Wikipedia talk:Goings-on/Archive 1

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

March 7, 2004

Thoughts on the new page

I like the idea and implementation of this page. I think there is room for both this and Wikipedia:Announcements Thanks for doing it people/person. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:47, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I too like the idea of this page. May I suggest you also include newly promoted sysadmins? →Raul654 01:06, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to add any sections, or info to this page, as with any wikipedia article of course. I'm not sure what a sysadmin is. We've got a place to note new administrators (two already this week!), did you not spot this, or are sysadmins something different?  :) fabiform | talk 14:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oops. You're right - I missed tha part ;) →Raul654 17:22, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've added a summary of the mailing lists this week, but now I'm not sure whether that was a good idea. For a start, it looks far too long, and secondly, I haven't had time to link these to the posts in the archives. Any thoughts on whether it's worth keeping in and whether it should be done again next week? Angela. 21:57, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think this was the greatest idea ever, Angela, and I don't even know how to thank you enough for doing this! — Of course, links to the archives would be nice, and we can start doing that this week. — Timwi 00:08, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 14, 2004

Browser issues

There are problems with this page (and last weeks) for, at least, IE5.5 users. You have to scroll to the right to see the right-hand side of the text. This is one of very few pages that this is the case for, and is probably the fault of the fairly elaborate HTML rather than wiki markup used to create the page. NB. I am viewing this with the cologne blue skin. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:56, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MSIE 5.5 bug. Upgrade to MSIE 6 or a real browser fixes it. Specifically MSIE 5.5 doesn't know what to do with table percentages when combined with padding on individual cells. — Jor (Darkelf) 10:07, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I can't upgrade - work computer. There are millions like me. Your proposal is not a solution. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:27, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It seems it was, as removing the percentage width—according to your edit summary—fixes MSIE 5.5 without breaking proper browsers. — Jor (Darkelf) 11:15, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just to clarify: Yep, removing the width was a solution, but me upgrading wasn't. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction re the width thing. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:39, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed this from the page: "In a sense, it's an announcement page, but it is supposed to collect even those kinds of information that are normally not announced on pages like Wikipedia:Announcements (e.g. arbitration progress, outspoken newcomers, amusing things, etc.). However, please notice that this page is explicitly not for discussion. When listing topics here that are being discussed or have been discussed, please link to the appropriate discussion page and discuss it there." FSOB, (for sake of brevity) this might be better put here, as it makes the page a bit topheavy. Maybe we need a Wikipedia:brevity in Wikipedia page descriptions -SV(talk) 04:31, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Whoops! now I get it - that was just a form. OK, reverted. SV(talk) 04:35, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 28, 2004

Meta

Anthere has created a Goings-on at Meta. Starting from next week, I will put the information from Wikipedia-l, Intlwiki-l, Wikitech-l , and Wikilegal-l there. Should it also be duplicated here, or would a link to Meta be ok? As far as I know, Wikien-l will only appear here, not at Meta. Similarly, other language-specific emails would only be recorded on the Wikipedia they relate to. Angela. 19:42, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see it duplicated here. Meta is so seldomly used I never think of checking it. — Jor (Talk) 21:03, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Jor. The creation of meta Goings-on is a bit annoying, because with this Goings-on I thought we had finally had a central place to feel the pulse of Wikipedia. So please make sure that we copy the stuff here if at all possible. Fuzheado 00:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Please at least copy the stuff here. This has been really useful for keeping track of things - don't break it up again. Ambivalenthysteria 06:54, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize to Anthere for indirectly attacking her actions. I understand the importance of making things international-friendly, and having a Goings-on in meta is absolutely the right thing to do. Didn't mean to spoil your Wikivacation, Anthere. :) Fuzheado 02:11, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A copy on Meta makes sense to some extent because there's more than just Wikipedia, but only if somebody keeps it up-to-date. If it turns out that the meta version is perpetually neglected it should be deleted.—Eloquence

Broken link

There's something very wrong with the link to the Meta page: has the transclusion system thrown a wobbly? --Phil | Talk 08:19, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Someone must have changed the parsing behavior recently because it was working for a while until one day, blammo. Fuzheado 08:28, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

April 4, 2004

Merge proposal

Please see Wikipedia talk:Community Portal and reply there.—Eloquence

Another merge idea

How would people feel about merging Wikipedia:Announcements into Goings-on, possibly as a sidebar? As it is right now, Wikipedia:Announcements is primarily a place to post statistics about the other Wikipedias. While this is interesting, I am sure it could be shortened, and there's no need to maintain a visible backlog of a month of these instances. Another box could hold ongoing project announcements of the month, which would be carried from one digest to the next.--Eloquence* 20:58, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia:Announcements was more for urgent things, as it can be bolded in recent changes. Goings-on only needs to be read once a week, so anything needing to be read sooner than that should be somewhere else really. Angela. 20:48, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
There's talk on Announcements of cutting down the number of "the ____ wikipedia just passed 300 articles" type entries. This page is supposed to be more community orientated, you wouldn't want to direct people to this page every time it's updated. As Angela says it's supposed to act like a digest. We'd dilute the usefulness of the announcements page if people stopped checking it because they thought the updates were things like what articles were featured on the main page, or something like that. Why do you want to merge this page with any other? If you feel like it's awkward to have to check this page, or you forget to, how about we post an announcement once a week on wikipedia announcements to say that the week's digest has been completed? That way you'd only need to have announcements on your watchlist. fabiform | talk 21:19, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

May 9, 2004

Webby Award

The link to the winner's list doesn't work for me. If it doesn't work for anyone, we should remove it. Could someone else try it? Thanks. moink 14:45, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Seems like webbyawards.com is down. Fredrik 14:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Seems ok now. Angela. 22:16, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

May 30, 2004

Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Day

An article should be created for this to parallel those already in place for Tim Starling and Magnus Manske --Phil | Talk 16:28, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Template namespace

Surprised there's nothing on the project page about all this activity on my watchlist to do with a template namespace. What's it all about? --bodnotbod 20:24, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

June 6, 2004

Don't move talk each week

Since the talk on goings-on is very little, I did not archive talk together with the project page today. It's more sensible to keep the little discussion there is on one page. ✏ Sverdrup 10:30, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok. I've merged the older pages back here too to keep it all in one place. It seemed pointless to archive the old ones if the newer ones won't be done in the same way. Angela. 00:18, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Output page content to Wikipedia:Announcements proposal

I think it would be best to reformat this page into a column and then {{msg}} that at Wikipedia:Announcements - serving a role not-unlike the ongoing events box at current events. Its rather odd to separate the two and thus have to check both. What does everybody else think? --mav 21:03, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea of making this into a template. This way the goings-on could be shown at the Community Portal or/and at other pages (user-pages for example). --Conti|✉ 14:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It might be better to break this up by section. See example at meta:Wikimedia News. That would make the monthly archives a bit harder, but we could have an archive link at the bottom of each section. I think that would be a more natural way to archive. --mav 04:15, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep Archives together

Is there any particular reason why there should be a separate Archive page for each week: could we consolidate the Archives onto a single page, say Wikipedia:Goings-on/Archive? This would allow the progression of news to be followed. It would possibly make it easier to do the archiving. --Phil | Talk 11:50, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

That would quickly exceed 32kb and need to be archived anyway. I think it makes it a lot clearer to keep each week separate, and keeps the page history short enough to be useful. Angela. 23:11, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Angela-- eventually, such a page would get too large and would have to be broken up anyway. Also, it would actually be more work to merge the content each week, instead of just moving the page. --bdesham 02:22, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See also

See also the new Wikipedia:Goings-on in Literature. --Phil | Talk 15:42, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Admins

Ha! I thought I was being bold with "a bumper crop of new admins" last week (which got promptly reverted). Nice wording, Blankfaze, now to see how many minutes it will last. --Ben Brockert 05:22, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

A day and three quarters, I am amazed. I think I spoilt it, there must be an inherent z-limit in the software. --Ben Brockert 03:30, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
Somewhat odd that now Blankfaze is the one to make it more formal. Goings-on would be more enjoyable if it was a bit less formulaic. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:40, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Feb. 8th: Teachers using Wiki

Not sure if this is new, but I think it should be pointed out to the Wiki community that a teacher User:Weaponofmassinstruction is using Wikipedia as a place to coordinate online research/lessons for his students. Perhaps something that could be encouraged and formalized? - RoyBoy [∞] 00:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

autofellatio.jpg

The infamous Image:Autofellatio.jpg is on IfD again. This time, I want the poll to be widely advertised to get a true reflection of the community's opinion. Would it be appropriate to announce it on this page? See also WP:AN/I#Image_talk:Autofellatio.jpg, Image_talk:Autofellatio.jpg. dab (ᛏ) 09:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Defunct COTWs

I think the Canadian and UK COTWs should be taken off here, as they are inactive. See the listing on Wikipedia:COTWs-defunct. Didn't want to do it myself without consensus because it might upset some. --Dmcdevit 04:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP:UKCOTW is not defunct - it is just taking things a little easier of late. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake. I wasn't passing judgment, but it isn't listed on Template:COTWs, so I assumed. What about Canada? --Dmcdevit 16:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Access disparity

Maybe I'm posting in the wrong area, but I couldn't find anywhere to inquire: why is it it takes absolutely an eternity to access some pages, but lightning quick to access others, these requests all taking place at the same time? There's a piece of vandalism I've been wanting to revert now, but it keeps giving me no response errors when I can easily edit everything else. -- Natalinasmpf 17:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) would probably be the best place to ask that. Or on the wikitech-l mailing list. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:51, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Collaborations

Shouldn't the section heading "Current live Collaborations of the Week" be changed to "Current live Collaborations" since many of the former COTWs have now switched to the more reasonable schedule of Collaborations of the Fortnight? BlankVerse ∅ 06:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes Phoenix2 22:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was also a sudden influx of new and relaunched collaborations that need to be added to the Goings-on. Image:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 05:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clutter

Is it just me, or has the Goings-on page gotten far too cluttered? I'm removing the VfD and Place to Help Out templates. Places To Help Out is a never-changing template, making it totally pointless for what's supposed to be a dynamic page with the latest Wikipedia happenings. The VfD template is also unneeded; just go to VfD itself to find the same thing. Isomorphic 2 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Who made this page into such an awful mess? Stand forward, so I can flog you with a wet noodle! This is supposed to be a wiki, and the page is so damn full of formatting that I can't edit it without screwing stuff up. Could someone PLEASE remove the Place to Help Out and VfD templates? Isomorphic 2 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
I'd like to make a suggestoin -- there's no need to list the main page FAs here anymore since we got the archive last august. Might I suggest a layout like this:
.............news...........
----------------------
collaborations | FAs/PPs/FLs

I think that such a setup would reduce clutter and maintence while keeping this page useful. And yes, I agree that the recently removed stuff was horribly cluttering. →Raul654 July 3, 2005 02:31 (UTC)

I agree with Isomorphic. The VfD listing hadn't been updated since June 27, so I've removed that. The admins list was already tried at Wikipedia:Nooks (which now redirects here) and was rarely updated. The most recent version of that page shows the admins list wasn't updated between 6 and 22 June. The "places to help out" is useful, but not the primary purpose of this page, so I've moved it right to the end. I've added section headers and re-enabled section editing which makes editing this a lot easier. Angela. July 3, 2005 02:36 (UTC)
Thinking of merges, it might be useful to have Current surveys, Announcements, and Watch (or some of it) on the same page. Angela. July 3, 2005 02:40 (UTC)

I've just found the new special page includes feature, and it's tempting me to add more clutter. If the FA section is going, would either of the following sections be useful? Angela. July 3, 2005 03:40 (UTC)


5 new pages

5 latest edits

12 June 2008



I think of this page as a mini-version of the Signpost: a place to get a quick read on what's going on lately. The most recent few edits and most recent few articles are a bit too dynamic for my tastes. They tell you what's been going on in the last few minutes, not in the last few days. If others feel differently, of course, it's not a big deal. I'm just happy to see the page smaller. Thanks much to both of you, Angela and Raul. Isomorphic 3 July 2005 05:22 (UTC)
I agree with Isomorphic -- lists bad, prose good. →Raul654 July 3, 2005 05:26 (UTC)

I've switched back to the "classic" less-cluttered goings-on look, with one change -- I replaced the main page FAs with the collaborations of the week. What do you guys think of the look? →Raul654 July 4, 2005 01:20 (UTC)

I like. This version requires people to be good about adding non-routine events in order to make it useful, but that shouldn't be a problem. Isomorphic 4 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)

VfD was supposed to have been updated by bot. I merged most of this stuff in as a way of ending the poorly-updated, impossibly-named "Nooks and corners of Wikipedia that should be frequented", but have no particular attachment to it. If it's not useful and still not being updated, remove it. --Michael Snow 03:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Whats the point of this page

Isn't it the same thing as the Community Portal or am I wrong. If it isn't its still far out of date on the General collaborations. Falphin 8 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)

I mainly tune in for the new Featured items. For that alone, I feel it's useful; links to collaborations and major issues under discussion are also helpful to editors like myself who don't often get into the 'guts' of the operations around here. Radagast 03:13, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Change in the Announcement and Goings-on page

After some discussion (see here, the Announcement and Goings-on have had a change in page design, and in policy. Please check these two pages. CG 18:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

A short discussion not even highlighted here shouldn't be used for a major revamp. I, like others (see above), use this page to see what's been promoted recently to featured status - why should this functionality be removed? jguk 19:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with Jguk. Do not change the formatting of this page. →Raul654 19:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
I've posted this proposal many times but I got no response. The few users who talked about it seemed to have agreed. Anyway, if you want to participate, what's your opinion. My main idea with the change, is to solve two problems: one is the issue that many users aren't sure what to write in the Announcement page, and second is the fact that the Goings-on page is inactive. For more details see the two templates {{WP:A header}} and {{GO header}}, and read the discussion. CG 20:35, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree that it is inactive - the reason there's nothing in the "featured" section at the moment is that nothing has been raised to featured status this week so far. I have read your proposal now, and to the extent that it suggests that some more goings-on might be added to this page, maybe you're right. Add one or two at the bottom, see how it goes. As far as not being sure what is meant to be on this page, is it true people are confused? I would have thought the headers gave the game away, but am happy to be persuaded on this. However, I remain of the view that a major change is not necessary - and certainly I oppose eliminating any of the news already reported on this page, jguk 21:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm amazed that someone proposes a policy without even the most cursory glance to see how something works. Goings-on, as it currently is, is one of the most used pages on Wikipedia, but as Jguk says, is archived every week. It's a very, very useful page, and does not need revamping, particularly not along the lines mentioned. Ambi 21:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Didn't mean to disrupt anyone. I've just meant to be bold. Anyway, if the fact that I removed by mistake the "featured" content, I'm sorry, I'll put it back, but you didn't revert my edit for this small thing, please clarify you problem. Also I don't agree with Ambi on the usefullness of the page: It shows current collaborations which are found in the community portal, and the featured content that are found in the logs. The remaining of the page still inactive. Thank you. CG 21:14, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
The entire point of this page is to bring together the information so one doesn't have to go looking on ten different pages to get it. That is why this page was created. The goings-on list, the recently promoted FA, FL and FP lists, the current collaborations, and the pointers to other pages - that is why this page is here. If you've got ideas for other things you want to add, then this could well be useful, but please don't come in and wreck one of the most heavily used pages on Wikipedia with minimal discussion. Ambi 21:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Nothing is lost, you've reverted all the changes I made in one minute. I've posted proposals about the changes I've made many times, but I got no response. So instead of shouting why don't you start a discussion about my proposal to reach consensus. Thank you. CG 08:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
What do you want to add? If you want to throw out the reason the page was created (as your attempt tried to do, apparently because you didn't understand its purpose), then you won't get far, but if you've got things that've been missed, then by all means - several new sections have been added to this page since it began. Ambi 10:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Archive Sep 25

Hi all. I've jumped in and created the Sep 18th Archive because I am promoting featured pics this morning and I didn't want to keep adding them to last week... What I haven't done though is remove the article collaberations and News items. I see that some / all of them they weren't removed last week either and I confess I didn't know what to do with them.

Could someone please attend to that part? I hope I haven't created more work for anyone.

Thanks ~ Veledan • Talk + new 10:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Goings-on, Announcements, and The Signpost should be merged

WP:GO, WP:A, and WP:SIGN all basically serve to keep us informed. Anyone that regularly visits one of those pages is likely to be interested in the other two. Having them separate is resulting in duplicated effort. Examples:

  • The featured pictures/articles/lists are duplicated in the Signpost's weekly "Features and admins" article.
  • Anything significant in the Announcements page is duplicated in the Signpost's articles (and if it's not covered, it probably should be!)
  • Here, the goings-on bit about servers in Seoul was duplicated at Announcements
  • Every week on Goings-on we have the line "Issue X of the Wikipedia Signpost published"

It would be nice if they all in one place that could tell us everything that's really going on. Coffee 14:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad someone is interested in this idea. I've suggested a proposal to improve these 3 pages, or at least the Goings-on and the Announcement: The Announcement page would be for news about Wikipedia as a site, or about the wikimedia foundations, and the goings-on is a more liberal page where every user could post news about the community (see Template:WP:A header and Template:GO header for details). But this propsal never got implemented because it didn't have much discussion. As for your idea, I might approve to merge the Annoucement and Goings-on, but the Signpost is unique, it's like a newspaper with a detailed description about the event. CG 16:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not like the idea of combining WP:GO and WP:A, because I rarely read WP:A and I'm really much more focused on editing articles (particularly in collaboration with others) and I wouldn't want all the announcements to distract me from the links to articles where I can contribute, which are the major focus of WP:GO. I also agree that the Signpost is unique and should remain separate for that reason.Mamawrites 17:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

They're all different things. Announcements is for notices about the development of Wikipedia as a site. Goings-on is to bring together a whole bunch of things that people would otherwise have to go to a bunch of pages to find. And this is a newspaper about Wikipedia. All three have their place. I say to Coffee - it hardly hurts to put three different pages on your watchlist, seeing as they're for different things, and to Cedar-Guardian - you didn't understand what WP:GO was for, you messed with it, you were unilaterally criticised for it, so please just give up now. Ambi 05:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Please Ambi, stop criticising every suggestion I make. I admit being guilty of wrecking the Goings-on page, but stop your attacks. I'm not anymore free to give my ideas because I've made one mistake before? CG 15:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I agree about the Signpost being distinct enough to be separate. But IMO, the level of activity at WP:A and WP:GO is so low that there's no need to have them seperate pages. Coffee 06:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with WP:GO remaining separate, jguk 07:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ambi, Mamawrites, and Jguk - I think all three should remain seperate. →Raul654 15:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I like Goings-on as is - "information at a glance". It's precisely because of this that it's the only one I look at regularly; I never look at Announcements, and don't read Signpost as often as I should.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Main page articles

Where did the list of these disappear to? It used to have its own box on this page with the articles that had appeared on the main page in that particular week. Ambi 14:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The last I can find is Wikipedia:Goings-on/June 26, 2005, when IIRC there was a feeling what WP:GO was covering too many topics and was getting a bit too large - it seems to be one of the boxes that was deleted when the page format was revised the following week (see Wikipedia:Goings-on/July 3, 2005). There is always Wikipedia:Tomorrow's featured article and its monthly subpages. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't move Talk every week

This Talk page really ought to stay at Wikipedia talk:Goings-on, at least until it is long enough to be archived. Right now this page has double- and triple-redirects pointing to it every week because of all the unnecessary moves. --Russ Blau (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Goings-on should be merged into Community Portal

Community Portal is supposed to be a hub of activity, but it is pretty static compared to Goings-on which covers the same major topic: collaborations. The two could be combined for great effect since Community Portal is on the navigation menu of every page, yet it usually takes a user awhile to initially find Wikipedia:Goings-on, which is the real center of community activity and information. Another compelling reason to merge them is that they are largely replicative of each other. --Go for it!

I would support this merger --Donar Reiskoffer 13:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much of a reason for a Going-on page. The community portal is both well known and displayed in the navigation pane, and that should be the place for Wikipedia related happenings. Elfguy 13:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I see the community portal as more of a central point for items of permanent interest to the community, whereas this page is for more ephemeral items that come and go each week. I'm not sure it makes sense to merge the two functions together. I don't watch or read the community portal, but I do look at this. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Due to the steady stream of support from this talk page and the Community Portal's talk page, I've started adding the content from here to there. Much of this page was already there (the collaborations list and this page's See Also section for instance were entirely redundant). The information fits together quite well. --Go for it! 16:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So long as a good venue for new featured content can be put up on the Portal, I support this merge. Radagast 16:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What an awful idea. The community portal is for editing related concerns; this is a more general purpose notification board. Raul654 02:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Jumped the gun

Yeesh, wait a minute! I have this page on my watchlist and didn't see the above discussion until now. Please do not merge two important, widely used pages without bringing it up for a wider venue, preferably at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). No harm can come from waiting. Do not do that again.--Sean Black (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Making it easier to get here

To me this is a very important page, but for the most part it seems to be hidden. The majority of what links here seems to be User pages (which is how I ended up finding it). I think this is also part of the reason multiple people have suggested mergers, because this is a crucial page that really needs to be advertised more. While a very prominent link at the Community portal might work, my preferred idea is putting a link to Goings-on in the main navigation section, just under Community Portal. Any thoughts? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No, addition of links to the navigation panel should be extremely limited, so that they all remain usable even on small screens and lower resolutions. Goings-on doesn't nearly rate that level of importance, especially in its current state. Much of what it does is often done better elsewhere, which is why there's a push to merge it. Spamming links to a lame page all over will not make the page any better. Figuring out what niche (if any) the page can fill, making sure that it does so, and then making it visible in the places people look for that niche, is what actually needs to happen. --Michael Snow 00:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I guess someone already merged this. In my opinion, putting a link on the community portal sounds good to me, but I don't think that merging this page with the Community Portal is a good idea. The Community Portal is already pretty full and I like having a separate page for happenings, etc. I think that merging was a bad idea because the Community Portal is getting too big to be effective. When something reaches a certain size, people just ignore most of it. --Think Fast 01:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Precisely - I do not watch the Community Portal because it contains all sorts of stuff that I don't want to read. I do watch this because it is very focused. I am slightly surprised that Michael Snow thinks it is "lame" and "[m]uch of what it does is often done better elsewhere". I agree that there are other places that do similar things (the Signpost catches up, a week in arrears, and there are announcements pages and news pages on the Pump, for example) but I think this pages has its own niche already. Perhaps we need to debate exactly what this page ought to be doing, as Michael suggests? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
What I was getting at was that the page has lost a lot of the elements it once had that made it useful, and acquired others like the list of collaborations that I find less so, since those are on the Community Portal. If it can be ahead of The Signpost on things, great. But The Signpost may eventually mature enough to go off its weekly cycle and publish on a steadier, more constant basis. Perhaps at that point it will be time to definitively retire this page. --Michael Snow 20:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge suggestion withdrawn

Expanding the Community Portal doesn't mean this page has to disappear. Several users stated they liked the compact format. So if we can make everyone happy, there's no reason not to. --Go for it! 06:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)