Wikipedia talk:Community portal/Archive 7

message: Since the tip of the day was a feature of the original Community Portal (see the very beginning of the Community Portal's history, March 18, 2004) and was displayed on it until the project's hiatus as of March 20, 2005, I've taken the liberty to restore the project's template to the page. --Go for it! 20:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to it's placement on this page AND the Help:Contents page. Please choose one or the other (imo obviously help:contents).--Quiddity 20:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: copied from Help talk:Contents
I was under the impression that the lightbulb image was merely to gather recruits for your project, and that it would be removed once the totd started functioning.
I object to the image. Is it distracting visual clutter, and only serves to obscure the real help available. I propose either the template is fixed to not have an image, or that the template is removed from th[ese] page[s] and kept to userspace. --Quiddity 19:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem, I'll be happy to create a version of the template without the lightbulb for use on the community portal.  I'll also remove the lightbulb from the help page version.  I'll leave it on the user page /project page version.  --Go for it! 20:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tip of the day

message: :copied from Help talk:Contents
I was under the impression that the lightbulb image was merely to gather recruits for your project, and that it would be removed once the totd started functioning.
I object to the image. Is it distracting visual clutter, and only serves to obscure the real help available. I propose either the template is fixed to not have an image, or that the template is removed from th[ese] page[s] and kept to userspace. --Quiddity 19:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I'll be happy to create a version of the template without the lightbulb for use on the community portal.  I'll also remove the lightbulb from the help page version.  I'll leave it on the user page /project page version.  --Go for it! 20:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tip of the Day - Lightbulb 

message: The Community Portal was hanging in the balance between two different formats, with inconsistent boders, etc.  So I cleaned it up, and carried the format from the top half through the rest of the page.  I hope you don't mind.Also, the style-guide box was removed because it was a help-topic, which is covered on the help pages, and someone complained above about it being shoved into a corner.  It also threw the column-widths off.  --Go for it! 19:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: Could we please have a search box that searches through the "wikipedia" and "wikipedia talk" sections on the Community Portal front page, preferably somewhere near the top? The search box on the left searches through the basic namespaces, which won't help people inside "WP:". Peter S. 02:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search box 

message: How is the collaborations list supposed to remain up to date if the entire page is locked? I could not find a template that was being called that was just the list to edit, either. You may ignore me and my ignorance if you wish. However, the anime collaboration of the week was once up to date but is now showing a project from several weeks ago. If someone could change that, since I am not able to anymore, it would be appriciated. -Dave 21:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing to attention.  This section is now transcluded into Template:Other collaborations, which is unprotected and editable. The reason for protection is to prevent the use of the Community Portal as a sandbox for constant design changes and reversions.  Unintended consequence is it prevents users from updating things like collaborations.  Let me know if anything else should be transcluded and editable. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have moved all the actual collaboration details to templates, so for example the UK collaboration may be updated by editing , or the Hong Kong collaboration by editing . Adding new collaborations would still require editing the sub page (which I have semi-protected). Talrias (t | e | c) 23:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it's on the old design. Dave, you're supposed to create template with a link to the current collaboration and then put the template in the main template. Tell me here or on my talk page and I'll add it to a protected page for you.--HereToHelp 23:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated Collaborations List 

message: Whoever had the courage to change the main page from the hideous yellow, thank you...my eyes can rest easy now. But I do suggest putting the CBB in its own little colorful box. -Osbus 00:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be me! You can edit the CBB yourself to add a colour box (though I suggest raising it on the talk page first). Talrias (t | e | c) 01:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with a color box.  Do you (or anyone) have a particular color in mind?  The box would need to be added on the Community Portal itself, and not the CBB template.  But, given some consensus on that, here on the talk page, I would be happy to add a colored box. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhpas we should decide on a design before we do anything drastic, but I'm still ready to listen to concerns.--HereToHelp 01:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you 

message: Can we have the "request for action" boxes somewhat easier of access/nearer the top please: too many hoops/scrolling around and people get deterred.
Jackiespeel 14:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "request for action", but think you are referring to the "To-do" box? right? If so, an option would be to move the Community Bulletin Board into the right column (top), and put Collaborations all together in the box below "To-do".  To illustrate this, see this edit.  I'd like to get feedback and some consensus for the change before making any major changes, so I reverted it back. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With that change, there is an issue on smaller monitors with the size of the portals/wikiprojects box.  The problem can be resolved by adjusting the width of the box and/or font size. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No...I think the current version is fine. If anything the To-do list should be on the right and the CBB on  the left. -Osbus 20:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Community Portal

message: I would like to see wikipedia:Wikizine added to the protal. In the news-section. A link would be fine. Using an ad, even the small one like Wikipedia:Wikizine/ad00 will probably not look good on that page. --Walter 11:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ad wouldn't look bad under the portals/project box.  Let's try it and see.  --Go for it! 18:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An "ad" would encourage other projects to create and add "ads", and then we will be swamped with banners for every wikiproject. Add a link like everything else has got. --Quiddity 19:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point on banner proliferation.  On retrospect, I agree that the best way to deal with it is to prevent it in the first place.  Like weeding a garden before it gets infested.  --Go for it! 21:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The graphic, with its colors, didn't look great transcluded onto the Community Portal.  So, I just swapped that for a link, alongside Signpost. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link looks good.  --Go for it! 21:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  + Wikizine 

message: The only reason I included this section on the Community Portal is because these links are not available on the Main Page, and because they are not easily accessible from the Main Page either (except for one).  The only reason I knew where they were was because I got involved behind the scenes, at which time I had to track them down one by one.  Go to the Main page, and try to find the path to these pages from there, and you'll see what I mean.Another consideration is that all the departments of Wikipedia should be accessible from a single list.  Though I agree that since the Featured content now has a prominent link on the nav menu, those departments are ubiquitous and don't need to be redundantly reported in the Wikipedia by Department section on the Community Portal. --Go for it! 19:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes you're right.  That should be sufficient, and I think we ought to  remove that section from the Community Portal. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Page departments 

message: During the poll, a number of users expressed a desire for a new color scheme.  I've started contacting users who seem to have a grasp on color coordination for their input on this issue.  I'm asking them to make a copy of the Community Portal as a subpage to their user page, and to contact me when they are done changing the colors.  I will then run a poll presenting the various color combinations.  I'm also asking that they don't change the content, so that the poll doesn't get ambiguous and confusing.  If you'd like to present a color combination, please contact me.  A menu subpage for your draft needs to be made for your version, so that changes to the menu's colors don't affect the current Community Portal nor the other color combo drafts.  --Go for it! 18:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting a bit frustrating. That much non-white solid color will never look good, no matter what colors, and will always look gaudy without some white. --Osbus 00:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree with Osbus.  It isn't a matter of choosing colors for the boxes, but rather of choosing a different approach to delineating the sections than using background colors.  It's just not aesthetically pleasing the direction it's going. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 16:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with those that cite the need for more white space. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like an entirely new draft project, which of course I'm not adverse to.  Feel free to create a new draft.  Though in the meantime, I'm going to see if anyone can come up with a solution to the current color dilemma on the current CP.  --Go for it! 19:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're missing the point, or at least my point.  I'm one of the people that has complained about the colors, however, my complaint is unlikely to be addressed by choosing different colors.  It is as much the use of colors, as the selection of colors that I dislike.  As to creating a separate draft, while I feel comfortable in assessing the aesthetics, I am far less confident in my ability to create a pleasing design. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm kind of confused.  White is a color, and so is the ubiquitous blue that is on every Wikipedia namespace page.  Are you saying you'd rather have more of those and fewer inserted colors?  If so, that is entirely accomodatable in the poll, and a "color combination" representing your preference for less use of color can certainly be included amongst the selections.  --Go for it! 19:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you replaced all the color with white in the current design, there would be nothing left to visually delineate the boxes and sections.  So while I think more white and less color is needed, my issues with the page can't be addressed by color changes alone. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What we need is to use the lighter colors from the Main Page, accent them with the darker colors, and replace that tan with white. The light-on-white alone looks bad, and I can't get it to line up properly otherswise. But I partially agree that we may need to start from scrach. There are too many unused comments, too many un-thought-out links, and there may be a CLICK HERE that needs to be fixed.--HereToHelp 00:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I really don't understand is what is wrong with current design of the Community Portal. --Osbus 01:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's out of date. It's not as visually appealing as it could be. It doesn't use the Main Page colors. The text needs some serious clean up; there's a bunch of comment tags that have no purpose. So I set out to fix those problems. In my sandbox I have created version of my own. It uses primarily the lighter Main page colors but also incorperates their darker counterparts, and abolishes that ugly tan in favor of more white. It also cleans up the code a lot. The one problem: It's all aligned to the left. For the life of me I can't figure out how to get the columns aligned properly—and if anyone can, please go ahead and do so (yes, I'm giving you permission to edit my sandbox). However, I stuck to draft 1a pretty well, and everything's already color-coded, so just imagine all the blue boxes on the left when you look at it.--HereToHelp 02:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your version much more than 1a, but it's a little light...I would suggest putting in colored headers, but that would be turning it into the main page. --Osbus 13:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm worried about the alignment before that sort of thing.--HereToHelp 14:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving on - we need a color poll 

message: Where the heck are things that have been IN a couple of the iterations of the redesigns, like the direct links to the Wikipedia Signpost, Wikipedia in the News, etc etc etc? Can we keep SOME things consistently findable? --JohnDBuell 11:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find the mailing list archives or IRC rooms any more.  It's annoying to have this page continually redesigned with important links often vanishing altogether. *Dan T.* 14:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to stop by the RFC (noted in the above discussion).  --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logic to the reorganization? 

message: It took me a cople of minutes to find the link to the signpost today with this new-fangled design. Any chance you (as in whoever keeps changing this page) can make it slightly less inconspicuous? If a regular reader can't find it easily how is a new reader ever going to find it? Sabine's Sunbird  talk 16:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I've added a prominent link to signpost at the top of the Community Portal.  Hope this helps, while larger issues with the Community Portal are sorted out. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted only because there was a glitch in the code which was causing the CBB box to appear blank, with the text following it.  You seemed to have fixed that, so no problem.  --Go for it! 18:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though while we are on the subject, I have a question:  why was the Signpost template taken out?  That seemed to fit the theme of the CBB quite well.  It wasn't an ad, it was the subscription template itself, and therefore displayed links to all the current stories.  I can't think of a better place to display it, can you? Also, if users can access it on the CBB, they don't need to clutter their user pages with it, and read the story headlines at the same time they check out the rest of the news about what's going on with Wikipedia.  --Go for it! 18:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The CBB was taking up too much space, forcing all the other content down so far that scrolling is required.  I think a simple link to the signpost will suffice.  Alternatively, we could find another place to announce new portals and wikiprojects, and use that space for the Signpost template.  We just don't have enough space for both. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started looking into getting the Community Bulletin Board placed on the navigation menu (and simultaneously remove it from the Community Portal).  Quiddity seems to think that is a good idea.  If we can accomplish this, would you support putting the Signpost template back into the CBB at that time?  --Go for it! 18:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely would support that.  Separating the CBB from the CP would go along way to deal with the information overload issue.  Though, there already are quite a lot of links in the navigation menu.  I wouldn't mind the CBB replacing the "Current events" link, but who knows what the larger community prefers. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the reason the CBB is so popular is because it is easily accessible and visible, right there on top of the CP.--HereToHelp 20:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Signpost

message: Is there a reason this portal uses templates, while the majority of portals use subpages for the transcluded content?  I suggest changing this to using subpages for content not transcluded on other pages. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't thought of that, but I like that idea. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well I can't do it myself since the page is protected. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to work on it. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: We could also just add a box with the links to the transcluded sections at the top of this talk page, as is done for the Main Page in the blue box at the top-right of Talk:Main Page. --Quiddity 18:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finding the pages is part of the issue (and what prompted my suggestion), but the other issue is just one of organization.  Using subpages keeps the portal pages organized together. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quiddity's idea is a good one, and works well regardless.  That is, we should include those links at the top of this talk page in addition to whatever other solution is implemented.  --Go for it! 18:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The templates can all be given internal edit links (which they had via heading inclusion, until editing was turned off).  This should solve the accessibility problem.  --Go for it! 18:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can do all three.  The subpage format is used on all other portals, and see no reason not to use it here.  --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates vs. subpages 

message: The Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers Organization is now open for business. This is a project set up by Wikipedians who have had bizarre, paranormal experiences, for Wikipedians who have had bizarre, paranormal experiences. Some Wikipedians play Chess or Checkers, we have had bizarre, paranormal experiences, some still have these experiences, some investigate these matters.
Where do I place this on the "Community Portal"/"Community Bulletin Board" ? Martial Law 19:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this "project" or "collaboration": Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers to be placed on the project page, so as to let others know about this matter ? Martial Law 06:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where do I list THIS....

message: I just discovered a significant bug with the Community Portal.  See how different Internet Explorer renders the page versus Firefox:
Also, there's an issue with how Internet Explorer renders the icons and .png images. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community portal bug 

message: I found the menu glitch.  The background and border has been restored.  --Go for it! 20:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Menu glitch

message: Internet Explorer doesn't seem to support icon transparency.  --Go for it! 20:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work. For the menu, though we could also make it white for now.  --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the signpost logo, it's detail is too intrinsic to tweak with the background color.  So, I just encompassed it in a white box with black border. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The menu is just extra colors where we don't need them. I say don't bother; just make the icons on a white background.--HereToHelp 13:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Icon transparency

message: The Manual of Style should be one of the key editor resources, and thus prominent here. Doesn't seem to be on this page, nor at the 'other guidelines' link page (links to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which doesn't seem very helpful since it just talks about them on a meta level instead of having a ToC to them or something). 24.18.215.132 03:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell??? STILL NO MoS links?!? 

message: Due to the above complaints and many other factors I have reverted the desgn of the page to the old form once more. We need to get a working copy running before we "go live" with it.
Design ideas: use the lighter colors of the Main Page (we currently are using the darker ones), and kill that awful tan. I did just that in my sandbox. The problem is, now it's too light. So my idea now is to get the borders from the MP boxes, sans the box for the header, and see what that looks like. The problem is, now the alignment is off. Can anyone who is really skilled in web page design look at it and get that resolved for me? Besides, the page in general bears marks of Go for it!'s editing: a LOT of unused comment brackets (and the ones that do need to be redone, and the extra dashes need to be removed), and the occasional CLICK HERE.--HereToHelp 13:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted, again

message: Please can I have your thoughts on adding Wikipedia:Community Justice to community support groups. Computerjoe's talk 20:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Community Justice]] 

message: I think it would be beneficial for our cause were there to be a 'stable' version of wikipedia and mark the rest of wikipedia 'unstable' 'testing'. Wikipedia could be like britannica (scholarly verified) but much cheaper and with less articlces than the unstable wikipedia that we use.
Academics don't want to recommend wikipedia because its unstable nature, however there's no reason why you can't create a stable version. How hard would be to get the best articles verified by scholarly sources?
JHJPDJKDKHI! 11:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that go against everything Wikipedian? Maybe I understood you wrong, but your proposal would defeat the purpose of having an editable encyclopedia. --Osbus 14:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily: see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team.--HereToHelp 16:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiverified stable version. 

message: Could we shorten the "Article Improvement Drive" (by removing the picture and leaving just one paragraph) to include the Wikipedia:Article assessment project? CG 19:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. Take it up with the AID people, but wait until we've settled on a design. (This one is almost ready to be shown to the community for aproval). But if you're going to to that, keep AA active, changing topics every week (If an article doesn't get reviewed you can have a a week for misc. unreviewed articles).--HereToHelp 19:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Article assessment]]