Wikipedia talk:Community portal/Archive 5

message: Thank you.---- Roger tellme 07:15, 16 August 2005 (UT— C)
*What would you be using spreadsheet files for?--Pharos 07:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I need to use a spreadsheet to manipulate Category Index in italian language.
We have a problem.
Category Index is indicizate by number, this way it is difficult to use, because there are 4600 names and to arrive at the letter Z, takes a lot of time.
I tried to create a page like this  Indice Quick, but I have a problem, it is impossible to make daily new voice.
Then using Excel to insert new voice, it is possible.
* I need a spreedsheet for other use, I am an old user of Multiplan and I use Excel for porpouse use in my article.
For example to aggiornate the South Pole geographical name,  yearly.
Or to manipulate every type of index, that I need.
Or to create a medicine glossary.<bt>
And so on.<bt>
I need it, on my sandbox in it.wikipedia.
Alternatively, I can use here, in my sandbox and I make a link, for the moment.
---- Roger tellme 07:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where I can load Excel spreadsheet to manipulate the Category Index? 

message: Can someone please update the Canada COTW from Michaëlle Jean to National Film Board of Canada? Thanks. Mindmatrix 17:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Trevor macinnis was kind enough to update all the COTWs. -- Beland 00:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the formatting on the Portal, so that for each COTW, there is now a template page that contains only the name current focus article.  As a result, COTW maintainers will now only have to change that in one place, and it will show up on the Community Portal, on the local COTW banner, and hopefully anywhere else it's used.  The change will also show up on the Community Portal whether or not it has been protected, which should prevent similar bottlenecks from being created in the future. -- Beland 00:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaborations Of The Week

message: I strongly believe that when clicking Wikify, which is commonly done to understand what wikifying means, it shouldn't get you to the definition of wiki markup! It's simply confusing, especially since it's an almost technical definition of code, which doesn't make clear on its own what it actually is to wikify! (Even if means to use wiki markup, of course.) If Wikifying isn't important enough to link to its own explanatory page (like all the other titles like it on this page), then at least it should simply link to the Wikify definition! It's simply logical! Kreachure 22:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I guess no one cares about how they present Wikipedia to the people wanting to know about it and, I don't know, maybe HELP making it BETTER. You do learn new things everyday... Kreachure 01:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kreachure, why don't you go ahead and modify it yourself? Wikipedia works best when people fix things they see that need fixing, rather than asking others to do it for them. If you have any questions on how to do this, ask me here or on my talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikify links to a confusing page  

message: I hadn't looked at the Community Portal for a while, but I have just been shocked by its current state.
It's become a mess. A dumping ground. As far as I can see, it has no purpose, no point, no aim. It's overwhelming, confusing, and far too bloated. It needs to slim, and fast... but I'm not sure even where to begin. 
So let's start with the very basics: What's the point of the Community Portal?
Answers on a postcard please. Cheers, Tom- 23:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I sent you the postcard but I'm not sure if you'll get it since I didn't know your address. In my opinion, the Community Portal is to Wikipedia editors what the Main Page is to Wikipedia readers. It introduces editors to the different places to get involved, such as the open tasks, the various collaborations, and so on. It also has links to a variety of resources for new editors. Does that sound about right? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Community portal is for editors, but in its current form it is a mess. I'm in the process of doing some major changes with it. Don't worry, all the links are still there, but I've updated the table to strain the eyes less, and I'm reorganizing the boxes so that the general topic and information comes before the specific collaboration boxes. - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 16:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''This Portal has no focus'' 

message: The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not.  It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment.  However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.
Thus, the following question is put to a vote:
Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template:
:(1)  Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;
:(2)  Rank of country’s HDI;
:(3)  Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?
YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here
Thanks!
E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template_talk:Infobox_Country#VOTE.21.21_-_HDI_in_country_infobox.2Ftemplate.3F|VOTE!!]] - HDI in [[Wikipedia:List of infoboxes#Countries|Infobox#Countries|country infobox]]/template? 

message: Is it just me or is this page backwards? I'm not about to edit the second most important page in Wikipedia, so can we get an experienced editor please? HereToHelp 01:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you mean by backwards? I just did a major edit of the page, putting the general information boxes at the top of the page and the specific editing boxes below. I though this wuold be more intuitive and flow better for all users, not just experienced editors looking for a project. If this doesn't work then let me know. - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 03:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yikes, what were you thinking. This is a complete mess, I much preferred it the other way around. To me it doesn't look right, and now I don't know where anything is. Before making major edits you should make a poll or ask other users where can have our say about a test page first. Oh well. — Wackymacs 06:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree - return it back. I use the Portal as my home page for WP because I want to see what is going on - what collaborations need help. I use other general info like once a month. Especially, put back maintenance collaboration at the top. It is very good for involving new users. Renata3 12:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I find the collection of links much more useful than the boxes as well. As a matter of design, however, having the boxes doesn't make much sense unless they're towards the top of the page. This points to the real problem, which is that the boxes are bloated, and need to have their content cut back so that the useful links aren't so far down the page. In the past, I have tried numerous times to correct this, but the content bloat always comes back very quickly. --Michael Snow 16:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not against changes. I personally think that the page looks AWFUL. It need some very serious design overhaul and just changing boxes around won't help a tiny bit. But for major changes you need to make a "demo" version on say your user space and then have a vote. So it's like a 3-month process not a one-day change. Renata3 21:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Swapped 

message: Ok, I've started a redesign here. Put any suggestions on the related talk page. - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 04:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redesign 

message: I think that there should be a chatroom that way people can talk to other people about certain topics. And so students can get help on homework. And ask people what they know.
:Well, mate, you're in luck!  Check out #wikipedia on irc.freenode.net! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chat room 

message: The excerpt from the Collaboration of the Week is from last week's collaboration, Caribbean Natives, not from the Military History of Iraq article. If you have any other mistakes, I think it should be posted here. I understand the portal is going through a redesign, and I hope that doesn't lower the quality of the page. Davidizer13 15:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eratta 

message: Before getting my head bitten off for self-promotion by adding a link under the "Related Communities" section to a Mediawiki site I have set up at http://allyourideas.com , I wanted to make sure this was a kosher place to do it. I would think it should be ok, since it is open-content (and potentially multilingual), but since it is not with the Wikimedia Foundation (though I am amenable to this), I wasn't 100% sure. If it is not kosher for a link to be placed here, I'd appreciate being informed where it would be all right. 
This site fills an expressive gap I feel in the Mediawiki pantheon, as I think there is enormous potential to build ideas and idea snippets collaboratively that could be of use to innovators, entrepreneurs, and implementers of all types. Although it is experimental as Wikipedia itself was, and though it is necessary to avoid the site turning into free web hosting space, I believe it should be possible to enforce a kind of self-discipline whereby useful ideas can be collected and organized in such a forum, and thereby directing energies toward open, collaborative, original research (or ideas for research/innovation) by experts and non-experts alike beyond the constraints Wikipedia has for this kind of content.
Brettz9 08:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Related Communities and other parts of pages that link to other Wikis only link to other Wikimedia sites. The reason for this is that if we let one wiki in, we have to let them all on. Evil Monkey∴Hello 08:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok,thanks, but how about at least a link to the page listing other wikis? I would think people (including myself) would like to be able to easily find these... Brettz9 10:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related Communities--Allyourideas.com 

message: I'd like to bring this concept page to everyone's attention, as it seems that discussion over the possible adoption of said page has slowed to a halt: User:Trevor macinnis/sandbox/community portal fixup
I suggest we addopt the concept, and move the current page into the user space, so that editors who are set in their ways needn't relearn anything. Does anyone have a problem with that? -- Ec5618 20:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to avoid a user-space page becoming a substitute for Wikipedia: pages.  I'd prefer not to keep the old style around.  People will adapt; they always do. Superm401 | Talk 02:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, and agree. If no-one objects I'm going to be bold. -- Ec5618 15:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete rewrite: community portal fixup 

message: Some experimentation has been going on at Template:WikipediaSister/temp. The idea there is to put all different icons into individual tables in such a way that the boxes move around on smaller screens. As this Portal features two columns of text, I thought we might adapt the idea here. The page would look the same on wider screens, but the blocks of text would be stacked head to toe on smaller screens. Comments? The experiment seems to have hit a few snags, so any input would be welcome, either here or there. -- Ec5618 08:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrow screens 

message: I understand that templates are finally allowed to use other templates as input parameter. Perhaps we could fashion a way to update the template and this page at the same time. Both the template and this page could accept the name from a single source. Pondering .. -- Ec5618 23:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating 

message: Yuck, it was much nicer before. It's just like being hit over the head with a big block of text now.--JK the unwise 17:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, I see that the new page is great. Neat, informative, organised. maybe a little color or box format change. Otherwise great work Ec5168! CG 17:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: * I still prefer the older revision of the community portal, which had less colors and a better layout. Also, the Article Improvement Drive info is out-of-date since this community portal template doesn't use the proper AID template (the one that actually stands out). — Wackymacs 21:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't get the wrong idea, this new portal wasn't my design. I merely found it, tweaked it and finally replaced the old portal with it.  -- Ec5618 23:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I know, but you weren't meant to do that yet, because the new design was being tested at another user's sandbox, and discussed there until the majority of people liked it. — Wackymacs 08:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I protest. Yes, I was bold. I felt that the 'active recontruction' banner was getting a bit old. So, I edited the redesign and commented on the Talk page. I then edited the original portal to more clearly indicate that it was being redesigned. I have asked in several locations if anyone would object to the redesign. I never heard a peep. Anywhere. When I changed it, anyone could have reverted me, if their objection to the new design was great enough. Instead, only two editors has objected. Neither has tried to fix what they object to, and neither seems to be in the majority. I'm sorry, but I did ask nicely if I please could use the new portal. -- Ec5618 10:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: * Thanks, that looks a lot better now, I see the Collaboration of the Week is also fixed up, excellent. — Wackymacs 14:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahh what has happened to the community portal 

message: I propose we move this page for the same reason as i did on the Main Page. This isn't a proper noun, and it violates are generally accepted style...we use sentence case, not title case. The current title can confuse newcomers into thinking that's how our pages are named. It even has a lowercase p in the sidebar. --Phroziac(talk) 01:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I voted for Main Page last December. Thus I am in favor of the status quo. Ancheta Wis 23:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Invoked in support of? I started the discussions seperately, because I believe they should both be moved... --Phroziac(talk) 23:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: For the record, my response was not a vote For.  In my opinion we have a lot of work in front of us regarding Portals. They are currently about 10 x the work of an ordinary article. We need to make Portals as easy to build as an article. Namespaces and the new Semantic Wiki, where the Namespaces are variables are the way to go on this, where a variable category can be used to state a relation, in my opinion, but we basically need to take the Wiki to a new level, both in Community and in Programming. This is a huge job which takes as input the articles of Wikipedia. Ancheta Wis 23:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea how any of that has anything to do with whether this page should use "p" or "P", but I see above you are opposed.  So, 2 in favor, 1 opposed. -- Beland 23:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The portal namespace is supposed to be for article-oriented portals, not reader-oriented portals.  Ral315 (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep. Status quo, and this is a unique page. -- Ec5618 23:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion

message: I don't know where is the right place to talk about this, so, I will comment here. Wikipedia was mentioned in the Brazilian Terra website. See this link. The news is about the possibility of Wikipedia also become available as a paper encyclopedia. Carioca 21:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the future, Wikipedia:Press coverage is the appropriate place. Superm401 | Talk 02:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia mention in Brazilian Terra website

message: Earlier, I found a page that appeared as though it might have been vandalized, since it had been transformed into a redirect and the information on the page now appeared to be completely removed from Wikipedia.  I reverted the page and issued a test1 warning as a precaution, only to discover through return correspondance that the other Wikipedian actually acted in good faith.  I now wish the test1 warning was not on that user's page.  What (if anything) can I do about it? 139.78.10.1 15:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would post another message on that users talk page apologising for your mistake. I'm not sure if removing the test1 warning is considered good practice or not, but certainly a comment on their talk page is the way to go. Raven4x4x 10:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia rules question