Wikipedia talk:Community Portal/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Proposed new design

After a cooperative overhaul, Quiddity, --Aude, and I are proud to present Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft2a to the communnity for consideration. This proposed draft of the Community Portal incorperates colors from the Main Page and commons:Main Page. It uses much more white and pastel colors and is less "in-your-face" than the current design. Links have been organized into three major sections and two smaller ones rather than the seven currently used.

Rather than a vote, I just want a rough feel of the attitude for this design. Polls are evil; I want to see what the response is beyond the binary "aye" or "nay".--Here T oHelp 21:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Great. Far better than the current version. Seems like a lot of blank space at the bottom of the Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board box, though -- can that be reduced? bcasterline t 16:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That was to even it out with the three main sections which have to have that amount of space there or it looks worse. Between the CBB and the To do list, and the Editorial departments and Related communities...it depends. It's pretty trivial; hopefully we can unlock the page and, if no one reverts you back, you can change that later.--Here T oHelp 17:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Bcasterline meant the space (at the bottom) within the CBB itself. I agree that the CBB page bottom still needs cleanup/rethinking. (but that's a different topic than the CP redesign). --Quiddity 19:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Yeah, the CBB will probably get a big overhaul by the end of the year, and maybe much sooner.--Here T oHelp 19:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

To me, it is very nice, but to be honest I do not think that the current Community Portal is anywhere near as bad as the old Main Page was. Batmanand | Talk 17:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but since we have this better design made, why not use it?--Here T oHelp 17:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah totally. I was just saying that there was less of a problem than last time. Batmanand | Talk 17:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay then.--Here T oHelp 17:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It's shocking me how people are ignoring our need for continuity of style between pages. Although this design is very nice, we do need to keep a standard. Davidpk212 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether you mean: 1) continuity with the old CP design (either colour-wise or layout-wise), or 2) continuity with the rest of wikipedia overall?

We were trying to take it towards wikipedia-overall page style, by using simple clean boxes of ordered information, with matching colours to the Main Page scheme. We tried it with seperated columns and seperate boxes, but it quickly became overwhelmingly boxy/cluttered, with undifferentiable content. --Quiddity 21:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the colors used in this draft. However, the page feels very long and cumbersome. Is it possible to shorten the content in the page? — J3ff 09:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Blame the bloated CBB. Also, someone proposed having hide and show boxes for each of the sections, but Quiddity didn't like the idea, saying that everyone needs to see everything. I tend to agree. It won't make much of a difference, but maybe we would do away with the "Related communities" section?--Here T oHelp 11:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with removing that (purple box at bottom). make it a shortlist

I've tightened up the number of edit links, and the bottom of the TOTD, so it should be a bit cleaner than a few hours ago. --Quiddity 11:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the article drives have been pushed so far down. I'm all for redesign, but it's a simple matter of cognitive functions here: people are most likely to read and consider the tidbits on the top. It was perfect before, because the featured article candidates and drives were right at the top, putting them on your mind. Having to scroll to find them kind of ruins the purpose. Donno *shrug* Lockeownzj00 23:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You may have a point. This is the community portal so shouldn't we stress the community? On the other hand, this is not the Main Page where we're getting incompetent people looking for stuff. Wikipedians will know to scroll down. Here T oHelp 23:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is the Contents box at the top, with links directly to the collaborations and other sections. Maybe the way the contents are presented isn't obvious enough, though. Maybe right-aligning the box would be better? Any thoughts? --Aude (talk | contribs) 23:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What's that going to do? Also, Quiddity wanted to use the eft alignment because it is standard. Cnsistency is good in an encyclopedia, even if this page isn't reader-facing (although, considering it is linked to on the side bar, you could debate that). Here T oHelp 00:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't have any preference for left or right-aligned TOC, either way. Hopefully people will notice the TOC, with links that let them skip to other sections of the Community Portal. But if we get many more comments like the above from Lockeownzj00, then maybe we should try something (not sure what) more to make the TOC links more obvious. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on a solution. If WP wasnt loading so slowly this hour, i'd be doing better ;) --Quiddity 19:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What if we could ditch the gray and highlight it using the orange of an active tab? Here T oHelp 19:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've asked azatoth about using the hide/show function for the CBB, as discussed elsewhere. I did a mockup using hiddenbegin/end tags on the draft page as a demonstration. So we'll see if that has possibilities.

As for the ToContents box, we could try anything. I'll change it to white background for now, with a darker gray border, see if that's enough. --Quiddity 21:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That darker grey clashes with the lighter colors. Here T oHelp 21:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i'll change that back to light gray for now. (the orange looks bad imo) --Quiddity

Going live

Seeing as how the design has many supporters and has been thoroughly thought out, I'm going to put it up. I'll keep the page protected for a few days so nobody goes and completely messes it up or reverts it (unless there is a problem we've missed that comes out of left field). After that, I or another admin will have the page unlocked. This could mean semi-protecting against vandalism, or leaving it open again. Keep the move on for sysop only, no reason not to. Here T oHelp 12:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And here comes your problem: that's a clear bug in the design. Renata 15:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And here comes solution:

Please replace width=100% to width=90% in these places:

===Article standards===
<center>
 {| width="100%" style="padding-left:1.5em; padding-right:1em; background-color:transparent;"
 | [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|Be '''bold'''!]]

and

===Working with others===
<center>
 {| width="'''100%'''" style="padding-left:1.5em; padding-right:1em; background-color:transparent;"
 | [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|Assume good faith]]

Thank you. Renata 15:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Quiddity, how could you miss that!Here T oHelp 18:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

But! It, the!~ ummm.

Neat! What browser was that in? I tested it in firefox, ie5.5, opera6, and opera8. (must be mac ;P ) Besides, what's a launch without bugs ;) --Quiddity 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

IE 6.0 Renata 19:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Figures. It looked fine in Firefox on the Mac, and Safari. Here T oHelp 11:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

-summation-. We resolved this bug elsewhere, by removing the <center> tags and changing subtable widths to 92%

I dont really understand what was causing this bug. A table/code-guru looking through our work here would be appreciated. ("table cleanup, aisle nine!") --Quiddity 12:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to give the people working on this design a big thumbs up here. I think that once again we have shown that collaborative work can result in good results, even though there was a bit of a struggle at the start. One thing. this sentence: "The Village pumps are our discussion forums for Wikipedians about Wikipedia." it doesn't feel as clean as it should. I think if you are not a native speaker, it could be confusing. I would leave out the "for Wikipedians" part. Or rewrite the entire line. --The DJ 11:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, true. Village pump is not plural. What about: "The village pump is our discussion forums about Wikipedia. It is divided by topic: list of topics here."? Here T oHelp 11:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, i mangled that sentence whilst attempting to shorten it and linkify it. A writer is welcome to rework it. Here is what it said for the last few weeks:

For technical discussions, assistance, policy, proposals and other news see the Village pump - Wikipedia's discussion forum.

but as short as possible is preferable. without a single linewrap (at 1024) is optimal.

and Thanks for the thumbs up :) --Quiddity 12:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Quiddity 05:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect?

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)

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). Here T oHelp 13:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Here T oHelp 18:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

sprotect sounds reasonable. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Problematic header

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)

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)

Sure. "Help" should be enough to attract "Mr Newbie". Here T oHelp 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Hide/Show functionality

I seem to have got it working! (with thanks to azatoth). Now the question is, do we like it? (i do) --Quiddity 22:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The button seems a bit big. Also, it doesn't have memory. Here T oHelp 22:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The button is big because it's in the same div as the header, can't fix afaik. (although it does provide a visual clue that it's not just another "edit" link)

I have no idea how to get the memory working. Anyone? --Quiddity 22:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Between those two, I'm going to object to the hide/show button. Also, don't we want the CBB to be visible? The only time I've seent his used is for long version histories and stuff. Here T oHelp 23:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

We would want it (as it now does) to default as visible. But to be hide-able for those (many) who want the "To do lists" section at the top of the screen at page-load. I think you're right though. Ah well, i tried.

The only alternative i can see, is to push the "To do lists" section all into the left column, and put the CBB in the right column.

Ideally, and the 4 section set-up we have would be perfect for it, we could have ajax drag-and-drop functionality. Like the google-personalized page. *drools*. Coder volunteers? ;) --Quiddity 02:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Opentask by topic?

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)

It is an interesting idea. Someone who just wants to come throug and wikify stuff would like it as it is currently. Someone who want to improve biology articles, regardless of what's wrong with them, would like it by topic. If you can do it, both ways would be nice.--Here T oHelp 11:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Okey, I will see if I can produce a new by-topic template as a byproduct of PNA updates. -- Beland 14:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Semi Protected

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.--Here T oHelp 13:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

GAC

Zzzzz recently removed the Good Article Collaboration summary. I want to discuss this before we make any changes; though it is but one line of code, it, though the power of templates, becomes several lines of text. I should also point out that this influences the amount of whitespace. Zzzzz has responded by saying the it is listed under "Other Collaborations" (easily fixed), and that it does not deserve that slot. I think that it's good to have the extra information because it gets people involved, but then all of the projects will vie for the same attention (we have that exact problem on the CBB). So, comments? (Please leave the GAC in until a consensus is reached.)--Here T oHelp 17:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

as already discussed previously duplicate cotw removed from lhs that already exists on rhs. layout is irrelevant and there is nothing special about that cotw, why not put star wars or leftist cotw instead. Zzzzz 17:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

We discussed this and there was no consensus. We can remove it form the "Other Collaborations" if that's what you want. There is something special about this Collaboration: it focuses on different topics each week, so everyone can contribute. It is not a "specialized" Collaboration. I never said we put anything else up there (i.e., "star wars or leftist cotw").--Here T oHelp 17:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For all the times I've been to the Community Portal, I never noticed "Good articles" listed in "Other collaborations". A quick glance at "Other collaborations" shows that they are mainly topic-oriented collaborations, with the exception of the GAC. On the other hand, the Article Improvement Drive and Collaboration of the week are not topic-specific and vary each week. The GAC shares those characteristics, and in my opinion should be grouped with those and not listed in "Other collaborations". --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

you need consensus to *put* it there not take it away. so i will remove, and "core topics" cotw or "spanish collaboration" cotw, equally non-topic based, can replace it if required . "free advertising" of your favourite non-policy thing is not acceptable. put the "good articles" project to vote to make it policy before trying to spread it here. Zzzzz 17:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is "Other Collaborations", not "Themed Collaborations". Just because it is not policy does not mean we can't improve articles. Yes, you may be right that we are adding the GAC from the old version, but removing things from "Other Collaborations" requires consensus, too. Please do not edit either page until we have a consensus, or I will protect them.--Here T oHelp 17:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Where's the consensus to not include it? The process to come up with a consensus design for the community portal (after all the wheel warring) had been noted here on the talk page, with discussion and consensus on the Wikipedia:Community_Portal/Redesign page. Though, I'm more than willing to discuss further changes and improvements here on the talk page. It's important that discussion happen here first. Also, "Good articles" is not my "favorite" non-policy thing. But, in my opinion, it has more of a general focus, like AID and COTW. Thus, it's is a better fit there on the left. Maybe the "core topics", "spanish", and "maintenance" cotw need to be separated from the list in some way, too. It's easy to overlook them, as a quick scan over the list highlights topics (at least for me). I'm willing to copy the CP back over to a the draft page so we can come up with a way to do it. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, please remember the WP:3RR. Let's please settle this on the talk page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

please show me consensus to advertise good article cotw on lhs. dont tell me, you were "bold"? i have boldly removed it. please dont game the system by playing "consensus" when none was required to put it there in the first place. when discussing it on the redesign page i was told the discussion was "about layout only, not content!"! please be consistent. finally, i reverted thrice now, not four times as you claim. please dont threaten, be civil. Zzzzz 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes, I had to lock the page. One idea, if we aren't going to have the summary: bring the Collaborations Kmf164 mentioned (GAC, maintenance, Core Topics, etc. up above the other ones and separate them with a paragraph break. Or, have them as different subsections. As for whitespace, it looks bad without the GAC on large screens with higher rez, and making "Other Collaborations" longer exacerbates this. --Here T oHelp 17:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Three reverts plus putting it there is four. Whatever, I won't "press charges", but the if the page hadn't been protected, would you have reverted again?--Here T oHelp 17:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I won't block anyone, but just wish the arguement and reversions to end. I think you raise a good point about the other collaborations, such as "spanish" and "core topics". I've tried an experiment with the Other collaborations, to separate the topic-oriented collaborations from the others. [1] I'm open to putting the Good article collaboration there too, but think it needs to be separate from the topic collaborations. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of any call to remove it, and I don't see any discussion on it in the archive since it was added. I don't think there's any consensus against it, but there is support for keeping it as one of the 'main' Collaborations. It's quite obviously not a niche topic colaboration, and it does warrent a small section of its own.

The portal has a bad recent history of people 'being bold' with it, and reducing stability. Edit waring over this was not a good way to procede. --Barberio 17:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Looks good, Kmf164, but isn't there a French translation, too? And maybe we should but the general ones first.--Here T oHelp 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. But then, I just learned about the Spanish translation. I think all the collaborations are listed on Wikipedia:Collaborations, and I don't see any French translation there. Also, I'm fine with putting the "Other collaborations" above "Collaborations by topic", though not sure "other" is the right way to say it then. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR

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)

this is a general problem with members of the "good articles" project, making inappropriate non-consensus changes all over wikipedia to advertise/promote their non-policy project everywhere, then claim there is a need for consensus to undo those changes! its called "gaming the system". see the Template:Good article debacle for the exact same story. User:HereToHelp's behavior clearly shows the same deceitful mindset to ensure "their" way, its bad form, and likely the reason that project is generally held in such low regard. Zzzzz 18:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

For the record, I did not revert ot "my" version. I reverted to the original, and to the version that was favored by all but Zzzzz.And no, I am not part of the Good Articles project.--Here T oHelp 03:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Core topics COTW

i trust my highlighting of the core topics cotw is therefore acceptable. Zzzzz 18:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with it, but there's enough room for it and GAC. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

now there is a huge blank space on the rhs so i dont see there was room for it. nevertheless i reordered alphabetically. Zzzzz 18:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

On my screen, I still have a huge blank space in the left column, and if I resize my browser smaller then it looks well-balanced. Also, it's not a weekly collaboration but a Fortnight collaboration, so I've ordered it accordingly and copyedited. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone (not me!) revert to an old version, with or without the summaries? It looks really bad and it's a live page. Please use a sandbox.--Here T oHelp 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a draft page to work out ideas on this. Please use this. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the draft you set up. I'll suggest, and put in the draft, that we move the Wikiprojects AND Active improvement teams down to the Collaborations section, as they both are. The To do lists section will be shorter, and that is fine. Let's keep the draft discussion in this thread/page for simplicity. --Quiddity 21:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, those always stuck me as odd, but if we are redoing the Collaborations we might as well redo that, too.--Here T oHelp 22:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Maintenance COTW, i'm not sure what your edit summary meant: "This COTW takes forever, so it is worth it to give it this attention". Were you trying to give it more or less attention? I think the increased amount of text, decreases its noticability. The explanation is useful though. Maybe either rework the template that was there (embolden keywords), or move the explanation to the intro of the Category:Articles_that_need_to_be_wikified page. ? --Quiddity 23:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

(re: translations and maintenance cotw) I both like the coloured boxes, and dislike them, at the same time. sigh. -Quiddity

TipofTheDay, i've looked at the code but cannot fix the "Next tip" link, which has been broken for a few days now (all days, all templates). If someone could look at it that'd be great. --Quiddity 23:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this done? Can we update it? --Quiddity 06:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

To your query above, I meant that it's worth it to have a short summary like the other COTWs because we won't have to update it every week.--Here T oHelp 12:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok.

I've updated the "Other collabs" template to "Collabs by topic". The whole draft is ready to be copied straight across, if nothing else needs to be changed.

I'd like for us to move the draft2b page to Community Portal/Draft. and then put an infobox/banner at the top of this page pointing redesigners to the draft page (in the style of the "Archives" infobox, or like the purple banner we have on Help talk:Contents now). And point the Draft's talk page to here. Could someone more experienced at redirects/moves do that? thanks. --Quiddity 20:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I will. I haven't seen a dissent for draft 2b, so I guess I'm free to upload it.--Here T oHelp 20:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Semied again

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.--Here T oHelp 18:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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).--Here T oHelp 20:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Feedback Desk

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)

I have added this. I will also put it up on the CBB.--Here T oHelp 11:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Will do.--Here T oHelp 11:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

the cbb

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)

Please do. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the projects/portals/collabs into a 3 column layout, to see if that works better. (i can't eliminate the large gap under the title row? gahd i hate tables!)

feel free to revert if broken or just disliked. -Quiddity 18:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Colorful templates

There are now two templates {{FCPtopic}} and {{SPATRAtopic}} that completely distort the design and color layout. It needs to be fixed. Renata 23:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into that.--Here T oHelp 03:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

All good changes. thanks :) -Quiddity 05:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 17:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Collaboration Section

For some reason the left column does not properly display (I'm running IE). The Edit link is half over the right column and the text is cut off by the start of the right column. Can you please check into that? Thanks. --Mmounties (Talk) 19:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems in this. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 19:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't replicate it (i dont have IE6.0, and it seems ok in firefox, opera, and IE5.5), so more details or a screenshot might be useful.

Is it just within the collaborations section? or just within the "article improvement drive" subsection? Also, I changed the widths (in css) from 50% to 49%, did that fix it? Thanks :) -Quiddity 20:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Community Bulletin Board

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. --Primat e^#101 03:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

i don,t know wikipedia in english?

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).

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)

Still Formatting Troubles

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)

I changed the width method, did that fix it? thanks -Quiddity 07:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What about removing permanently the "redirect button" from the editing tools?

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)

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)

strange sizing

The COllaborations section (the orange one) is looking pretty strange...it's wider than the rest. --Osbus 23:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Not anymore --Osbus 20:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia talk archives