Wikipedia talk:Community Portal/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Userbox

How do I make a new userbox? I would like to make one for Duke University. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_userboxes EKN 04:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

See Help:Infobox and the 2 links at the top of it.
by the way, new comments (almost) always go at the bottom of talk pages, but I'll leave this one here so that you dont miss it  ;) --Quiddity 23:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Tip of the day

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)

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)

Tip of the Day - Lightbulb

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)

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)

Recourse options

It has been suggested many times to Go for it! that he should work on a draft version of the Community Portal, such as User talk:Davidpk212/Community Portal, and work toward consensus, rather than mucking around with the live Community Portal and Help:Contents. But he tends to ignores these suggestions. I'm not entirely sure how to resolve this, but maybe it's time for a WP:RFC or something? I know it's also been discussed previously to protect the community portal, but decided against that for some good reasons. I hope he will just voluntarily decide to heed the suggestions and join the discussions at User talk:Davidpk212/Community Portal. He has some good ideas, but I disagree strongly with the process he's been using to implement design changes. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Be bold!
I think it's a good idea to force the issue. I disagree that the page should be protected, or that anyone should be discouraged from editing it. It is an unprotected page, and therefore is subject to open wiki-style editing. --Go for it! 18:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm, refering this to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. If this does not work, this will be refered to WP:RFC/USER. --Barberio 20:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

bump section
I have started a Request For Comment on User:Go for it! at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Go_for_it!. thanks. -Quiddity 06:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

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)

Search box

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)

Outdated Collaborations List

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)

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)
I have moved all the actual collaboration details to templates, so for example the UK collaboration may be updated by editing {{collab-uk}}, or the Hong Kong collaboration by editing {{collab-hongkong}}. 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)

Wasn't there a good aticle collaboration box below the AID one?

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)

Actually, it is preferable to update the section directly, so that we have a archivable record of the announcements. The collaborations section can be directly updated now. Here's the link: Template:Announcements/Current collaborations. --Go for it! 21:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

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)

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)
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)
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)

I copied in the colors from Draft 1b, you can edit them if you like. Ashibaka tock 03:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Community Portal

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)

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)
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)
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)

+ Wikizine

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
The link looks good. --Go for it! 21:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Replaced again

Kaldari just replaced the long-term design with yet another "version" of the Community Portal. Can we stop doing this please? As far as I can see there's been little discussion on this. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As said in my edit summary, please see Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign/Poll archive.--HereToHelp 22:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Roughly 40 people "voting" for the most popular choice is hardly a great show of support for it, considering the Main Page design got several hundred people contributing. We should carry on discussing it further. The colours are far too garish, for one thing. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Go for it! is currently working on that. Talk to him, as it says in the CBB.--HereToHelp 22:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is getting a bit frustrating. First, GoForit! almost never responds to any messages I leave on his talk page, and second, I know people (non-wikipedians) who just randomly browse Wikipedia for the hell of it. And they stop and look at the current layout and say, "Wow. That is ugly." Another thing- that much non-white solid color will never look good, no matter what colors, and will always look tacky without some white. -Osbus 00:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am immensely frustrated with the methods GoForIt! has used over the course of the problems here, especially in the last week. (see A_vote_is_premature_at_this_point ). The poll was started and conducted in a deceitful and confusing fashion, with a variously stated purpose of being either to undo the rollback, OR to decide on a redesign draft layout style. Many votes were solicited by GoForIt. The poll was conceived and begun before all the design drafts even had a chance to finalize. IMO The poll results should be disregarded. Kaldari only replaced GoForIt's CP design because of GoForIt!'s seemingly-innocent request. The ugliness and confusing nature that it was originally removed for, still apply. --Quiddity 02:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I did make some key suggestions/requests (copied below) of Go for it!'s draft, before it be restored.
Before any design is restored, it should take into account some of the comments above. (e.g. different color scheme, and reduce information overload. For example, we don't need "Main page departments". These are available on the main page, and redundant here. Also, "Featured content" section can likely be incorporated into the "Featured articles" page that's now in the left navigation bar. And, Tip of the day takes up too much room here. I'm not sure if belongs on the Community Portal at all (it fits better on Help), but at least it could use a more compact format on the Community Portal. Also, I've looked at the coding, which needs to be cleaned up and made accessible. I also looked at it with my stylesheets turned off — it's a mess and a problem for users with screenreaders. All these issues, particularly accessibility and coding, must be addressed before your version of the community portal is restored. Please take these suggestions as constructive feedback. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 13:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that we did not have the opportunity to address these before the draft was restored. It's particularly unfortunate (and unacceptable) situation for any people using a screenreader. I can take some time over the weekend to try and address these myself. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Main Page departments

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)

  • The idea of putting the "Community Bulletin Board" in the left navigation bar is intriguing. I agree somewhat with the comments about the size of the navigation bar, though possibly the CBB could replace one of the other lines (e.g. "Current events" - linked on the main page anyway). As for the Main Page departments, that's an issue to address with the main page itself. For example, with "Did you know", there could be a link there for "suggesting items". We should address some of these issues to cut back the amount of information (where covered elsewhere), along with different colors, cleanup the coding, and some other tweaks while it's in the draft stage. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean the blue box near the top right of Talk:Main Page?  ;-) -Quiddity 01:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Moving on - we need a color poll

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)

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)
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)
I agree with those that cite the need for more white space. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

By "whitespace" do you mean text areas that have a white background, or do you mean empty space on the page? --Go for it! 19:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just combine the layout from draft 1b with the functionality or whatever people like from draft 1a together?... --Osbus 21:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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)
What I really don't understand is what is wrong with current design of the Community Portal. --Osbus 01:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I'm worried about the alignment before that sort of thing.--HereToHelp 14:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Logic to the reorganization?

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)

Postscript: I WAS able to find the links I was looking for, but only after doing a ctrl-f find in Firefox for the text I was seeking. There's nothing that really calls attention to the above information anymore, at least not to my eyes. --JohnDBuell 11:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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)
Feel free to stop by the RFC (noted in the above discussion). --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Community Portal Redesign

I noticed that a new design has been implemented on the Community Portal. I don't think consensus was reached in the discussion. Many people are opposed to this change, and the design should be reverted to the old design, until we can reach consensus on a new design that we like. — J3ff 16:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If the poll was conducted fairly, and then everyone voted for Go for it!'s design (with no qualifications), I would be perfectly okay with his design being restored. It's his tactics that are annoying people. Because of these tactics, I feel the poll was invalid as a "official vote". Rather, it should be viewed as a discussion with people leaving feedback on things that need to be addressed (e.g. colors). More serious than colors, is the accessibility issue with the current CP design totally unprofessional in that respect. But, since I'm involved in the dispute, I don't think I should be the one to do the revert. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I've invited a number of people to participate in this discussion, including users that have edited the Community Portal recently. Hopefully we can come to something we can all agree with — J3ff 16:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I hope so too. I'm not sure another revert back to the old version of the Community Portal is best. Such revert wars aren't good. We just need to quickly fix up what's there, through consensus and discussion. That means colors, accessibility, tweak the layout, trim some unneeded content (perhaps, tip of the day?), and make the page more concise and usable. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

When the design was updated, the interwiki links were lost. Can someone please add the interwiki links back? — J3ff 16:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I see the recent edit history for the Community Portal. Looks really bad to see the wheel war involving User:Kaldari, User:Talrias, and User:HereToHelp. We need to decide once and for all which version to keep here while the redesign happens. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hold on there Kimosabe. Go for it! asked me to come here and paste in the new design per the poll that was conducted. I took a look at the poll, saw that the 1a design (or whatever it was) had the most support (by a substantial margin) so I copied it over. I assumed good faith and did not see evidence of any controversy. Whether the poll was "official" or not, it seems clear that the currently implemented design has the most support. Besides, the current design had already been used for quite a while before someone reverted it without any discussion. It seems Go for it! went out of his way to guage community input before restoring the design, but really I don't know that much about this whole bruhaha, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. If you ask me, all these "redisigns" are a royal pain in the ass. Let's work with what we've got and move on. Kaldari 18:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The design was already on the Community Portal, having been developed in place over a period of weeks. It then got reverted to a months-ago version. That was the specific decision I called a vote to overturn. Enough people voted to put the version back on the page. I was as straighforward as possible in my explanation of the vote. It was made clear in the notice on the CBB, in the instructions on the vote page, and in my vote comments. I don't see how the issue could be made any clearer: that it was the reversion of the Community Portal that was at issue. --Go for it! 18:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

But, many people left comments about colors, and other aspects of the design that they thought needed improvement. And the failure to make the page accessible for blind people using screenreaders is unacceptable for Wikipedia. These are things that should have been taken care of before your version was restored. But, I'm not going to engage in a wheel war. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Reaching consensus does not mean finding a simple majority, rather, reaching consensus is finding a common solution we can all agree to. Many people objected to the voting, especially such an early vote before the designs were completely thought out. We must answer the concerns first before we can move on toward creating a solution. — J3ff 19:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. But having the developed page displayed in the meantime is a better option than having the months ago version. We can work on improving it further. --Go for it! 19:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
But what about the 80%+ people that use Internet Explorer? and people using screenreaders? I stressed on the vote page that it's essential we take care of such issues before restoring your design. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I've tested the Community Portal on IE, and it looks fine. IE can't display icon transparency, but that is a limitation of IE. And we may be able to fix even that by creating versions of the icons with a specific background color. --Go for it! 20:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The Community Portal uses the same table coding syntax set as the Main Page. Can screen readers read that page?
The issue is with the volume of information, how it's arranged in the "Wikipedia by department" section in so many columns, and possibly with how the headings are formatted. I (with others looking at it too) would have like to do closer examination of all this before the draft was reverted. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Can we unprotect the page, please?

Of all the pages that shouldn't be protected, this seems to me to rank high on the list. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there some specific section you want to edit? It's pretty much just the layout of the Community Portal that is protected, as the following are all transcluded as unprotected, editable templates.
If there is some other portion of the community portal that you wish to edit, we may be able to transclude that too. The reason the CP is protected is the ongoing dispute with User:Go for it! regarding the constant design changes to the CP and use of the page as a sandbox for experiments. While the dispute is being resolved, I think we need to keep this page protected. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
PS. Others wish to weigh in here? --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I did not use it as a sandbox, and the single "experiment" refers to the method I chose colors at one point. Those colors got fewer complaints than the current color combination, which were mostly taken from the Main Page headings. --Go for it! 18:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Please don't deny what is already obvious. Anyone can look into the history of the Community Portal and it's talk page archives to see that many users asked you to stop making such frequent major changes, but you continued to make frequent major design changes. The problem was not with you editing the page. In fact, I agree that the Community Portal layout should be improved. However, the new designs should be tested out on temporary pages before applying them to the live Community Portal page. Frequent changes make it difficult for people to use the page. — J3ff 19:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that protection is the way to go for the moment. The CP has changed 3 times in the last week. We need to stop this. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Templates vs. subpages

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)

Haven't thought of that, but I like that idea. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, well I can't do it myself since the page is protected. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to work on it. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Where do I list THIS....

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) :)

Some of us had seen UFOs, aliens, demons, angels, Bigfoot, ghosts. Martial Law 19:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Yes, and some of us are bizarre, paranormal experiences. Where's our page? :) —Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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) :)

Community portal bug

I just discovered a significant bug with the Community Portal. See how different Internet Explorer renders the page versus Firefox:

Image:Community portal - firefox kmf164.png
Firefox screenshot
Image:Community portal - ie kmf164.png
Internet Explorer screenshot

Also, there's an issue with how Internet Explorer renders the icons and .png images. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If the menu is formatted as a table instead of a div, will that fix the problem? — J3ff 19:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In IE, the community portal now looks like this:

Image:Communityportalscreenshot problem2.JPG
Internet Explorer screenshot

Why do the images not have transparent backgrounds when displaed in IE?— J3ff 20:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Menu glitch

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

Icon transparency

Internet Explorer doesn't seem to support icon transparency. --Go for it! 20:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The way to fix this would be to create versions of the icons with the same background color as the menu. --Go for it! 20:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That would work. For the menu, though we could also make it white for now. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

What the hell??? STILL NO MoS links?!?

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)

Reverted, again

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)

Wikipedia:Community Justice

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

Wikiverified stable version.

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)

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)
Not necessarily: see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team.--HereToHelp 16:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article assessment

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)

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)