Wikipedia talk:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft2a

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

Talk

This is looking really good. I like the ordering, and the layout, and that only the policies have their shortcuts listed. I even quite like the totd now that it's at the bottom and only 50% wide :)

  • I'd still prefer the intro/icons to be vastly shorter (taking up maybe 1/3 their current screen-height?).
  • Could we also vastly shorten the intro text at the bulletin board? (not my forte or domain) That would get a lot more info-content into the top of the CP page.
    I'm resigned to the fact that there is no way to make the bulletin board thinner, so it is stuck being the sole content at the top until it gets a vast redesign/splintering.
  • also still some missing content (irc was what i couldnt find). i'll copy over the Structure list from the redesign page, and you/we could cross things out. (maybe on the original list we could add whether the info is templatized or not.) --Quiddity 00:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. This actually started in my sandbox, and I owe --Aude for getting the columns to align properly (which I couldn't do to save my life). It should be just about done by the end of the week. Why so long? To do:
  • Shorten lead, possibly ditch icons altogether;
  • Standardize the lists. Periods after sentances or not?
  • Get the code nice and clean; no more of Go for it!'s signature line of dashes in the comment bar or CLICK HEREs.
  • General tweaking
  • Get community aproval (really important!)

I'll go through and use that Structure section now; good idea.--HereToHelp 00:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I find the wiki table code very confusing too ;) and am frustrated that we're using tables and not pure css throughout wikipedia, but i don't have time to investigate that right now. summer maybe :) -Quiddity 01:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
no icons preferred. and no full stops preferred, then we're not implying they're proper sentences, hence can be shorter, conciser(!).
I'd like to continue exploring colour/design options too, but getting the structure/content/layout right is the most important bit. i'll try to give it some more time tonight. --Quiddity
The colors are right off the Main Page. And was that a "No, icons [are] preferred" or "No icons [are] preferred"?--HereToHelp 01:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I dropped the deletion part because it seemed in the same category as Main Page departments, dispute resolution, etc., and it was unfair to leave the former in and the latter out. I put in the "About Wikipedia" section, but that's up in the air and it's really dead space. Unfortunatly, not enough dead space for newly featured stuff, and I'll be sad to see that go. But I just can't find a spot for it...it's so big and needs to be counterbalanced with something...--HereToHelp 01:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't like icons, in general ;) too subjective aesthetically, whereas minimalism (typography/wording/layout) can please (almost) everyone if done well. In fact, do we need the iconed version of the Sister projects template?
Don't try too hard to keep the sub-columns the same heights, they'll vary over the coming months of use. Particularly the Article Improvement Drive height.
Main Page depts is already on the Talk:Main Page in top right blue box. didnt need to be here at all.
Still missing info from the bottom two boxes (orange and yellow) at current CP. I recall recent complaints at talk were about not being able to find links that had been there for years (such as deletion, MoS, basically stuff out of the two sections: Ways to Communicate, and Common Procedures (i've added to the list below)). (those links were what was expanded into the "Deletion Departments" and other large bits in the contentious design.) so we should scan through those a few more times and try to add back a bit. --Quiddity 05:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I tweaked the header a little ;) late night experiments.
i think i'm agreeing with, put all the news links within the CBB template, because if it's gonna stay and be huge, might as well make it densely useful.
2 minor things: the "Collaborations" header subtitle won't wordwrap at 1024 anymore, if we have ~15 letters less. can someone rewrite?
And can we reword the subtitle for the "Article improvement teams"? it's verging on ambiguously insulting! --Quiddity 09:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll get to that but I'm busy in real life now. I think that the icons on the bottom should stay because everyone is used to them and they know what they mean; the others were new. I'm not worried about the height of the sub-columns; I'm aware that they will fluctuate. Again, the "About Wikipedia" section is a miscellany of links; feel free to look that over. I'll work on this later today. Looks great so far, and agree, simple and agreeable formatting is a good idea on this hotly contested page.--HereToHelp 11:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm worried that this will lose support because it doesn't have the recently featured things. Should we include this or not? And where do we put it?--HereToHelp 13:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
That was another recent addition, so i don't think there'll be an upset. More particularly, it would Vastly increase the page length to add it (one of the main problems with the contentious design. it was turning into a complete-table-of-contents. which would be useful to have somewhere but not here.) The only way possible i think, would be to make it and the CBB into parallel columns. (too complicated at this time. maybe see how the CBB develops with use over the next few months before potentially overhauling its design completely?)
Also, i still think we should get the Wikipedia:Featured content portal improved enough that it can replace the new Wikipedia:Featured articles link in the nav-sidebar; i'm thinking put the "recently featured" content in a column on the right under the ToC. I'll experiment with that later. --Quiddity 18:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree to both of those points. I guess I'm responsible for the bad design at Wikipedia:Featured content: It used to be this really good black and gold design, but I added links to the headers and not knowing how to make them gold, they stayed blue, it looked ugly, and the page got altered around that. I'm going to try to resurrect that in my sandbox; feel free to help.--HereToHelp
I like the improvements you both have made to the draft. As for the "new featured content", how about adding a link to it (not sure what "it" is) on Wikipedia:Featured_articles, after the "Featured portals" in the top-right box? --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I was figuring the actual "Featured content:" header of that box could be made the wikilink. I changed it at WP:FC (but it stays black as a self-link should). --Quiddity 19:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I actually like the current WP:FC colours, that black/gold is a little extreme! When i say improve, i meant tighten/clarify layout-wise and intro-text-wise (too long). --Quiddity 19:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I really like the black and gold, but whatever. I'll work on the layout (and getting the stuff to display on a 60 second cycle), and then we do the colors. I guess this means the Community Portal's done though? (besides some minor tweaks)--HereToHelp 19:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry ;) that style didnt blend at all with any other wikipedia page though.
I meant something like this: WP:FC column demo (but with the "new featured content" in a single column obviously). --Quiddity 19:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Structure

KEY:

  • striked out entries are in the design.
  • Bold entries are missing and disputable; feel free to add them in as long as you update this list.
  • Regular text signifies items that are not present and it's pretty clear they should go (parentheses after them explain the logic).


Possible content on the community portal:

  • About Wikipedia
    • Community information
    • Watchlists
  • Collaborations
    • Active collaborations
    • Collaboration of the week
    • Article Improvement Drive
    • Good Article Collaboration of the week
    • Other collaborations
  • Deletion (not needed in such detail on a general page)
  • Dispute resolution (link in policies section; a whole section is too much)
  • Editing
  • Featured content (accessible from Main Page)
    • New featured content (articles, pictures, lists, portals) (see above comment)
    • Featured status "departments" (see above)
  • Help
  • Main Page "departments" (already on Talk:Main Page)
  • News (delegated to a section of links in the CBB but no advanced section; that would be too much)
    • Community Bulletin Board
    • Wikipedia news (see above comment)
  • Projects
    • Ongoing projects
  • Related communities
  • Things to do
    • Maintenance tasks, requests, ...
    • General maintenance (merged with below)
    • Active improvement teams
    • Fix-up projects
  • Tip of the day
  • Writing/Reference resources
    • Policies, conventions and guidelines (still a few)
    • How to resolve conflicts (link in policies and guidelines section)
    • Resources (maybe this belongs on Help:Contents), but disputable)

Comments and notation above by HereToHelp 01:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

After changing a few above, i've had a thought. (uh oh). We could have a miniaturized & reduced copy of the Help:Contents menu at the bottom. that could solve everything. (and then lead us to the inevitable updating the look of the Help:Contents page after/during this (wheee) because that page should really all fit on one screen of 1024)
the 2x2 purple square of boxes mentioned at help's talkpage a while ago.
Quick Help | Editing Help
Meta Help | Tip of the day

but the copy at bottom of CP doesnt need, oh hell, i've got about 4 conflicting theories all trying to develop simulaneously in my head. Sleep. More thinking and staring needed. --Quiddity 07:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Things that might be missed by longtime users

Some of them need to be moved to Help:Contents pages, some integrated in CP (some are already and i missed), some can be ignored. I took the feb 13 CP bottom sections, and whittled the list down to these. (see july or oct for comparison. Most of these links have been there a long time.. Then see draft1a for recent potentially useful additions). Delete/Edit freely as we go. --Quiddity

I'm going to merge in "About Wikipedia" in this. I've added more policies and guidelines so we have room. I cut out a lot of stuff (some redundant, some irrelevant, some just moved) and may need to kill one more section...New user info seems a little rendundant to the help system. Resolving disputes we can keep (space allowing), if in another box, because it deals with the people side of Wikipedia.HereToHelp 12:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Great work, thanks. :)
Before i forget again, i think we need the links from Wikipedia:Community_Portal/Draft1a#Community support groups and programs too. And check the news section just above it for anything missed. After that it's just tweaking and cleanup i think. --Quiddity 18:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

About Wikipedia

Category-based access to pages about Wikipedia

Community information

About Wikipedia · About Wikimedia · Wikipedians · Administrators · Babel · Donations · Culture · Humor · Games

New user information

Welcome! · New user tutorial · Sandbox · Help · New user log · What Wikipedia is not · Glossary · Account benefits

Ways to communicate

Contact (overview) · Village pump (News, Policy, Technical, Proposals, Assistance, Miscellaneous) · Discussion pages · Mailing lists · IRC chat · Instant Messaging · In person meetings · User pages · Surveys · Public watchlists · Regional notice boards

How to resolve conflicts

Stay cool! · Be nice to newcomers · Alert others · Request assistance from a members' advocate · Dispute resolution · Arbitration policy

Resources

Ask a question · How to edit a page (Wiki markup) · Special pages · Basic topics · Contributing · Improving articles · Writing a great article · Sources for articles · Templates · Image list · Tools · Newspapers and magazines request service · FAQ list

Formatting of lists

How do we present lists of links? Bullets, like the other collaborations? ·s like the About Wikipedia section? Or just plain, like the Policies and guidelines section?

Some say that we need consistency. Others say that would lead to a dull page. I say that we might as well do a bit of each, because that's how it's formatted right now and I don't want to overhaul it. Your ideas?--HereToHelp 12:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we leave as is. i like the middots. --Quiddity 18:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so long as the community at large does.--HereToHelp 18:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

New featured content

I've have transcluded Template:Announcements/New featured pages onto Wikipedia:New featured content. This is now linked to from Wikipedia:Featured articles, in Template:FCpages. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Your point being...? We're going to leave it out anyway; so it's good it is visble elsewhere.--HereToHelp 16:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I left a message here (see above) regarding this. Just a follow up so people know where it is now. I also suggest making the boxes and columns line up neatly. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, i meant to mention that i put the integration proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_content#Proposal! But your idea works too. maybe mention it there. (i'm late IRL). thanks! I do prefer the integrated idea - less splintering, and help the page serve a dual purpose - but let's see what anyone else thinks. :) --Quiddity 18:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm open to your idea (if implemented well), but not sure it would go over well. While featured portals, pictures, etc. are all important, Wikipedia is first and foremost about the articles. Also, as is, there already is some discussion about redesigning the Featured articles page to better handle the increasing number of featured articles listed. Adding to that other featured content, and the list of "new featured content" on one page I think would be overwhelming. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Keep it on the FC page but not here. So, what else do we have to do here or can we submit this for community approval?--HereToHelp 19:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The columns need to line up, and maybe reduce the # of boxes by combining things. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
For example, "Things to do" and "Fix-up projects". Put them in one box, with the h2 headings separating them. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The columns will never line up perfectly because there's always fluctuating templates. I'll try to combine boxes, but it's nice having some things separate.--HereToHelp 19:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I think kmf164 means alter the table code, so that the coloured border extends downwards with whitespace to make up for column differences. as per Main Page. (i dont know wikicode nearly well enough to attempt). --Quiddity 21:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't like that. Maybe a sort of justification style with evenly distributed whitespace?--HereToHelp 21:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Still to go: The About Wikipedia section still has a lot of duplication that can be removed. I'll move some of the "resources" links to Editing and Help. And can we move that "Category-based access to pages about Wikipedia" line somewhere appropriate?
Finally, before i forget again, i think we need the links from Wikipedia:Community_Portal/Draft1a#Community support groups and programs too. And to check the news section just above it for anything missing in our draft. After that it's just tweaking and cleanup i think. --Quiddity 01:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Things i'm not sure about. I'll do #2 & #3 as a revertible edit. --Quiddity 02:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. move "How to resolve conflicts" links to top of WP:DR page (remove section here).
  2. move "Category-based access to pages about Wikipedia" link down to the "Community information" section
  3. move the "Administrators noticeboard" link down to "Ways to communicate" section
I've played around with the table formatting and the best I could come up with now is User:Kmf164/Workshop. The table/border styles are somewhat different, more subtle, fewer boxes, and the columns line up neatly. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. Change the Collaborations to be purple (ie, not adjacent to the other purple things) and fix the box-in-a-box issue for the Tip of the Day.--HereToHelp 02:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm open to trying purple, but first have tried the orangish colors used on commons. Not sure that I like it next to the blue and green, but it's a simple matter to swap these colors for something else, though. As for the box-in-box, we could get rid of it. But, I'm thinking it helps the TOTD to stand out a bit more, distinguising it from the other content in the section. Maybe there's a different way to do that, though. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Still lots of internal box borders there that could be removed. I removed the grey internal borders from the boxes here, looks a lot cleaner (imo). Am still working on table length.. --Quiddity 06:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I liked it so much after flipping back and forth between the two, that I imported the design and colour scheme. I took out all the unnecessary internal borders, leaving just a single line down the center of each, which i think makes it look even cleaner and less boxy.
Aside from the 3 "Other items" below, i'm completely happy with this now. --Quiddity 09:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The purple, blue, and green were imported right of the Main Page. The orange isn't; but if it's the same saturation and stuff as its counterparts (I know nothing about hex triplets) I guess it's alright.--HereToHelp 11:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Yup, kmf164 tweaked the commons colours orange/blue to get a match. Looks nice i think. --Quiddity 19:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks good then. Uh, dare I say it, but are we ready to post this on Wikipedia talk:Community Portal?--HereToHelp 20:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Two things... the edit links should be here, so people can make changes to specific sections without edit conflicts. Also, where we list the policies, I think they should be in alphabetical order (or some logical order). --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to take care of both. Though, for me the edit links are showing up in the wrong places. Not sure why. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, alphabetical order is nice (especially because it puts Be bold first). The edit link seem fine to me, and show up in the right places. Maybe you could elaborate on what's wrong?--HereToHelp 20:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Try clicking on the edit links. The one next to "Fix-up projects" for example, brings up the "Article Improvement Drive" section. Some other edit links bring up different sections, too. It's helpful to have these links if they behave as expected. Not sure what's wrong with them. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Ick, they do indeed. I don't know what's wrong, either. If Quiddity's stumped, too, I say just remove them. It's not the end of the world.--HereToHelp 20:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it more over over the weekend and try to resolve. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
'Other than that, is this ready?--HereToHelp 20:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's pretty much ready. Perhaps I'll find a link missing that we might want to add (can always be done later), but nothing obvious. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, then I'll post at Wikipedia talk:Community Portal#Proposed new design (It could take a few minutes).--HereToHelp 21:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm stumped (on the edit links business). (maybe we should mention in your post at CPtalk, or at VPt, to get help.)
Apart from that, yeah, completely ready to go. I'm sure everyone else will tell us what we missed now anyway ;) --Quiddity 22:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
(deindent) Possibly it's answered at Help:Editing_sections_of_included_templates or Help:Section#Section_editing. I'm late i'm late.. (back in an hour. will re-read/decipher then) -Quiddity 22:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I'll mention that. ("Unindent" might have been better, but whatever...)--HereToHelp 22:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit links

I fixed 'em :) Apparantly, "edit" links arent autogenerated if you make a spaced heading (diff). I did the same thing for the subheadings in "Resources" section; that way there arent 8 "edit"s right on top of each other. --Quiddity 11:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it had something to do with the h2 headers? Anyway, now that they work, keep them in (it encourages content changes without changing style).--HereToHelp 11:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't add them back in, they were what was breaking(mis-targeting) the edit-link links! Hence removing them cleared up the problem. ;-) --Quiddity 19:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
No, the [edit] links in general.--HereToHelp 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, the 8 subsection ones in resources? Done. I think it makes it look very cluttered though. One can easily click the "edit" link next to the "Resource" title to get them all in a clean list. I'd suggest that we remove them again. --Quiddity 20:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
No! I was worried that we may have to kill the links because they didn't work properly. Now they do, so keep them. I agree that you should not have all of those subsections linked. Also: I think we need a different shade of purple for the CBB and related communities are, one that matches the more grayish hue of that the three main boxes use for their border. Can you handle that? (I can't.)--HereToHelp 20:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
We could go to either: a different purple, or to the gray as used on the Main Page header (see Wikipedia:Colours), or eliminate the box altogether as suggested elsewhere (and make a compact list of the sister projects, as at current CP). I have no strong preference, though weakly incline towards removing it, to shorten the whole page.
Also:I fixed the bottom white-space issues at CBB too, by moving the _NOTOC_ notice to the top (it was causing a <p><br></p> to appear for some reason). --Quiddity 21:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I say let's kill it. But the point is still relevant because of the border on the CBB. Let's use the grayer purple (#afa3bf; I just noticed that colors page) over #ddcef2. Take it into an offline text document and run a "Find/Replace" on it.--HereToHelp 21:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
(edit confl)I've changed it to demo the sisterprojects as an embedded subsection. I don't think i like it, looks way more cluttered. Feel free to rvt once you've seen. I'll do colour alternative tests/demos once i've had lunch ;) --Quiddity 21:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks okay, and it's good to have room for more policies there. The point was to link to the community pages of those projects, though.--HereToHelp 21:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Heh! whoops. fixing. -Quiddity 23:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I'm trying to shorten the 2nd line from the page intro addendum. Options:

  1. (current)The Village pump is a discussion forum on a variety of topics, including technical issues, policies, assistance, proposals, news, and the concerns of other Wikipedians.
  2. The Village pumps are our discussion forums on a variety of Wikipedia-oriented topics.
  3. The Village pumps are our discussion forums for Wikipedians about Wikipedia (News, Policy, Technical, Proposals, Assistance, Miscellaneous).
  4. The Village pumps are our discussion forums for Wikipedians.

i like #3 or #4. I'm going to put #3 in as my final edit tonight, and remove it from the "Help" section (in "Editorial"), which i think leaves the Help section impressively concise (with just 2 links!). (Is that all the more useful/noticable to the lost people it's essentially there for. or redundant and we should remove it?) --Quiddity 08:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Other items to think about:

  • Adding the traditional puzzle logo back at the beginning of the 1st line. (shouldnt take up any more space, will just cause the line to wordwrap slightly earlier)
  • If the CBB is staying as is, then we should transclude the Signpost in it again (top-right?), and noinclude the shortcut box. Then it really will be the-center-of-things at the top of the page.
  • And reduce the intro blurb at the CBB, it's so long. please help with that? thanks. --Quiddity 08:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that there's enough room to have {{signpost subscription}} (or whatever that template is) in the CBB. We get rid of the other stuff about the signpost there. I'll do that now. I'll shorten the blurb, too.--HereToHelp 11:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

comment

This redesign is looking good...the only comment I have is that the the browsebar should be before the intro. To look nicer on top, the browsebar could maybe be elongated. I don't know, I just feel that there should be something heading the portal, and the browsebar is a good idea. --Osbus 14:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As someone who voted to delete the browsebar, i'm obviously biased against it. However, it's also non-contextually relevant here. The community portal is for wikipedia-related links, whereas the browsebar is for browsing the encyclopedic content. So, i'm particularly against it here. (sorry ;) --Quiddity 19:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I see what you mean. But I still think there should be somthing heading the portal. --Osbus 00:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
With no other icons until the bttom of the page, I think that Portal.gif would look tacky with the "Welcome to the Community Portal" blurb.--HereToHelp 02:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hide/Show

Could we possibly make the different sections collapsible like they are for the categorires at Wikipedia:Good articles? That way it would cut down on the obscene amount of scrolling.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe—keep those headers there but collapse the other ones. Maybe, but I can't promise anything.--HereToHelp 03:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Why scrolling? Use the contents box links, for within-page jumping.
I'm against having anything hidden by default. It hinders stumbling upon things that catch your eye.
(maybe we should change the contents box back to the regular square shape ToC, in the top-right or top-left?) --Quiddity 03:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
No, it's fine as is.--HereToHelp 11:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Good

I like the layout but the table of contents could be improved (by prehaps moving it to the right hand side like the current version)Lcarsdata Talk | E-mail | My Contribs 12:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There are a few other supporters of that; if that idea turns out to have a large number of advocates we can change it.--HereToHelp 12:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've put a demo of this in, on the left. I think it's clean and professional looking. Simple and intuitive/traditional in placement. I quite strongly support using this. --Quiddity 00:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Final steps

If, as your edit summary says, we are now 100% done, what now? The response has been positive; do we go ahead and upload this? After uncommenting the categories and interlanguage links, will the community really accept the design?--HereToHelp 02:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm biased, but i would hope that yes and yes. It's very quiet around here with easter weekend, but i think we're good to go. The question is, do we un-fullprotect it at the same time? I havent read the protection rules (not being an admin), so i have no valid opinion on that, up to you, or delegate (hot potato). --Quiddity 03:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

100% sure for launch, i have checked current CP for additions and omissions 1 last time. --Quiddity 04:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll archive the talk and post the new design. Let's keep it protected for a few days so nobody reverts it or makes crucial changes so we can talk it out. Which brings me to that policy we were going to propose. It got a good response on the village pump, so we should go ahead and write it up. But I have no idea what to call it! Wikipedia:Don't make changes to graphical layout without prior discussion? HereToHelp 12:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll see what things are like when i wake up. (5am time for bed ;) I'll try to dream up a title. --Quiddity 12:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll work on it in my sandbox. I can have a bunch of stuff there as long as I'm diligent about giving people diffs.HereToHelp 12:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If you could update with these 2 changes, that would be great:

  • In the "Policies and guidelines" sections, remove the two (center)-(/center) tags,
  • and change the two widths to 92% (per). Thanks. --Quiddity 21:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Done.HereToHelp 21:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

GAC

removed "good article collaboration of the week" subsection as its already listed in "other collaborations" list and nothing makes it more special than anything else in that list (its not policy for example).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)

It's an interesting point, but doesn' that throw off the column balance?HereToHelp 18:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"to do lists" and "editorial departments" are also "unbalanced" so doesnt appear to be an issue. Zzzzz 18:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of content should be brought up at the Wikipedia talk:Community Portal page so that anyone can discuss it. (We were primarily changing the layout and style, and tried to include almost all of the top and traditional content that was at the CP over the last 6 months of changes.) Thanks. --Quiddity 00:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

metacleanup

When it's live, we can begin some of this metacleanup (add anything?): (i dont know much about the deletion process, it's just my urge to clean up things. I think i'll just add cleanup/etc tags from now-on. :) --Quiddity 00:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • historical-archive tag, the Wikipedia:Community_Portal/Site_map and WP:CPSM redirect? And the related sub-page format pages (5 pages, 1 menu bar) from this list.