Wikipedia talk:Community portal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This page is for the discussion/improvement of the community portal only. The community portal is semi-protected for vandalism reasons. Large changes to it should be discussed here first.
For general questions about Wikipedia, please consult the Wikipedia FAQ first.
For other questions regarding factual topics, please use the reference desk.
For discussion unrelated to the community portal, please visit the village pump fora.
Community portal sections

Community portal subpage list
Redesign
Designs and redesigns
(previous designs)

Please draft layout changes here:
Community portal/Draft

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12
Archive 13

Contents


[edit] Things to do

Overall there is an issue of style. The original items where all posed as conversation questions but new items have not been. Either we need to ditch the old style or come up with a bunch of new questions and be vigilant in maintaining this style with future additions. I would prefer to ditch the question style, purely because that appears to be what happens naturally. Making all items pure statements would help to trim it as well. When I claim that a link is "bad" below, I mean it does not direct people to something to do. Not necessarily that the idea itself is bad.--BirgitteSB 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Respond to a request for comment, Wikiquette alert or provide a third opinion.
    • First link is bad although the process is active. However RFC's are already handled quite well in the bulletin board maybe they should drop from here. Second link is good and active. Third link is good and questionably active.--BirgitteSB 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Adopt a basic topic list to develop and maintain a table of contents to a major subject on Wikipedia.
    • This link is bad, although the process is active. Needs a better link--BirgitteSB 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
      Done. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Give a requested editor review.
    • Link is good and backlogged.--BirgitteSB 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you draw or take pictures? Make a requested image.
    • Link is OK, but it directs you on how to request pictures rather than how to find request to fulfill. Activity is questionable.--BirgitteSB 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
      Done. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Peer review or give feedback on some articles.
    • Both links are good and active.--BirgitteSB 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Make recommendations on articles listed at Good article review.
    • Link is OK and backlogged. It is the right place but instructions for reviewers are hidden while instructions for listing/delisting are prominent. It is impossible to simply direct this link to reviewing information with #.--BirgitteSB 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Respond to the Reward board or Bounty board.
    • First link is good but questionably active. Second is good and active.--BirgitteSB 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you good at photo editing? Then try cleaning up some of these images, or helping out at the Graphics Lab.
    • First link is informational. Second is bad is instructional, but has too much focus on placing the tag. Third is OK but a very jumbled and backlogged category. Fourth link is good. I would like to rework the stuff at the second link into the category page but that is a little beyond the scope here. --BirgitteSB 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you use GIS tools? Help make requested maps.
    • First link is informational. Second is good and questionably active.--BirgitteSB 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you communicate in another language? There are articles that need translation into English. You can also proofread a finished translation.
    • Link is good and active.--BirgitteSB 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Let SuggestBot suggest pages for you to improve.
    • Link is OK and active. I would change the link to this however.--BirgitteSB 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Update pages with old (ref or note template) citations to the new references format.
    • Link is bad and appears inactive. The link explains how to use the tool but not what articles need the tool. Page and talk haven't been edited since June. I think this item can be dropped entirely--BirgitteSB 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fix-up projects

Good means there is something to fix up at the link. Categories can't be Bad or Inactive.--BirgitteSB 22:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Great job, much thanks. I'll try to take a look at some of these, but you're welcome to do whatever you feel is best. I'm the only regular/active maintainer here I think, and would appreciate any help :) -- Quiddity (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the page, it looks much nicer. I have been busier than I expected lately.--BirgitteSB 18:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible page streamline?

Following some discussion at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details, it seems that some editors feel that the Watchlist notices are being abused for things that really should be advertised either here or at the Village Pump. I brought up the concern (with which a few people agree) that as the Community Portal (in particular) is currently laid out, it's difficult to find debates which are "hot topics" or which have wide-ranging ramifications for the community. As an example, one watchlist notice invites users to comment on alternatives to the current Main Page design; but I can't find a notice of the discussion on the front page of the Community Portal. (Perhaps I'm just missing it - which reinforces my point that such information is difficult to find.)

When was the last time the Portal went through a major re-design? Does anyone else (other than the few of us who commented on the talk page above) feel that the page is cluttered and hard to find things in? -- MatthewDBA (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, do you mean overhauling the whole thing, or just the Bulletin Board (WP:CBB)? I'm the main maintainer of the bulletin board currently, and it grows and shrinks a tremendous amount from month to month, so keep that in mind :) As long as it works at all screen sizes, anything is possible.
The whole portal was last overhauled in early 2006 (2 months after the WP:CBB was invented. the community portal wasn't used for "announcement" type things before that). See Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign for details, including a handy list of previous iterations. Feel free to have a stab at cleanup at Wikipedia:Community Portal/Draft or in your sandbox.
There were also some merge suggestions at Template talk:WP nav pages (header bar)#Directories?, if we were to overhaul the whole thing. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This discussion obviously is related to the one directly below. Even though the proposal itself is unlikely to go anywhere, the table at User talk:RichardF/Main Page/Community could be useful background for any streamlining discussions here. RichardF (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Header redesign

I've redesigned the Community portal header on the draft page. Could this be considered to replace the current one? PretzelsTalk! 19:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe without the giant cartoon icon. Perhaps something like this? That would keep the standard appearance of the TableofContents box, that users are most easily able to recognize.
Not sure though, would want to hear feedback from more people first. Removing the individual VPump links might frustrate many people who are accustomed to finding them at the top of this page. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Could we try it out on the portal? That would be the best way to get feedback. PretzelsTalk! 00:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure. This page tends to be pretty quiet until there are complaints ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
OK! I made a few more tweaks and put it up. To anyone who's unsure about it, compare it to the old one :) PretzelsTalk! 18:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought we had agreed there would be no giant cartoon icon?
I replacing it with the design that I understood you were going to implement. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Appearance-wise this new header is an improvement, but I think that over-all it is not an improvement because the buttons "Read help and docs", "Ask a question", etc. are too cryptic. Things were better-explained before, and I think the additional explanation is necessary. For example, "Ask a question" isn't for any kind of question: it points to the Reference desk, which is for questions about the outside world, not about Wikipedia itself. This needs to be stated or we send people to the wrong place half the time. It was stated before. I would like to keep your improved visual format but make the buttons more informative. Renaming some or all of them might help a little. Also, could we stand to have maybe four to six words of explanatory text on the buttons in a smaller font? -- Ong saluri (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Idea: New editors' portal

When I was a brand-new wikipedia editor, I wanted to help out wikipedia, but the places I could begin weren't easily apparent. I clicked "community portal" in the sidebar because it seemed to be a reasonable place to get information on that sort of thing. The problem was then (and is now), though, that the community portal is poorly designed for new users and includes all sorts of arcane processes that new editors probably are uninterested in and could not help too much by their participation, at least at first. Would it make sense to create something like Wikipedia:New editors' portal (linked very prominently from the the front of this page) to have little boxes giving ideas about how to help, maybe a rotating box of editing tips, and other lists of simple ways to get started (find a wikiproject's todo list, look through cleanup categories, how about starting with some basic wikification, etc.). Has this ever existed elsewhere? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. There is a new users page here but it's dated and not geared particularly towards new editors. It includes a rotating tip box, like you mentioned. I think it would be a good idea to merge the Community Bulletin Board (which is basically requests for help) and Help out, with more explanation of each type of task. What would you say to that? I think it would be over-complicating things to create and maintain a whole new portal. PretzelsTalk! 22:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The Welcoming committee page certainly should be geared towards new editors... I'd suggest updating that page to be what you want it to be (and I agree that it needs updating). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main page

When I go to the main page all I get is "<meta nam" (ie without the final e). Is this a temporary glitch? Jackiespeel (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Main page, do you mean [1] ? It works for me here, maybe there was a problem and it was fixed. Do you still get the same problem ? Nicolas1981 (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent GA articles

Would it be possible for the Notices section to prominently display recent GA promotions? I think that would be a way to promote the process, reward those who worked hard on the articles and encourage more timely reviews. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This information is in the Wikipedia Signpost, that's almost at the top of the Community Portal. PretzelsTalk! 21:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Mmm... I couldn't find it, and I rarely look under there anyway. It'd be nice to have it more prominently displayed on this page.—RJH (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Please please include links when asking about something or explaining something! It helps everyone, including those who do and don't know what you're talking about. It is why shortcuts exist, and it lets you verify your statements, and point out useful context.
Pretzel: new WP:GA are not mentioned in the signpost, only WP:FA are.
RJHall: I'm looking at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Log, and there are between 25-40 new GA every 3 days. That's a lot of lines to fit into this already near-overwhelming page. Ahh, now I see the template Wikipedia:Good articles/recent has hidden-comment instructions that restricts it to 15 items, and provides it in a handy linear format.
Now, the problem here, is if we add the new GA list, we're also going to need to add the new FA list, and it looks like this: Template:Announcements/New featured content.
We could maybe squeeze them both into (or following) the "collaborations" section; however, I'd object to putting either/or both of them in the WP:CBB's ("Community bulletin board") #notices section, as it would push the "help out" and "collaborations" sections down too far. (and make the page significantly larger)
Those are my first thoughts, anyway. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm surprised it's that high a rate considering how many haven't been reviewed in over a month. In that case I think it would be nifty to have a clickable ticker-tape style display for recent FA and GA pages. But that may be more trouble than its worth.—RJH (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Under "Things to do", there is an entry, "Make recommendations on articles listed at Good article reassessment." Would it be reasonable to insert, "Review a good article nomination"?—RJH (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Or expand the GA mention that is already there to include that and other aspects. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, this is a brilliant idea. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Which part? There are 3 separate proposals above. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I mean the general idea. Still need to digest the 3 proposals. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misalignment

Does anyone know why under "Project pages seeking contributors", one item from "WikiProjects & Task Forces" always spill over into the column of "Portals & Collaborations"? I have tested things many time in preview but the spillover just won't budge or move. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Because it is using column templates. Our column templates play hell with other floating elements. I'm just going to revert to tables for now. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pressing Contents nr. 4 does not work

When I press the Contents box nr. 4: Guidelines etc., this does not give a reaction. Pressing 3 does. Could someone with the right expertise please fix this? Thanx Dick Bos (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contents' "4 Guidelines, help, and resources" link doesn't work

{{editsemiprotected}} [[#Departments|4 Guidelines, help, and resources]] link in Contents at top of page doesn't link correctly. Propose changing the id of intended section to "Guidelines" and changing the link accordingly. --Henin42 (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comunity announcements

Would it be wise for the community portal people to send us all a user page message about the most important stuff like 10 million articles, FlaggedRevs, and other WikiLegends? I cannot see the down fall in it. Who runs this portal? Is the stuff on the noticeboard usually good enough to send a message to the whole community? Main page redesign, Fundraising time etc...? ~ R.T.G 03:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The WP:Signpost newspaper will send a notification to your talkpage when it updates, if you want. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Very weird pop-up

When I type wikipedia.org into my url box it brings me to what it normally would but there is this pop-up covering part of the screen saying that the content is protected and it asks me to complete a survey but the link leads to a smiley down-load website. What is this about? Wait, now it has dissapered! Weirder and weirder.81.108.237.26 (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should type www.wikipedia.org or even http://www.wikipedia.org or http://wikipedia.org.

If your default search engine was changed by evil softwares, it could lead to smiley sites. tablo 03:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjinho213 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Core Topics collaboration

The Core Topics collaboration, which is highlighted on this page, is now largely inactive. I'd like to remove the template from this page - does anyone object? I don't want to mess up the formatting, and the organizers of this page might like to think about the best layout for the collaborations section. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a brand new user so my opinion might not carry much weight, but I think you should take it out since it's been dead for 5-6 months. I was discouraged from contributing when I visited the COTF/COTM pages and found nothing to collaborate on. Is the concept dying out? Wetenschap (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Both mentions have now been removed. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for Collaborations section

I'd like to suggest a "Featured Collaboration of the Week" for the Collaborations section. I.e. each week one of the collaborations is chosen for featured presentation in the header section. It should probably be limited to collaborations that have recently been selected, rather than those that are months old. What do you think?—RJH (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're willing to do the work, anything is possible :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hotel Consultants

I would like start a discussion on Hotel Consultants, their scope of work, their competencies, their profiles and their use. as a hotelier i often find ambiguity in what a hotel consultant is expected to deliver. Does a 20 year experience in hospitality qualify one to be a consultant? I guess not. So what competencies does one need to develop to be adequately armed to bequalify as a consultant? Sanjaywork (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dumbing down

Could this be moved to the end of the relevant list - to avoid "misreading linkage to next entry"? (Such accidentals, however, might be "a good thing" for WP April 1). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The entry is at Wikipedia:Community Portal/Opentask/Original research. You could edit it yourself, or just wait for the list to be refreshed. Personally, I think the comma separating the entries is sufficient. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I know it is a quirk of the WP system combined with "creative misreading" (and if "WP Bad Jokes etc" still operated this would be a viable candidate.) (g). Jackiespeel (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The party is also well known for its anti-Vietnamese sentiments and usage of derogatory name "youn" towards Vietnamese in party's newspaper Sralanh Khmer.

i don't khow where u get your information on our khmer language. but u need to corrected "youn" is our word that stand for vietnamese. instead of getting your information right you just insulted our language by saying one of our word is a derogatory name for vietnamese. our people never had a idenity crissis, that go the same for our language. our people has been speaking khmer for thousands of years, so who are you to label one of our words to be derogatory. Wikipedia please get your imformation right before you posted information that doesn't have any creditablity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.35.92 (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written by one person, or any overseeing authority, it is written by millions of ordinary people just like you. If you see a mistake, fix it yourself! You can edit any page (except the Main Page) by clicking 'edit this page' at the top. If you see errors, correct them. If you add facts, remember to provide sources, so the article complies with WP:NPOV and WP:V. Take the Tutorial to find out the basics of editing Wikipedia, including the Five pillars that govern how we run ourselves and of course How to edit a page. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New naming convention for actors, directors, films and television series awards lists

I just wanted to mention that as consensus has been reached, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#List of awards and nominations received by (Actor/Film), any awards list from the categories mentioned above will be renamed: List of awards and nominations received by (Actor/Film).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New template

Hi, I created new template. You may want to modify this. This is about Tibet.

{{User tibet}}

--The Wandering Traveler (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] We need help

Tagalog Wikipedia Campaign March 2009!

Tagalog Wikipedia is campaigning for your participation in writing, editing, assessing and translating articles!
The purpose of this campaign is to expand and improve articles at Tagalog Wikipedia. Your participation will be highly appreciated by the community.

There are over 21,000 articles to view, read, review, edit, and expand, so please visit the Wikipedia Café and the WikiProject Philippines at Tagalog Wikipedia to help out!

The campaign includes seeking your assistance in:

Or just anything you can do to help us just like what you are doing there at the English Wikipedia.

Thank you in advance and regards, Tagalog Wikipedia Community

--The Wandering Traveler (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why is there not an article about the cult horror film "The Boogens"

Why on Earth has not an article been posted here about this horror cult classic? The Boogens --By PunkMaister 6:07 PM—Preceding unsigned comment added by PunkMaister (talk • contribs) 23:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia is free for anyone to edit, so you can go ahead and create your article by clicking this link: The Boogens - but please remember to check out our tutorial first, and familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines, especially those relating to movies like this. In fact, I suggest you hold your horses before creating the article, and just browse around Wikipedia for a few days, noting how it works and checking out articles for other, similar movies. That way, you can create a professional looking article quickly. If you don't write the article according to our guidelines, there's a risk it may be deleted, so don't just charge in. Thanks. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] saruhan hünel

Doğum Yeri : İstanbul Doğum Tarihi : 07 Ocak 1970

2008 - Serçe 2006 - Kaybolan Yıllar : Esmer 2003 - Melek : Ferhat Güney 2000 - Milli Saraylarımız 1999 - Nilgün : Suat 1998 - Aynalı Tahir : Tilki Ekrem 1998 - Unutabilsem 1994 - Kaygısızlar : Konuk Oyuncu 1992 - Gündüzün Karanlığı

saruhan bey,

07 ocak´da maalesef size mesaj yazmaya yetisemedim.

gecmis dogum gününüz kutlu olsun.

umarim yeni yasiniz gecen seneye inat, size çok hayirli gelir, beklediginizden daha güzel ve basarili gecer.

insallah bu sene is hayatinizla alakali hersey biraktiginiz yerden devam eder ve tekrar ekranlara dönmenizi saglar.

bu sayfadaki en popüler erkek sanatcilar oylamasina bakarsaniz, ücüncü sirada yer aliyorsunuz, onca kisinin icinden, bence bu yerenizi kimseye kaptirmayin, hatta daha yükseye erisebilceginizden eminim, o yüzden ekranlardan artik pek fazla uzak kalmamaya calisin bence. (tabiki sadece is hayatinizla ilgili)

sevgilerimle esmer.yuerek saruhan huneli inanilmaz yakisikli ve basarili buluyorum aslinda buraya yazarken bende çok zorlandim cunku kendisi icin o kadar buyuk duygular var icimde hangisini yazsam diye dusundum.

ilk olarak kaybolan yillar dizisiyle karsimiza geldi tabii ondan evvel dizileride vardi ama ozellikle kendisini bu dizisiyle kendisini daha çok sevdim dizide hem iyi,kotu duygusal romantik oynuyordu ama dizini muzikleride kendisine hitap ediyordu.dizi bittigi zamanda tekrarlari yayinlaninca yine seyrettim. tabii diger oyunculkarinda hakkini vermis olalim amasonra

sece adli diziyle karsimiza geldi yine çok sevinerekden izledim ama yine bu sefer husranla bitti çok uzuldum oysa serce diziside ask dizisiydi. umarim bundan sonra yine ayni basariyi yakalayip karsimiza yine güzel diziyle gelir o gunu buyuk sabirsizlikla bekliyorum.


bir an once yine karsimiza gel saruhan hunl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.187.190 (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Community_portal"
Personal tools