people have done. Use the search function to look for pages you find interesting, then try contributing to existing pages by adding in material that enhances the content. Once you get some confidence and experience built up you can get more ambitious. :) — RJH 17:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I am new too and it has taken me quite some time to get a handle on Wikipedia with all the AfD and ArbComms and Admins, but I think editing the articles is the easiest part. Figuring out the protocol for moving pages and following discussions full of jargon is hard. However, I don't think that they are too bad for someone who just starts editing. It would be nice, I think if there was automatically a welcome message with appropriate links when you first sign up. It took me months to find a lot of basic stuff. Hdstubbs 15:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Project

Is there a way of recommending a topic/article as a project, if people are looking for one? Like for schools. I feel conscientious objector could do with sucha thing.17:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week will only accept stubs. Try WP:IDRIVE. --Fenice 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war. Currently the article is listed there under "needs work".--Pharos 02:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You could try nominating it for Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive, which is generally for articles that are not stubs. — RJH 20:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision

The latest revision of this page has taken away a number of useful links. Have they been positioned somewhere else? --Bhadani 09:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I found some of them are now under the Help section, even though they may have made more sense as community activities. :) — RJH 17:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have discovered the same problem. There used to be a useful Resources box which had a link in it to templates and things. I have no idea where it is now. Will have to try to find the useful templates page some other way. ::sigh:: (it's okay, I know how else to find it, no need to leave me messages. I'm just being melodramatic, but I do think the resources box was very useful). -- Adz|talk 11:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. I would have restored the two boxes in question last Sunday, but ran into problems with the cut-n-paste function of the editbox on my main computer -- which is a whole 'nother Wikipedia-related issue. I still might be bold & make the reversion myself. -- llywrch 16:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. I can't find much constructive discussion about this, and that information should be prominently displayed on this page (it's the community portal after all). If I've skipped over anything important that's been added since the basic help boxes were removed - sorry. Please add it back in if you feel it necessary. Natgoo 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your latest edit. You've removed a number of new collaboration links and some other new additions to the page. If you're going to change something, please take the time to make sure you are not removing any new additions. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. I'll add the boxes in another way. Natgoo 21:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem as Llywrch. Can someone with HTML skills please restore the help and resource boxes on this page? Or point me to the page with the consensus to remove them? Help and resources should be far more prominently displayed on this page than simple wikilinks. Natgoo 22:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I just restored the deleted help sections back. I think this is how it was formatted before. I've asked User:Go for it! to slow down with edits to major pages like this. In the future, if we want to improve the layout and structure of this page, we should work on a draft version and not the official, live version. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I just worked it out too [1] :). It's really useful information, formatted in an easily understood way. Natgoo 22:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Glad to help. I have no problem with trying to improve the interface and layout of this page, but it's important to emphasize it needs to happen on a draft page. The community portal needs to stay rather consistent in how it's organized, as people are used to where things are so big changes need to be kept to the minimum. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fairly new Wikipedian, so forgive me if this is stupid, but: is it me, or does the community portal page not display properly in the "colgne blue" skin? The list of other languages is shown at the top of the page, and extends all the way to the right side of the page, overlaying the quickbar (which I ave set to the right side). Maybe this is a more general problem with setting the quickbar to the right side? Any light anyone can shed would be appreciated. ~TheDevil 16:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy Wikipedia Day '06

Stroring the following for achival purposes:

HAPPY WIKIPEDIA DAY!

Formatting

There is some issue with the formmatting on the last two boxes. The allignment is off and the headers are pushed down. I played around with it but my previews didn't show any progress. Can anyone fix this please?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Done, but I'm curious to know why I need to make such a change. I wish I knew why, because the other sections are fine. Old New x42bn6 Talk 03:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? because it looks unprofessional. There's still a problem with the space between the boxes, but the most noticable thing has now been taken care of.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Name of this page

Does anyone else think this page should be under the Portal namespace rather than the Wikipedia namespace? — Moe ε 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This has previously been discussed. The rationale for leaving it here was that while it is a portal, it is meant to be used by editors. The other portals point strictly to content. -- Ec5618 21:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Front Page Mistake

Samuel Alito isn't the 96th Justice, he is the 110th I believe. Someone should change that quickly, it's a really blatant messup and it looks stupid. --Robsomebody 02:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

According to his article he is the "the Court's 110th Justice", so my guess is that he is the 96th person to be appointed as an associate justice and the 110 number includes those appointed to be Chief Justices. I don't know enough to change it either way. Also the best place to bring up this issue would be Talk:Main Page (I've just copied it there). Evil Monkey - Hello 03:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Best links from this page?

I'm putting together a proposal to change the community section on the Main Page draft to a tightly focused group of links. The links here at Wikipedia:Community_Portal are great, but _very_ overwhelming for the first-time visitor. What would be the best 4-6 links to sum up the Wikipedia community, and the best place to start exploring? Thanks for any advice. Please add comments here, or come on over and discuss it there. Carcharoth 12:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Categorize

I'd like to suggest adding "Categorize" as another item under the "To do" list. There are still a lot of pages that are not yet categorized, as well as a need for much clean up of categories. Thanks! — RJH 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Toolbox

in the toolbox it should be a link that permits to upload files to wikimedia commons just like wikipedia en español

Let's immagine some better names for this page

Just for fun, what would be the best name we could call this page?

Please add your ideas to the following list:

• Activity Center
• Activities Coordination Center
• Community Center
• Community Central
• Community Directory
• Community Hub
• Community Involvement
• Community Page
• Community Site Map
• Get involved here
• Project Central
• Wikipedia Central
• Wikipedia's Departments
• Wikipedia by department

--Go for it!

• • The Cabal lives HERE! (sorry, could not resist) Renata 03:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If seriously, Portal:Community. Renata 13:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • That was widely voted down earlier. Community Portal makes sense. Ral315 (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I dunno...I kind of like Community Center or something just like "Community." JHMM13 (T | C) 06:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Good lord.

Please, for the love of God, LEAVE THE COMMUNITY PORTAL ALONE. It's been changed too many times, and the current draft looks too much like the Main Page. They're meant to be different- they have different audiences. I'll be the first to admit that no design is perfect, but the one that's being suggested just makes it a lot worse.

On the current page, why do we have Goings-on boxes? The Community Portal is NOT Goings-on- those pages are for separate things. And why make the Contents box huge? I honestly don't get this- are we trying to make people scroll five screens to get to the links they want? Ral315 (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that all the changes are dizzying and not a good idea. I suggest any proposed changes be done on a draft, which I just created an hour/two ago. The draft was just created, in response to all the edits directly to the Community portal. We can definitely tweak the design to get the right balance, of using similar style to the main page, yet making it distinct. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, please put back the link to the village pump. This is the third time that I have not been able to find it in a week, and they were all three different drafts. --User:Rayc

Goings-on should be merged into Community Portal

Community Portal is supposed to be a hub of activity, but it is pretty static compared to Goings-on which covers the same major topic: collaborations. The two could be combined for great effect since Community Portal is on the navigation menu of every page, yet it usually takes a user awhile to initially find Wikipedia:Goings-on, which is the real center of community activity and information. Another compelling reason to merge them is that they are largely replicative of each other. --Go for it! 10:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - That could prove useful. No need to have too many pages about the same subjects. --Lhademmor 10:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree also. -- Ian ≡ talk 10:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - They deal with the same subject. --Siva1979^{Talk to me}11:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree - I said the same thing in October when this page got a redesign. Also I said to include some sort of bulletin board where people could briefly announce their own news hat require attention - new portal, new project, new discussion, new proposal, new vote etc (not like village pump; no discussions here and no long ads). Just never got time to actually do it. Renata 12:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good, positive change for the Community Portal. But for other drastic, undiscussed changes to the community portal, let's try them first on the Wikipedia:Community Portal/Draft. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you restored those two sections, all the links are intact. There's just one more section to move over, and then its just non-structural changes like aesthetics. Nothing drastic from this point on. --Go for it! 16:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Netipedia

What about Netipedia? -- 15:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a database dump user who's violating terms of the GFDL. I forget which page these get reported on; I'll look it up. Ral315 (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

'Articles / Pictures / etc. that gained "featured" status'

Perhaps it's the old American v. British English thing, but "Articles that gained featured status" reads oddly to me: under that title surely it ought to include ALL the articles that ever gained such status. Is it, as I suspect, "Articles that have (recently) gained featured status" that is meant? I'd settle for "Articles / Pictures/ etc. recently awarded featured status"... -- Picapica 23:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you and have changed it. Thanks for pointing it out. If you notice anything else, go ahead and fix it. If someone doesn't like what you did, they can always revert and discuss here on the talk page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 23:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Singpost should be in the intro

The Signpost is the only coherent summary amid all the reams of confusing detail that are too much for most people. I intend to put it back in the introduction. Sumahoy 17:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Things to do section

Could this section be nearer the top please - at first glance I thought it had gone.

Jackiespeel 17:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Spell check?

Is there a possibility that wikipedia will implement a spell checker for searching? Or is this just a little too herculean of a task? --SeanMcG 23:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What's a "spellchecker for searching"? --Go for it!

Its a suggest page that shows recomended pages for a given word. Kinda of like google if you search for "negbohood" -->neighborhood. This feature is incorperated for some articles in the form of disambugation pages but I think WP could do a better job. The task could be done easily for commonly misspelled topics but would become complicated for new articles and long multiword titled articles.--mitrebox 07:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

contents box

For me the contents box is very thin.. after the word 'community' it wraps to the next line. the code seems to set it as 200px of width, but it doesn't look like 200px? the problem only goes away for me if i set it to 650px, which seems a little high, so you can revert it if it looks crazy. but at 200px it's very squished.. anyone have the same problem? i'm using IE, with 1024x768. Mlm42 14:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've tried to fix the problem. Is it okay now? --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

yup, it's fine now; thanks. Mlm42 13:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Policies, conventions and guidelines

Where has "Policies, conventions and guidelines" gone? it was my most used section of the community portal and now I can't find where it is anymore. --Martyman-(talk) 22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It is here: Help:Contents/Policies, conventions and guidelines. Renata 01:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realise it still exists on the wikipedia. Maybe a better question would have been: Who removed it from the Community Portal and why? --Martyman-(talk) 04:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I will be more specific this edit removed the useful links from the "Policies, conventions and guidelines " heading and a later edit removed the heading all together. Who decided this was not useful information to have on the community portal? I have been using it for years, are you telling me no one else uses it? --Martyman-(talk) 04:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, my belief is that comm portal is not really for help links. We have a separate namespace for that. But you have a right to disagree. If you come up with a neat way to put it back - be bold, it's wiki. Renata 04:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought major changes where meant to be discussed as requested at the top of the page. I notice the section I am asking about has a very prominent position on the draft community portal. Also the policy/guidlines links are not "help" they are rules that should be known to and followed by all wikipedians. --Martyman-(talk) 04:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. Be BOLD was one of the links removed. ;) --Martyman-(talk) 04:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see anything too drastic about shifting some help links around on the bottom of the page (just please don't create another help portal). But that's again, my opinion which can be fatally misleading ;) Renata 04:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

They haven't been shifted around they have been removed. Personally I only ever find the bottom of the page useful. --Martyman-(talk) 05:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, look, you filled in some ugly dead white (um, purplish?) space! :) Renata 14:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization

Community Portal, Community portal, or community portal — the capitalization of this term is quite inconsistent. If it's a proper name, it should be Community Portal, as it appears in the heading and on the navigation menu; however, it probably isn't, in which case we should lowercase the term in the many places it appears. ProhibitOnions 00:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is both capitals. The left hand side navigation bar says that, the title of this page says that. So, IMHO, you can go ahead and change everything to Community Portal. Renata 03:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Weekly community motto

Today I came across this ancient initiative at WP:MOTTO and I want to revive it. It would be a complete shame to lose a hundred brilliant taglines! So I will be implementing the old "weekly motto" idea. I want to put the template on the community portal. I think a good place would be the header (under "Welcome to the Community Portal!" or under the link to Village pump). Any objections, ideas, suggestions? Renata 03:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I think we should put it under the "Welcome to the Community Portal!" message. What do you think? --ShiningEyes 22:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Idea for Song-related articles

Perhaps we should start writing sub-articles for various songs that have the lyrics to the songs, and, in the cases where the songs aren't in English, translations of the lyrics, because we do know that the English and foreign language songs don't necessarily have the same meaning(IE Du Hast, the German version is rejecting a proposal of some sort, and the English version starts out "You hate me"). Or keep the lyrics in the main article for those songs that have relatively short articles or none.. Also, remixes will be linked to the lyrics of the original... Anyone else have any comments to flesh out the idea or say whether or not it's feasable?--Vercalos 03:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Better make sure first that neither set of lyrics is copyrighted. -- MatthewDBA 11:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of a site that had lyrics alone being shut down due to copyright violations. Has anyone else?--Vercalos 16:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We could get away with it but it's still not legal. Wikipedia doesn't accept any copyrighted text. There's no line between including lyrics to songs and copying articles straight from Britannica other than the chances of being taken to court over it.--Cherry blossom tree 23:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we could ask the various artists if we could put their lyrics on their respective articles, but it would certainly be roundabout, and I would wonder if we would even get any response at all. And are the lyrics themselves copyrighted, or the song? I'm not entirely sure how the copyrights work in regards to the separate components of the music.--Vercalos 01:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In the UK at least the lyrics and tune comprise 50% of the song each. Which seems rather unfair on the bassline and so on. Even if the artist gave us permission that isn't sufficient - they would have to be released under the GDFL, which basically that anyone can do what they like with their lyrics. I just can't see it happening.--Cherry blossom tree 01:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

All or nothing eh? I think we'll want to look into that. There are often loopholes, which should allow us permission to use the lyrics in a specific manner.--Vercalos 02:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Signpost box

One thing that disappeared in the edits of Feb. 17th by Go for it! was the Wikipedia Signpost "ad" box. While I'm obviously a bit biased as the Signpost's editor, I think that the box was important. Any reasons why it shouldn't be there? Ral315 (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You know what, I have even a better deal for you. Do you want to put the whole signpost subscription box inside the community bulletin board? (if noone objects, of course) Renata 15:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

buzz cut

Hey could anybody improve the buzz cut page?

81.129.239.165 20:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

One Million Articles!

We have done it! The English Wikipedia has reached 1 Million articles! Are we going to have a special logo for a while as a result? Roy Al Blue 23:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations Wikipedia!!!!!! :-) Alensha 23:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, too! And congratulations to Jimbo Wales too, which made this multimedial encyclopedia!--Leoman3000 17:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia--A Place For Learning

I have reviewed most of the statements made on the various talk pages at Wikipedia. I am curious as to the negative manner in which differing views are presented. I am not trying to pick a fight or anything. I am just curious. I understand everyone has their opinion and I believe that everyone has the right to be heard. Yet, do not see the need criticize and insult every view that you disagree with. There are any number of views in article in Wikipedia that I completely disagree with, but when I have an opinion I do my best to express in a way that does not insult the readers. Now not everybody is going to be completely satified with our wording. However there is a difference between expressing an opinion and wording opinions in such a way to provoke ill feelings.

Wikipedia focus is around on word: academia. Editiors freely discuss differenting views in order to make articles that are as thorough as humanly possible. Thus, when we discuss articles it is in the best interest to all that the following points be remembered:

1.) No human in the past, present, or future is right 100% of the time. This important to keep in mind as we discuss the various topics here at Wikipedia. I admit that I do not like to be wrong, but it is a fact of humanity. Thus, I do not get overly upset went something I though was a fact was incorrect. Another asspect of Wikipedia, academia, and life is that you never stop learning.

2.) Opposing an idea or viewpoint does not mean an attack upon the holder of the idea or view. When we oppose a view then we have a right to express our objections. However, we should think carefully on the way we object. We should would are arguments in such a way that do not attack another or provoke negative feeling. Now again, no human is perfect. We are bound to offend somebody at somepooint. However, there is no need seek an argument. Sarcasm, profanity, and personal attacks should be avoid on all article talk pages.

I am sorry for preaching. I have been part of Wikipedia for only a short time, but in that time I have seen a lot of good discussions become arguments because someone used sarcastic or insulting wording. I join Wikipedia because I want to contribute to this incredible work. I believe many here joined for the same reason. Therefore let us agree not spoil Wikipedia by allowing it to become a place argument and ill feeling istead of a place of learning and intellectual discussion. Let Wikipedia be a place above the offices, lunch rooms, and bars. We have enough trouble defending Wikipedia from vandals. Let's not worry about having to defend ourselves from each other. (Steve 21:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Most accessed Documents?

We should have a most accessed documents page and some sort of history page for each account. A message board on hot topics NOT A DISCUSSIONS PAGE but A FULL MESSAGE BOARD

Anyone see this user page?

Roxanne Harman (talk · contribs) claims that she is Willy on Wheels. Anyone want to check out her user page?

Why here?

I quickly skimmed the archives, but didn't see a discussion on this... why is the community portal located in Wikipedia space rather than Portal space? This is specifically in reference to whether the same issues apply to Wikipedia:Featured content - which was recently moved from Portal:Featured content. I can think of various reasonable issues (relates primarily to Wikipedia rather than articles, integral part of internal community rather than portal for external users, et cetera), but I'm not sure if those are the basis for the community portal's location here and whether they would apply to the featured content portal. Thoughts? There is also discussion of where the featured content portal should be located at Wikipedia talk:Featured content. --CBDunkerson 12:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The community portal is older than the content portals and not the same sort of thing at all. The similarity of the names is just coincidence. Nothing should change. 62.31.55.223 21:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OSI Open Systems Interconnection

Open Systems Interconnection: A set of protocols designed to be an international standard method for connecting unlike computers and networks. Europe has done most of the work developing OSI and will probably use it as soon as possible.

This page needs programmer attention

The [edit] links simply don't work; they take you to an interior section on the page, not the subpage edit section, and even worse, they don't even take you to the right interior section on the page. Check it yourself; just mouseover the edit links, read the URLs, and you'll notice that they're not pointing correctly. --Cyde Weys 05:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The only time I've seen that phenomenon occur is when clicking on the edit buttons of an outdated page - like when you leave your computer for several hours, and then come back and start using the same page that's still on the screen. It works fine, as long as that version is still the current version of the page. But if somebody has moved the sections around, then your version no longer coincides, nor will the edit buttons work right. --Go for it! 06:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That's basically the only time I've seen it as well, but with very active pages like WP:AFD, WP:CP, etc. your version of the page can become outdated in just a couple minutes. 165.121.27.70 01:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It still ain't working. The edit link for "New featured pages" brings up this section:

==New featured content==
{{Announcements/New featured pages}}
<!--{{signpost-subscription|center}}-->
<!--                                                                                    -->
<!-- -------------------------------START SINGLE-COLUMN SECTION------------------------ -->
<!--                                                                                    -->
|-
| valign="top" colspan=3 style="background:#F6E9F6; border: 0;" |

When of course it should actually open up the transcluded subpage for editing. --Cyde Weys 02:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Where's the Manual of Style link?

No wonder I'm seeing so many edits counter to the MoS--it doesn't even seem to be linked to from here any more. 24.18.215.132 18:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on the departments sections. I'll be sure to restore the MOS link. --Go for it! 06:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought extensive revisions on this page were supposed to be discussed -- at least that's what it says at the top of the page, but the talk page the link points to has only had one discussion since 8 February -- which does not pertain to the drastic changes made on the page in the last 24 hours. -- llywrch 03:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Icons too large

re: top icons, transcluded from Wikipedia:Community Portal/Menu

Those icons are awfully large. Please bear in mind that many users won't like ANY icons, no matter what aesthetic style. Some of us prefer the minimal and clean look of just text, and believe that icons are superfluous especially when used purely for decoration. So if you demand the use of them (and icons anywhere else), please try to keep them non-intrusively sized. thanks. --Quiddity 09:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, a strong objection to how far down the page the actual content has moved.

The bulletin board contents start below the fold now! (i have to scroll down a page before anything real appears) (at 1024x768 with minimal GUI settings in firefox...)

A good interface is invisible. --Quiddity 09:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please respond to my objections before reverting again.

Example picture, to illustrate how LITTLE content can be seen without scrolling:

File:Community portal icon problem.gif

Users don't scroll

Whilst "users don't scroll" is no longer a design mantra from jakob nielsen, but it's still very intuitively relevant.

And, if it helps, i'll use a lot more adjectives and spittle to explain how much i loathe the icons and the AOL/Yahoo/forum aesthetic they represent.

If you are intent on adding this kind of aesthetic to your wikipedia experience, please first investigate how to make it an optional addition for users. Not a default look which we all have to see, and which will end up taking thousands of hours of debate for concensus. (note: this screenshot is at 1024x768 with no other tabs open. an optimal user-default-testing setting.) --Quiddity 19:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I reduced the intro section, which made up for the room taken up by the icon bar, and then you reverted again for the same "above the fold" argument, when that stuff wasn't even viewable the first time you did this anyways. Also, if the icon bar is taken out, the TOC needs to be put back in and the intro re-expanded, so users will know what is on the page. You reverted without looking far enough back in the history to understand the changes that were made. I've reverted again, because the page needs a table of contents, which is what the icon bar has taken the place of. But to accomodate your objection, I've reduced the size of the icons to take up less vertical space, and I reduced the menu item descriptions to 2 lines, saving a line. Of course you could have done this yourself rather than reverting, which was taking a step back rather than a step forward. Fix the problem, don't just revert (because that rarely resolves the whole issue). Fixing the icon bar was just as easy as taking a screen shot and marking it up. --Go for it! 19:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to draw your attention to a specific example of the larger problem, of how far down the page the content is.

look at how much more you can see at a glance.

You have been the driving force behind the changes since february. perhaps i should have raised these points at your talk page instead. but the icon example was relevant to the others who have been tweaking throughout.

Please try to be more inclusive of those without mousewheels, and with smaller displays, and with differing aesthetics. thank you :) --Quiddity 20:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

reply to revision note: as Loom91 says at Talk:Main_Page "Funny how simply putting in an image can draw far more attention than simple text!" --Quiddity 20:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, I beg you...

Stop putting everything inside boxes inside boxes inside boxes. Why does everything have to be enclosed inside 10 levels of boxes? This is horrible web design. What ever happened to using whitespace? Kaldari 22:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed...for pete's sakes, it's barely even readable. Ral315 (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. There are so many boxes some have even started to reuse some of the pastel colors...must be running out of colors. (Seriously, what's up with such a confusing assortment of colors?) —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 02:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

How to put this delicately... an enthusiastic newcomer has discovered! the layout tools and aims to improve your life with them! *gentle fun poking intended*

Seriously though, please try not to impose additional aesthetics on top of wikipedia's functional minimalism. You will be met with solid protest. The spawning-like-rabbits "Tip of the Day!" lightbulb, and icons everywhere, and Categorybrowsebar / Catbar / Browsebar / Browsebar noblank / Browsebar space at the head (and sometimes foot!) of so many pages is all becoming overwhelming. --Quiddity 02:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Minimalize? Thanks for the feedback. Okay, I'll see what I can do... --Go for it! 09:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but i think your removal of all the colour last night was disingenuous and slightly petulant (monochrome is not equal to minimalism.

On the contrary, you weren't the only one I was responding to. Doug Bell seemed to have a major problem with the color and Ral315 seemed to have a hard time reading anything, so removing the color seems to have helped to clear that up. And since they didn't add it back in, it may have been part of the problem. But if you like color, then by all means add some back in.

as someone who argues philosophy, i assume you to be (very) intelligent. and therefor your actions are subject to more intense scrutiny).

Well, thanks for the compliment, I think. But you might want to place more scrutiny on those who don't have a clue, or on those with whom you simply don't agree. Intelligence by itself doesn't warrant more nor less scrutiny. But I'm flattered, none the less.

The criticisms were all based around the fact that you are experimenting on-the-fly with the layout and content of a high-use space.

I've reread them, and the vast majority of them were not. Most pertained directly to aesthetic issues.

As already mentioned above, it would be vastly prefereable for you(or anyone) to experiment with possibilities in a seperate DRAFT page.

I don't agree. The help page is a prime example of what direct development can achieve (and so is the rest of Wikipedia). The more visible and the higher-use a page, the more potential of it being improved to higher and higher standards and usuability due to direct involvement.

Personally, i was attempting to steer the design towards keeping CONTENT near the top. That's all i care about.

I didn't gather that from your initial statements. You stating it now seems a bit out of the blue, to tell you the truth, being more complex rather than less.

See Wiktionary:Community_Portal for how many useful links can be near the top of the page.

That page looks more like a help page or directory than a community portal. Our theme differs. We have announcements and collaborations updates, and so on. But we also have a nice menu which gives instant access to each of those areas.

It would be nice if the bulletin board and something else could share the top of the page. perhaps the Wikipedia:Cleanup process/Cleanup sorting proposal once that has built up further steam. Right now, the "things to do" section could perhaps be given a 1/3rd width column at the top? (space permitting)

The Signpost template already takes up that one third. If the CBB with Signpost were shoved over, it would be a bit cramped. Don't you agree?

The implementation i suggested would indeed be cramped. But i still think we might be able to get some of the "help clean up" links nearer the top of the page. --Quiddity

Does that all seem clear? --Quiddity 00:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That, and then some. Though I don't think "minimalist" was the word you were looking for. But I could be wrong. The starkest minimal format contains black text on a white background with nothing but a line or two of text on a page (or even just a single word). But that hardly seems useful for the community portal. Another excellent example of minimalism would be RexNL's user page, but I don't think that's what you were after either. "Minimalist" by itself could pertain to hundreds of variations, making it an extremely vague term. In no stretch of the imagination did I expect it to mean shoving the CBB over to make room for another feature at the top. It's just not an intuitive application of that term.

Agreed. my wording was vague and ambiguous. lots of thoughts, and not all of them make it through from brain to keyboard. more coffee required. --Quiddity 21:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The community portal is a reference page, a place to go to find whatever you are looking for pertaining to the "community" theme. If it isn't here, at least there will be a link taking you there. The icon menu at the top of the page is intended to help users navigate the page more easily, and is a bit clearer than the box TOC we had before. --Go for it! 13:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The layout looks great now! Thanks to whoever got rid of all the boxes. It's much easier on the eyes now :) Kaldari 22:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Shotgun approach

To clarify my main approach, it is to introduce a variety of changes, and see which ones stick. On the community portal, neither the colors nor the lines took, but quite a few improvements did:

1. Community bulletin board
2. New featured content
3. Feature rearrangement (placing the collab sections side-by-side)
4. Intro rewrite
5. Signpost template
6. Icon menu
7. Section title bars
8. Wikipedia sister projects section
9. Wikipedia by department

Each of those improvements were put to immediate advantage by the community, rather than waiting on a draft page for weeks on end. Both major draft projects (Main Page, and Help) died on the vine for many weeks until someone came along and either revived the project or bypassed it altogether. I think the tendency for draft projects to wither is because they are shoved off in a corner somewhere where they are dominated by a fanatic few who tend to drive everyone else who strays in there away (reverting bold edits in favor of some preconceived though incomplete model), and creativity is used up for lack of new blood. Meanwhile there's usually a notice on the real page telling people not to edit it directly. The combination of these two factors may cause a page to stagnate, which may be exactly what happened to the help page before its direct overhaul.

Editing a page directly allows for much more immediate feedback on undesirable changes, such as the aesthetic elements feedback posted above, while retaining the good new elements users like. I think this is the essence of the wiki-model, and its greatest strength, and see no reason to hamper it nor impede it in any way. (Except of course, in the case of excessive vandalism, and then only temporarily). Just my two cents' worth. --Go for it! 13:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In general, I agree that editing directly is the best way to sort things out quickly and normal wiki operation. That being said, I hate the current 'monotone' page design. Boxes are fine with me. Different colored sections are fine with me. White space 'borders' are fine with me (though reduce space available for content). Boxes, different colored sections, AND white space... fine with me. Big block of single color with undifferentiated text segments floating around in it... hideous beyond belief. --CBDunkerson 14:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I threw some color back in, though not as patchy as before. Hopefully it is an acceptable median between the two aesthetic extremes. --Go for it! 21:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I give up at using a draft design approach, as worked with the main page redesign to build consensus. I admit that the community portal looks better, but the number of links on the community portal is a now bit overwhelming. Yet, key policy links are now gone or shoved to the bottom of the page. I was very used to how, where, and what links were listed here before, and the volume of changes in the past months has been so great that I can't keep up with where the links are going. I now just bypass this page, for the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Browsebar

Categories · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Questions · Reference · Site news · A-Z Index

Arts | Biography | Culture | Geography | History | Mathematics | Philosophy | Science | Society | Technology

Please add to discussion on the usefulness of the browsebar/catbar headers,

at Template talk:Browsebar#Is this bar useful?. thanks. --Quiddity 21:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That is, discussion is underway to remove links from the above bar, as well as remove the bar itself from many of its current locations. We need lots of feedback on this issue, to make sure we aren't about to remove something that gets a lot of use. So if you use the above bar, you need to let us know. Or if you just have an opinion, like how to gather appropriate feedback (!) drop on by and tell us. Do non-editors use the bar? And how do we find this out?! --Go for it! 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's not that important~, keep it light and nice. By the way, the different available languages on the side of every article are useless too. Unixer 14:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive

The top of the Article Improvement Drive text still shows "Great leap forward and decline of the roman empire" as the current AID articles, but iran and ego, superego, and id are the current ones shown in the excerpts. The text is protected, so I can't fix this. Can someone with access fix it? --User:Rayc

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. --Go for it! 23:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines

Go for it! - Thanks for expanding the policy section. Though, I think we can't emphasize these enough; therefore, they need to be yet more prominent, such as closer to the top of the page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can come up with. Let me stew on it awhile. They don't really fit under "departments" anyways. --24.18.171.99 20:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Usability hell

The structure of this page requires some serious reconsideration.

It looks essentially like a number of lists crammed together into boxes, with no clear logic or structure or helpful visual cues.

To what kind of "helpful visual cue" are you referring?

For example, grouping related topics by identical clours or similar location. Kosebamse

It is far too large and the structure is far too diffuse (especially in the "by departments" section and below).

This comment is far too vague to be of help. Can you be more specific?

The page is simply endless. I would think that people come here to find things, not to search for them. It is extremely difficult to find a specific answer to a specific question, because the page is just too long und too unstructured. Kosebamse

The use of acronyms for pages in the Wikipedia namespace clutters the page further. The use of colours makes no sense that I can understand.

Any guidelines you could provide for the use of color would be most appreciated. Please provide some that "make sense".

Essentially, group similar things by identical color. Group one: Policies and community things. Group two: Help and How-to. Group three: Content-related and collaboration things. Something like this. Kosebamse

There are three separate boxes about "Help".

Now there's only one.

Things to do and collaborations are in separate places, and there is more similar stuff under "editorial departments".

Putting Things to do and collaborations side by side splits up the collaboration section. Collaborations material takes up two columns. I wouldn't know how to begin to integrate Things to do into that section.

There's no need to put related things side by side or on top of each other or whatever other specific geometry, as long as a relation can be clearly seen where it should be seen. Kosebamse

The template on top replicates some essential content but shows no relation to the structure of the page.

To what template are you referring?

I was refering to the browsebar template, but it seems that it has been removed. Kosebamse

Style guides and other essential guidelines are stuffed away in to a crammed corner at the lower right.

It was recently added. Are you saying you like it included? Or should it be removed?

it should be in a more visible place, as i believe many users will come here to find how-to information. Kosebamse

"Editor resources" (I imagine that's what many people will look for here) is in an unrelated place near the bottom where few people will look. And so on, and so on.

Editor resources is really a Help section, and all its links can be found in the help menu.

Again, it's where few people will look for it, simply because the page is so large and the structure so diffuse. Kosebamse

Sorry to say, but this portal page looks plain unusable. I have edited Wikipedia for three years and know my ways around, but this beats me. I can not imagine a newbie-to-moderately-advanced user finding an answer to a question or otherwise gaining any profit from using it.

That sounds like a statement from somebody who already knows his way around and has no need for a directory to find his way around. Newcomers, should find the directory highly useful, as it lists all if not most of Wikipedia's departments -- all the places where decisions take place. I don't know what else we'd put it their place that would help newcomer editors more, do you?

The content is fine but far too much of it, and the structure is confusing. We need fewer, carefully selected items here, and a clear structure that guides a newbie in one or two steps to the place where he will find an answer to his question. A hierearchical structure, starting from a concept like the one above (three branches: community, content, how-to) might be helpful. Kosebamse

I think a redesign from scratch would be the best idea. And first and foremost, one should think about usability before trying to improve anything. Our current main page might give a few ideas how to uncram information and make a visually helpful structure. Kosebamse 21:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this page just keeps getting messier and messier. I think we should start by removing almost all of the help stuff, after all that's what Help:Contents is for. This page should be a jumping off point for news and info about Wikipedia and what there is to do, not how to do it. the wub "?!" 22:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, what on earth is the point of having all the shortcuts here? If someone wants to go to a page, they'll click the link. If they use it often enough for the shortcut to be useful, then it's listed at the top of that page anyway. the wub "?!" 22:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

They're a lot easier to memorize from lists like these. --Go for it! 16:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We redesigned it only last year... it's already turned into a mess. Davidpk212 10:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Started redesign project at User:Davidpk212/Community Portal. Currently all I have is a header. I'm aiming to make it more like the new Main Page design, so any feedback as we develop is useful Davidpk212 11:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

How about announcing this discussion and your redesign page on top of the portal so people will look into it? 82.83.119.174

The redesign draft approach doesn't work for open pages. As long as the Community Portal is open for editing, as it should be, direct editing will occur. At least this way, we get direct community feedback to changes as they occur. --Go for it! 16:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. This is a highly visible and relevant page and newbies will come here to find advice. This is not a place to let everybody play around. Rather, the page should have a well-considered structure to make it as understandable and accessible as possible. Kosebamse 14:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I'll be working on the draft, since every time I try and tweak Wikipedia:Community Portal/Menu to improve the design and streamline the code you remove my changes. So much for "open for editing". the wub "?!" 10:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia by Department

Could we reduce the size of the lefthand column in "Wikipedia by Department" section? We're getting horizontal scrollbars at 800 width. And that will give the 3 columns on the right more room to breathe. Thanks. --Quiddity 21:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Front Page Spelling Mistake

The opening sentance of the Main Community Portal Page has a spelling mistake. Since it is a protected page, I donot know how to correct it. I request someone to please correct it and then delete this message later. Thanks in advance, Ashwin Baindur

"A public collaboration to redesign the Community Portal is currently taking place here. Please contribute and help Wikipedia becaome a more usable place." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.128.6 (talk • contribs)

• Thanks for bringing it to our attention here. It's fixed now. And for your information, this page is only semi-protected (from vandalism). With this page, it means that you would need to create an account and after four days you can edit it. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

suggestion

Can we change the purple yellow criss-cross combination?...it's kind of getting annoying. Osbus 02:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you suggest we replace it with? --Go for it! 15:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer having it like the main page, with the white background and the headers colored. But since many object to that, the revision as of 07:47, 18 March 2006 was all right, minus the extraneous borders. Osbus 15:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I went over the entries for that day, and I like that coloring too. But what borders are you referring to? The yellow ones between the boxes, or the gray one that surrounds the whole thing? Unfortunately, we got just as many complaints from that color scheme as we did from the current one. Take out color variation and still you get complaints. So I did a little experiment. I picked the (current) colors at random. They didn't get any more complaints than the color schemes before. Go figure. --Go for it! 16:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the border surrounding the whole thing...I just think the purple and yellow make the portal look messy and disorganized. But since no one can be happy, purple and yellow...why not? Osbus 22:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There were no more complaints than before, because we've all GIVEN UP working with you. You demand your own way (as in the main page redesign), and bury anyone who disagrees with you in a snow of edits. When you start to lose an argument, you just dissappear or change the subject. --Quiddity 20:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And none of the regulars can find anything they look for, which is probably why Zxcvbnm reverted to the pre-subsection edit. Which i agree was a good move. --Quiddity 20:17, March 31, 2006 (UTC)

Re: "So I did a little experiment". See: Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Quiddity 09:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

befuddlement

Someone chopped off about two thirds of the portal...I like it.--Osbus 20:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Me tooKeeperoftheseal

I find the extra browsebar on the bottom extraneous...the one on top is sufficient--Osbus 21:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I don't. It seems like once a week now I get to play "Where the heck is it now?" in order to find stuff in here. Things keep moving around too much, and often entire sections vanish for periods of time. Today, for example, the "delete" stuff (that was on one of the sub-pages) has gone missing. Sorry, I must be feeling curmudgeonly. — RJH 15:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't think the answer is chopping up each topic (news, ) into completely separate sections. Before, I had to scroll to see anything beyond the "Community Bulletin Board". Now the old community portal isn't even here any more. I have to click to yet another page. We need some of the most important content from the old community portal right here, without scrolling or clicking. How to decide what this most important content is and how to organize it needs to be a community decision, made through discussion. I really disagree with Go for it!'s approach to make sweeping changes without discussion and community consensus. While he has some good ideas, discussion and consensus are necessary before major changes happen. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have to admit, it was better than the one we had before with the purple and yellow...or maybe you don't have to admit. But the one change I feel we should keep is splitting up the CBB into sections, as someone did. The CBB was kind of getting out of hand. Osbus 17:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not so much whether I like the changes (some I do like), but the process. The community portal, along with the help pages, are critical elements of the website and major changes to them merit discussion and consensus. Also, the pages should remain fairly stable – not with sections disappearing without notice/discussion on the talk page. If Amazon or Ebay did that to their help pages, they would lose customers and major $$$. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That I agree with...although GoForit! is right in that the main page is a wiki. I think he expects someone to just change the stuff he did if they don't like it, and if his formatting isn't changed, he keeps it. Osbus 20:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff I can't find any more... like all the links to mailing list archives and IRC rooms related to Wikipedia/Wikimedia, and the pages about Wikipedia in the news. *Dan T.* 04:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Those sound cool. I've never seen them. When were they removed? --Go for it! 03:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

They were there for the last [2 years]. Under "Ways to communicate" and "Wikipedia highlights" or "News". This is what I'm (we're) saying about your editing etiquette. You should be familiar with the history (and the content!!!) of this (any) page before attempting to completely redesign it to fit your own predilections. --Quiddity 04:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Cropping like this basicaly misunderstands the concept of the portal. This portal is to offer an 'all on one page' access to common comunity tasks. It's not a reader orientated portal, but a functional one. Don't remove functionality without discussion! I'm reverting this whole mess since it was apparently accidental, and done without discussion. --Barberio 21:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a portal per se. It predates the portal system and portal definition. --Go for it! 03:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also known as, "It helped to define the portal system and portal definition". --Quiddity 03:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone like the yellow background?--Osbus 21:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No. It's ghastly. If anyone can navigate the code-soups, try replacing with the colours from January. Until the collaborative redesign finishes drafting. --Quiddity 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week

Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week is a nice idea, but is suffering due to people's ignorance of the project. Can I suggest it should have a small box of it's own below 'Article Improvement Drive'?

Maybe something similar to this,

Good Article Collaboration of the week

The Good Article Collaboration of the week works to polish already good articles so they are fit to become featured-standard articles. The subject of this week's article improvement drive is History of the Internet.

You can still help with last week's articles, H5N1, or help pick next week's articles.

This is smaller than the other two, since those have a higher rated priority. Good Article Improvement is still needed, since there's a tendancy for articles to get to a 'good' state, but never get that final push needed to bring it up to FAC. --Barberio 13:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Fits pretty well. I don't have a problem with it as long as it is kept up to date (it's got "last week's" selections on there, which will need to be updated so it remains last week's and not six months ago, etc.).  :-) --Go for it! 19:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice job on the Bulletin Board

Kmf, I like the way you categorized the posts on the CBB. --Go for it! 22:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Placement of the Community Bulletin Board

The community bulletin board should be kept at the top (i.e., front and center), because that is the most visible and most easily accessed location for it right now. It's probably a safe assumption that those who make regular use of it will object if we move it. So it should be kept there until we can convince WP's developers to give the CBB its own slot on the navigation menu (right under "Main Page"). --Go for it! 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you responding to these comments?

User_talk:Davidpk212/Community_Portal#Community_bulletin_board

I somehow linked there while reading this page, and didn't realize I was on a different page until I had read the whole thing. Moving the CBB is a central issue, whether off this page, or to a less optimal place on it. --Go for it! 03:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You had linked there from the list of links you had recieved from me an hour prior. --Quiddity 04:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The idea of moving the CBB down the page wasnt raised anywhere else (afaik). A pre-emptive retaliation?

You created it in February, and like all your other projects you'll refuse to compromise until overruled?

The people who created the other wikiprojects would all like theirs at the top too. --Quiddity 22:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's one nice thing about the CBB, everybody gets to be at the top, for a little while anyhow (until a new announcement forces your announcement down the list). Every WikiProject shares the top this way. --Go for it! 03:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the splitting up of the Community Portal

It is very likely that the Community Bulletin Board is going to continue growing. We have to face the fact that it is extremely popular. Therefore, we really need to accomodate it. I believe the best way to do this, and still minimize the time and actions required to get to the other CP material is to place each major section on its own subpage. Clicking on the menu is a lot faster than scrolling down the page. Also, there may be many users who have a favorite section, which makes the provided shortcuts particulary useful for them (shortcuts / redirects can't be pointed to sections of a page). By splitting up the Community Portal, we decrease the amount of time it takes to get to a desired section. For those who like it all on one page, we can provide a site map as was done for the help menu pages. That way, both camps are served. --Go for it! 22:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Community Portal Site Map

I've started to develop a Site Map for the CP, which pulls in all the sections for those who want to browse it all on one page. Wikipedia:Community Portal/Site map Though there are some formatting bugs that need to be tracked down. Probably a table delimiter or two are missing on the subpages. --Go for it! 23:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Found it. It was a delimiter. Now there's just some spacing issues to resolve between the sections, and it'll be ready. --Go for it! 23:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I recomend keeping the Portal as the All in One page. And making a page that is just the Community bulletin board, for those who want just that. Cropping the main portal page would mean it is no longer a portal. --Barberio 00:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's still a portal if it contains the vital links. And the links to the subpages qualifies it. I'm all for moving the CBB once it has its own entry on the navigation menu in the side bar. Until then, it really needs to be in its current accessible location. The incredible volume of participation it is getting is most likely due to its location. I don't think we'll be able to move it. Too many people will move it back, because front and center on the Community Portal is absolutely the best spot for it. --Go for it! 03:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Too many people" won't click past the bulletin board itself to the other content that has been here consistently for the past 2 years. That they expect to find here. --Quiddity 04:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That's true the first time they try to scroll past it. That's why the menu is at the bottom of the page as well. But there is no learning curve here. It's pretty clear what the menus are for. The site map link clarifies it even further. The issue isn't precedent, it's does this format help the user find the information faster. Is this less intimidating than having it all on one huge page? --Go for it! 06:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

When an editor reverts to say you have not gained consensus for an edit, it's an indication that the edit is so fundamental a change as to require consensus support. If discussion on the talk page has opposed the change, that indicates people don't support it. In both cases you should atempt to generate consensus support for a change.

Editing the page to conform to your own view on what it should be, without regard to consensus, is not a nice thing. Please do not continue to do so. --Barberio 11:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)