Wikipedia talk:Community portal/Archive 8

message: Good job in getting the new design up.  Do you think we can unprotect the community portal page now? --Aude (talk | contribs) 13:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to wait a few days to make sure everything gets ironed out, but sure, I'll unprotect it. We may need to keep it semi-ed, though, but we'll try completely open. (I'll keep the move on sysop only, no reason not to). HereToHelp 13:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is looks like it might turn out to be q=a big target for vandalism. Do you think we should keep this semi-ed forever? That could also help prevent that attritition. HereToHelp 18:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sprotect sounds reasonable. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotect?

message: My compliments for the redesign - it looks much clearer now and the overall visual impression is very pleasant. I am however unhappy with the "editorial departments" header. It is actually "resources, standards, how-to and help", but a newbie looking for help will not know that, and since it is on the bottom of the page, Mr Newbie may not find it at all. can we find a better title, please? "Guidelines, resources and how-to" perhaps? Kosebamse 04:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same. We need something very short for the contents box link though. We had it as "Resources" for a while, but werent sure that was enough. Suggestions? maybe "Help and Resources"? --Quiddity 05:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. "Help" should be enough to attract "Mr Newbie". HereToHelp 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in "Help and Resources" as the ToC link title, and "Guidelines, Help, and Resources" as the sectionheader title. Feel free to change or reorder as you see fit :)  --Quiddity 19:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic header 

message: With the reforms underway at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, we are now sorting the cleanup and other queues by topic.  I was wondering if people think the Opentask section here, which also appears in many new user welcome pages and user pages, would be more useful if it listed things to do by topic instead of type of problem.  We could have a line for science, a line for history, a line for biographies, etc.  Or is it better the way it is?  Or should we have both available for people to choose from?  (At the risk of making more work for myself.)  -- Beland 03:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opentask by topic? 

message: This page has been semi-ed due to the large ammunt of vandalism. Please leave it locked for at least 12 hours. I would ask you all to consider the merits of having this page permanently semi protected to quell vandalism. I should clarify, though, that this page was not semi-ed because of edits to the design.--HereToHelp 13:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi Protected 

message: I can see no justification for this degenerating into a revert war, especially as you're all talking. I've blocked HtH for 8h. I also cannot see any justification for HtH protecting the page having reverted to HtH's version, this is totally against policy. I'm going to unprotect. I'll list this on WP:AN/I since it seems likely to be controversial :-) William M. Connolley 18:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with HtH's reversions, exceeding 3RR.  And I'm not aware that he is part of the Good articles project.  I'm not, but from looking at Wikipedia:Collaborations, GAC (along with AID and COTW) is listed separately there from the others.  As said before, though, I'm open to other ideas for highlighting other general collaborations.  --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: Looks like this is going to have to stay semied—regretfully, probably forever—because of vandalism. Design edits are still fine, but follow the spirit of WP:DDGLO. It's only a proposed guideline, but it is still a good idea.--HereToHelp 18:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. I'm surpised it wasnt permanently semi'd already, being the 2nd link in the navbar.. --Quiddity 20:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I guess we'll keep it there. Unlike articles, there isn't much good an anon can do to a page like this besides spelling and grammar—and we either catch those ourselves or they are templated in (and they wouldn't know how to edit the templates).--HereToHelp 20:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semied again 

message: I have created a new Wikipedia Project called the Article Feedback Desk. Its shortcut is WP:FEED, because I don't want it to be listed at AFD (Articles for Deletion)!
The Article Feedback Desk is for new Wikipedians to post their articles for feedback. More experienced Wikipedians could provide feedback on the articles, as well as insights into their strengths and weaknesses as an editor. For example, the editor may be brilliant in following NPOV but have problems finding references. Hopefully the feedback and insights they gain will help them improve their abilities as an editor.
I created this Wikipedia Project after repeatedly seeking and failing to get feedback on two articles I wrote, Google Groups and Homerun. I was constantly referred to Peer Review and Requests for Expansion. Peer review, according to its page, "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work", not new articles. Requests for expansion, according to its page, is for "for listing those [articles] for which there is a specific request [for expansion]". The Google Groups and Homerun articles are written mostly by me (a relatively new editor), with several polish-ups by other Wikipedians, and certainly don't qualify as "high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work"; in addition, the articles offer sufficient coverage about their respective topics to not require a specific request for expansion.
My idea has received favourable reviews from several users. User:Tangotango suggested I advertise my new idea here. Please help support the Article Feedback Desk by posting your articles for feedback and giving feedback to those seeking it, and discuss my idea at it's talk page.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added this. I will also put it up on the CBB.--HereToHelp 11:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Article Feedback Desk has since moved to Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. I checked the Community Portal page, and I think that besides calling it a "new initiative", you should describe the main purpose of the new initiative - to help new editors' get feedback on their articles to help them improve their editing skills. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do.--HereToHelp 11:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Feedback Desk 

message: I don't think the sections New Portals and New Wikiprojects is working...many post their new projects under notices anyway. Does anyone mind if I move these notices to the sections below? --Osbus 00:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the cbb 

message: There are now two templates  and  that completely distort the design and color layout. It needs to be fixed. Renata 23:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look into that.--HereToHelp 03:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All good changes. thanks :)  -Quiddity 05:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work! --Siva1979Talk to me 17:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colorful templates

message: Why is the border for the CBB larger than the other sections of the page?
If the border was 2px it would look a little more planned. I just wondered if there was a reason for the larger border or if anyone had an objection before I changed it. --Primate#101 03:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason that i recall. and Done :) (i trimmed out your "pre" snippets just to declutter this page. hope ya dont mind) --Quiddity 03:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community Bulletin Board 

message: in english wikipedia from indonesia any some one see indonesia country? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.190.40.9 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you should edit a version of Wikipedia in a language you understand...wait, this doesn't help. --Osbus 21:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  i don,t know wikipedia in english? 

message: I am running Windows XP, in 1024 x 768 mode.  The "Collaborations" portion of the page still shows overlap of the right column onto the right-hand side of the left column, sufficient to obscure text.  69.171.82.224 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the width method, did that fix it? thanks -Quiddity 07:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still Formatting Troubles 

message: I'm asking for this action since I have the feeling Wiki users fail to see hidden information because of automatic redirection. A simple link to the page where the first page is redirected to would do better in my point of view, since you would always first stop at that word which you really entered. Different opinions? Suggestions? Have a nice day! --Tom David 09:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The more appropriate place to ask that question would be Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). However, you probably want to read Help:Redirect first, as i think some of your assumptions might be mistaken. There shouldnt be any hidden information at a redirect page; they are most commonly used for alternate spellings and misspellings. -Quiddity 04:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about removing permanently the "redirect button" from the editing tools? 

message: The COllaborations section (the orange one) is looking pretty strange...it's wider than the rest. --Osbus 23:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not anymore --Osbus 20:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  strange sizing