Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Community portal/Archive 19

< Wikipedia talk:Community portal
Latest comment: 3 years ago by 1234qwer1234qwer4 in topic "Community gateway" listed at Redirects for discussion
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Out of date general notice

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The project page talks mentions adding 3 new task lists to the help out section as a discussion to contribute to, but that was recently archived from this talk page. Is the discussion over and should this notice be removed or should the discussion be unarchived? Mehmuffin (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mehmuffin, thanks for bringing that up (I did not know there was a notice on the portal itself)! The proposal has happened several times now, but has never been completely resolved. Last I heard of this, I was requesting that someone step up and make the necessary changes to the /Opentask page to incorporate the new categories, after which I can update SuggestBot's configuration accordingly. If nothing happens in the coming week or so, I suggest we remove the notice from the portal. Pinging The Transhumanist, JoeHebda, and RekishiEJ since they were all pinged in the archived discussion. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Nettrom I don't think anyone but you actually knows how to make the changes that you referred to. Can you be more specific? Is it simply copying and pasting the mock up? The mock up is located at Wikipedia talk:Community portal/Archive 18#Three added sections/topics for Community Portal - Help out. We look forward to your clarification of the process required. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 02:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, basically it's just a table with 3 rows and 3 columns that need to have 4 rows, and then check the id-tags of each opening span-tag to make sure they're unique. I copied and pasted the mockup into my sandbox so we can work on it there and make sure it works: User:Nettrom/sandbox/opentask One thing that was proposed was to transclude {{Recent changes article requests}} to list suggested articles for creation. I've done that (bottom left table cell) and noticed that the template doesn't create a list. Is there an easy way to listify it? I couldn't find anything in the documentation. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
By the way, you should include five rather than four articles when transcluding the recent changes article requests template.--RekishiEJ (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
RekishiEJ: Last I counted it loaded six articles for me. Not sure how to change that, nor how to make it a list so the design is coherent with the other lists. If you know how, that would be very helpful. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Punjab location is not in Pakistan but India 2600:1000:B02B:AD6C:3513:3E23:7192:38B4 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

a

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

heloo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda2017 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Question about articles for expansion

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all. I noticed that the "more" link in the "Expand New Articles" list links to a stub category that tends to list only a few articles (sometimes no articles at all). I'm honestly a tad confused about how that category is generated, since there are clearly more stubs out there, can anyone help me understand? Afamiglietti (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Afamiglietti: Thanks for bringing this up! I agree that the link isn't helpful, there are two related categories that might be more useful: Category:All stub articles and Category:Stub categories. Not sure which one would be better, maybe the former because it allows someone to find stubs directly? Would be happy to change the category, unless I hear otherwise. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The former is better.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  Done Nettrom (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent <head>

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In most Wikipedias, the tab title (text in the <head> tag of the HTML document) is the page title plus " - Wikipedia". But some also append " - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" (in the corresponding language) and the German wiki appends " – Wikipedia" (the character is apparently called "dash") instead of the minus sign.
Personally, I think the German variant is the best, but in general it should be consistent across languages. Fabian42 (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Ordering of village pump pages

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed that the ordering of village pump pages under the section "interact more" (policy - proposals - idea lab - tech - misc) is different from the ordering on the village pump page and subpages (policy - technical - proposals - idea lab - misc). Should the ordering be standardised (I see no reason not to) and if so, which order should be adapted? Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 13:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The ordering on the village pump page and subpages.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcomes in different languages

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

For some reason I keep getting "welcome to Wikipedia" messages on my user page in different languages all the time. I don't want this and I've never edited a single page in these languages. Why do I get the messages and how do I stop this? Fabian42 (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Again! Lithuanian! I also got messages in the Arabic, Latvian, Indonesian, Romanian, Thai and Italian Wikipedia. I only ever edited pages in the German and English Wikipedia, I didn't even change any interwiki links. You can check that on my contributions, for example here. Please, someone make it stop! Fabian42 (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Malay! Soon the problem has to stop anyway, just because there's no more languages left. But really, does someone know what to do to stop this earlier? Fabian42 (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Fabian42. If you visit a Wikimedia wiki like another Wikipedia language when you are logged in then your account is automatically created there. If you ever edited a page which was later imported with page history to the wiki then your account may also be created. Special:CentralAuth/Fabian42 shows where your account has been created. Some wikis post a welcome message to accounts with no edits. I have considered proposing a ban on this practice when the account was not originally created at that wiki. Many users have been annoyed and confused by it. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
So, you're saying that when I edit a page and a language link ("this article in other languages") gets created for that page, I automatically have an account there? Also, I haven't gotten any of these messages recently. Maybe it actually ran out of languages. Fabian42 (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Fabian42: A language link does not cause account creation. I referred to a more rare feature at Help:Import where a whole page including the page history with editors can be imported (copied) directly to another wiki without translation. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Help! New portal. Image issues,

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How do you submit a new portal image so that it links to the actual portal rather than that ugly blue icon visible on newly created portals? Thanks. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Instructions for contributors (low visibility)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the course of a different discussion, I remembered how hard it is to find some of the basic info about editing that one finds quite simply at de:Wikipedia:Autorenportal on de.wp. I finally found it after s-c-r-o-l-l-i-n-g down to a collapsed box of "Wikipedia editor navigation" (which isn't the textdonor-friendliest name I've ever seen). Any chance we could move that collapsed template somewhere up higher on the page than the "outline of public transportation" for example? SashiRolls t · c 00:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Time to get rid of the portal spam

Latest comment: 5 years ago21 comments5 people in discussion

Not sure listing hundreds of portals is something that is needed on this page, Perhaps best to drop the portals and outlines that add nothing to this page but a scrolling nightmare. This is not the portals project personal advertising page to listing every automated portla made this week that is 5 times bigger then our featured content section.....see [1] for a test case.-Moxy (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree Moxy. These portal notifications should cease and be relegated to a subpage (or discussion board) of the Portals Wikiproject. Only major announcements should feature here. Cesdeva (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I also agree. --Izno (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
We could keep it down to 15 or so per week, with a link to the rest.    — The Transhumanist   06:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Best to reinstate new changes.... and keep the portal wikI project stuff on some other page. Best to have this page reflect the community and not just one Wikiproject.--Moxy (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
The list has been pruned. But there is now a complication...
Somebody has nominated the Community bulletin board for deletion. A notice is now in place in its section on the Community Portal, where the page has been displayed for the past 12+ years. So that the notice is not disturbed, and so that users who have become accustomed to read the CBB from its primary location are made aware of the deletion discussion, the CBB should not be removed from the Community Portal until the deletion debate has run its course. Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
We need some more input, thus far we have only one editor that doesn't like the change.--Moxy (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Please practice straightforwardness and transparency, Moxy. Contrary to your implication above, nobody else besides you has expressed support for the edit you made that was reverted. If you want to remove the Community Bulletin Board (CBB) from the Community Portal, where it has been for more than 12 years, you should post a proposal to do that, and place notifications about that proposal where all affected parties will see it: such as on the CBB itself (visible on the Community Portal) and to all WikiProjects, as the CBB is the main community-wide announcement vehicle for those. You haven't done that. Nor have you spoken about your removal of the CBB explicitly in this discussion (which is about something else—removing excessive Portals listings which have now been removed). Instead, you referred to it vaguely as "the change". For "the change" to be implemented it does need more input, but it also needs to be proposed, in plain English, in the first place.    — The Transhumanist   14:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I could be more clear ..... I suggest we dropped the portal projects personal page and simply highlight things from the community at large https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_portal&oldid=875015938] for a test case.--Moxy (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Then what does "suggest we dropped" mean? I can't make out what you were trying to say. Nor is it clear what actual page title you are referring to. Once you make crystal clear what it is that you propose, a notice of and link to your proposal can be added to the relevant alerts pages.    — The Transhumanist   08:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
For the 4th time let me link what I think looks best SEE HERE. Nice clean page not filled with boxes in one section causing readability problem for some.--Moxy (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
For the 4th time, that's not what the proposal above states. Instead of removing portal listings, you removed the entire Community Bulletin Board, from where it has been for the past 12 years, with the only reference to that action being a cryptic diff. And when asked to publicly state your desire to remove the CBB as a proposal, you've been evasive.    — The Transhumanist   21:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Let's list what this proposal removal of the Community Bulletin Board would eliminate:
Rather than scrapping all this totally, we could consider trimming what we're calling a "Bulletin board" and making it more dynamic, more a natural follow-up to "Help out" where the suggestions change day by day.
New developments could also, or instead, be covered in the Signpost. Long-standing entries could be moved to somewhere like Contributing to Wikipedia. Some of the projects listed see little activity, despite having been publicised on the Community portal for years. I'd also question whether Motto of the day deserves to keep its space here when the project has been marked inactive: Bhunacat10 (talk), 17:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Bhunacat10: You've misquoted the proposal. Your list is not what the proposal above states. If you wish to make such a proposal, please start a new section and do so.      — The Transhumanist   21:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Clarified what "this proposal" referred to in my post above. And instead of trying to close down the discussion I think we should take this opportunity to rethink what the CBB is for and what contents are appropriate: Bhunacat10 (talk), 00:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem with the Signpost is that it comes out once per month, and is content-controlled - submissions are not necessarily published. The CBB is for direct, immediate, and convenient posting of notices, available to everybody in real-time.    — The Transhumanist   21:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
While Moxy has proposed above to remove outlines and portal listings from the Community Portal, he boldly removed the entire Community Bulletin Board (CBB). It appears Moxy is being tricky, purposefully avoiding writing an explicit proposal to remove the Community Bulletin Board from the Community portal. Since this is where almost all of the traffic to the CBB comes from, this is essentially a deletion discussion. Most importantly, Moxy has not notified all the parties that would be affected by this, such as all the WikiProjects. Since Moxy's intent is to remove the central announcement location for WikiProjects, they all should be informed about such a proposal. But Moxy is purposefully keeping the conversation virtually hidden from them by not announcing it, and by only referring to the action he took (removal of the CBB) in vague or unwritten ways. The proposal needs to be made publicly and in clear terms. Moxy's edit does not match the proposal above. Moxy is not practicing transparency, and is basically trying to be as secretive as possible. This is born out by the fact that each time the problem was pointed out above, Moxy chose to be evasive, which is not acting in good faith.    — The Transhumanist   21:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I guess one person here has a personal stake in the portals. So will write a formal proposal in a few days or so. Disappointing to see Zero input about the content or any attempt at fixing our format problem.--Moxy (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Says one with a history of opposition to portals (per their input at the RfC to end all portals last Spring). The problem you pointed out above (too many portal listings) has been remedied. The "readability problem for some" (that you mentioned briefly in one of your replies above) was too vague to know what you were referring to. What aspect of the CBB's formatting do you believe is causing a problem? And please provide links to the complaints by those whom you claimed to have had this readability problem. I'd like to read their descriptions of any difficulties they had reading the CBB due to its formatting. Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   01:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
opposition to portals????? Fact check buddy!! As i said will make a proposal soon.--Moxy (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Fact checking Moxy's history of opposition to portals... Moxy revealed a change of heart and supported the deletion of all portals at the RfC to end all portals last April. There, Moxy posted this statement: "Support despite adding these things for years and creating many see here ... it's clear that these have failed and do not serve their function as intended." After the subsequent redesign/revamp of the portal system, Moxy opposed portals again in this posting: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 170#Are portals being made automatically with an automated system? (calling mainstream subjects "odd", implying they should be deleted); and is attacking portals project operations once again in the current thread above. Conclusion: history of opposition verified. If Moxy was in support of portals, the most likely course of action would be to work with project participants on the WikiProject's talk page, in order to find amicable solutions to any problems encountered. Instead, Moxy appears to be using tactics like venue shopping (e.g., the WP:VPT post mentioned above), and multi-front assaults, as if engaging in a war. Moxy is one of the great WP editors, having made profound contributions to WP's help system, and it saddens me to see such hostility and politics. Portals have come a long way, and while not perfect, they have a great deal of potential to become even better than they are now. Moxy is most welcome to participate in the Portals Project, and there will receive enthusiastic cooperation in improving every aspect of the portals and portals operations. In the final analysis, we are on the same side, in support of making WP a better encyclopedia. That is our common ground, and is a foundation we can certainly build upon.    — The Transhumanist   14:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
2405:205:1581:F8C6:0:0:A89:68A4 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  Not done: No request was made. aboideautalk 16:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

New layout that removes portals

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I am suggesting a new layout that removes info about new automated portals and outlines and instead a section that emphasizes the signpost ( that is community generated). Since the community has had such a backlash about automated portals and last time we talked about this there was really only one objection by the person who created all the portals. I Think we should talk about a redesign again.--Moxy (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • HERE is a test case that I think is nice and simple..... that leads people to our main pages.....discussions, maintenance, while highlighting the signpost information over portal stuff, and keeping the new featured content.

Draft page

Discussion

  • I like the idea of expanding the Signpost (maybe that's because I write for it). Re WP:CBB, I would be fine with just removing the outlines and portals sections as those are the spammiest. I would also suggest merging the "general notices" and "projects needing help" sections because they contain much of the same type of material. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 16:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • In Wikipedia:Community portal/Draft, the section below the signpost looks off - content is split between the 2 sides, and the middle is empty. Is there a way to reformat the newest featured content section to go between them? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't agree with eliminating the "General notices" and "Projects seeking help" sections, as both versions of this proposal appear to do. This page is viewed by about 9,000 people daily and is linked from the New user landing page and many others. It is a major recruitment ground and should receive more attention than it does. I do think it should become a good deal more compact and more dynamic: nothing on a "Bulletin board" should hang around unchanged for years. I'll circulate the "internal" WikiProjects to this effect. Note that the Portals section has already been cut down a lot in response to comments: Bhunacat10 (talk), 19:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • On one hand the Outlines and Portals in the current version struck me as excessive, however aside from that, the current version looked better than the draft. For example the expanded signpost was certainly a better view of the Signpost, however it badly overwhelmed the page. The portal page is HUUUUUGE, and I think we need to keep things much more compact. I'd also suggest/request removing Motto-of-the-day. The page is overloaded already, the motto isn't useful, and in my opinion it's kinda cheesy anyway. Alsee (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 27 March 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A protected redirect, Portal:Wikipedia, needs redirect category (rcat) templates removed and added. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this:
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Community portal]]

{{R protected}}
{{R to portal namespace}}
  • to this:
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Community portal]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R to project namespace}}
{{R from shortcut}}
}}
  • WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  11:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  Done — xaosflux Talk 13:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago26 comments19 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The target, which has been created and deleted twice as a test page and then advertising, has been recreated as a redirect. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community portal → Wikipedia:Community gateway – I propose this move because of the controversy around the Portal: namespace, and the danger of confusion (this in NOT a portal in the sense that the pages in the Portal: namespace are), It would be unfortunate if the strong feelings about Portal:'s tarred this heavily used page, which is a great asset to Wikipedia collaboration. I recommend this move regardless of the outcome of the concurrent page redesign RfC discussion. And of course with any move the relevant page and template content would be changed to match ("Welcome to the Community gateway!", etc.) UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 16:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I agree. I think that the name should change. Thekidn1 (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Not a Portal namespace page, this very useful page in the Wikipedia project namespace is very confusing given alongside the discussions on the Portal namespace. Gateway is a simpler synonym to Portal, with less allusion to magic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I like the idea. = paul2520 (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as it is not in the portal namespace. Desertborn (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps consider changing it to Wikipedia Community nonmagical technological doorway that connects two locations, dimensions, or points in time, just to be extra clear.--Gueux de mer (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support: "Community portal" really confused me when I saw this page for the first time as a freshman. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Portals are a different namespace and this is a gateway. This title is a much better choice. AmericanAir88(talk) 01:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, good idea. Leviv ich 15:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Portal doesn't just mean the English Wikipedia's Portal namespace. This looks more like a portal than a gateway. Peter James (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Here are the definitions from what you cited on Wikipedia:

      A web portal is a specially designed website that brings information from diverse sources, like emails, online forums and search engines, together in a uniform way.[citation needed]

      Gateway is a phrase used by webmasters and search engine optimizers to describe a web page designed to attract visitors and search engines to a particular website. A typical gateway page is small, simple and highly optimized. Its primary goal is to attract visitors searching for relevant key words or phrases, and provide hyperlinks to pages within the website.[citation needed]

However, the definitions presented on Wikipedia doesn't cite any sources, therefore both summary definitions are unverified. Besides, "Gateway (web page)" is proposed for deletion.—Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
But I note that Wikivoyage does not have a Portal: namespace, so there is no risk of confusion over there. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Are we going to rename Wikipedia beause it sounds too similar to the Wikipedia: namespace next? Given the prominent status of the page, it is very unlikely that the discussion regarding portals will affect it, or cause any confusion. As other editors have said, it can indeed be called a portal, and is consistent with names on other projects, so the name is appropriate. This is a name, which I may point out, has been in use since 2004, and is referenced in thousands of discussions, Signpost articles, and other internal pages. Arguably, it is only not in Portal: because said namespace is limited to portals relating to articles. - Axisixa T C 02:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I was asking a rhetorical question intended to illustrate what I perceive as flaws within your idea. Apologies for not making that clearer. - Axisixa T C 06:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Expansion to Wikipedia:Community bulletin board

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi everyone. I am writing to let everyone know that the Wikipedia:Community bulletin board has been greatly expanded, with the addition of a brand-new section providing an extensive list by month of current community activities, including group editing projects at WikiProjects, as well as any types of contests, editing drives, general improvement drives, and really any kind of community efforts and activities whatsoever. we hope to expand and update this section in the months ahead.

Please feel free to add any items there that you might wish. I think we might all benefit if we expand this community resource into a constant noticeboard for as many group activities, projects, and efforts as we can. I appreciate the help and effort of everyone here. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

National English variants

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If this portal draws articles to the attention of random editors to work on, could some method be put in place to remind them about the use of the correct variant of English and the correct date formats. Otherwise their work is just going to be deleted and a lot of people's time wasted. A recent example of the problem was the Australian spelling being replaced by American spelling in Law enforcement in Australia. (Kerry (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Multiple pages speaking around more or less the same scope?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Significant overlap of scope? Did I forget any related, similar or equivalent article/page? Would it be beneficial to evaluuate if there coudl be one or a couple of merges of these above pages for convenience, and make the end result as clear as possible? Sorry if this has been brought up before. In that case, please let me know where. PPEMES (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

adding template:basic information

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to add template:basic information at the bottom of this page. I know we have a whole bunch of other nav boxes there; however, the basic info template seems highly desirable for this page, since it is meant as the landing page for newcomers here. I hope that's ok. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Sm8900. The addition of template:basic information would be helpful to newcomers. --Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to propose some changes to various components of the top portion of this page. this proposal originally began as an idea at Village Pump, now archived at Archive 31#Idea for a new community navigation template. since the consensus seems to be to use the navbar only for this page, and not any other page, we can simply pursue consensus for this here.

Below is my draft for changes to the top portion of the page. this draft includes the portion of the page from the top of the page, down to the large pictorial navbar

Please note, I also have a new idea for the small navbox at the top; namely, to add just one more link, to Wikipedia:Goings-on. Below is a separate draft, for this item.

I am pinging Headbomb, who helpfully provided some useful feedback and edits to this draft version. Please feel free to comment. I appreciate any help or feedback. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

One small note; the first line of text is for a hidden link to the community portal itself. I originally inserted this because I thought this might be used for other pages. if people prefer to remove this, we can do so. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I will wait another week or two before moving ahead with this. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Best not do that as you have ZERO support.--Moxy 🍁 02:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Moxy's comment above is absolutely and totally correct. therefore, I would like to discontinue this talk page topic here for now. I have posted this as an idea, at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#ideas for changes to Wikipedia:Community portal. Please make any comments there, not here. thanks very much. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Remove barnstars from the "Interact more" section?

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

With the other links in the "Interact more" table (being the Help Desk, Teahouse, Reference Desk, WikiProjects, Dispute Resolution, and the Village Pump), the information page about Barnstars jumps out to me as not necessary to have in this table. With all of the other aforementioned links, there is a place for editors to branch out and get the help they need. However, WP:BARN is just an information page that editors can't interact with. This brings me to the question of "Why are Barnstars particularly featured here?". If a link was necessary to have in this position that advocates for the concept of the Wikipedia Community, I would instead of use WP:WIKILOVE or WP:AWARDS, which are much broader in scope and contain more information. While I'm sure that Barnstars are featured here to advocate for the spread of such, as even a new editor can give a barnstar, I don't think that it warrants placement with our feedback pages and services. To this point, I would probably argue against the presence of WikiLove and Awards in this table as well. But while I still believe that Barnstars should be removed from the "Interact more" table, I would compromise with adding WP:WIKILOVE in its place. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Utopes, I would recommend forwarding this suggestion to the Village pump discussion. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@Utopes: I closed the idea lab proposal, where your suggestion got buried by another editor's unsuccessful suggestions. I'm not sure how many watchers are here, but I think this is an appropriate forum. I fully support this change. @Andrybak: do you have an opinion on this? Three support !votes would probably be sufficient to enact. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually, adding in Moxy's and Sm8900's support from the idea lab, I think we're good to implement now. Will go ahead and do so, without prejudice toward further discussion if others want to chime in. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

More emphasis on Village Pump?

Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

I think it would be nice to make the Village Pump links a little more noticeable, given how important the pump is. Would there be any objection to adding some of the icons from WP:Village pump to here and similar changes? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Lets try...see if others ok with it.--Moxy 🍁 05:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Pls no need for search or extra 3 links per section ...lets keep it simple and in the right color tone. Best keep transclusion as minimal as possible so changes can be monitored by those here..Reason I jumped in here originally was to avoid transclusion of that template ...saw it coming .. Best keep coding made with effort for just this page.-Moxy 🍁 08:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@Andrybak: thank you for the padding fix. Matching colors much better then brown..--Moxy 🍁 09:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Shit spoke to soon..why the love of transclusion over accessibility, look and format I will never understand. O well we will all be stuck with status quo after others see the odd colors.--Moxy 🍁 09:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The love of transclusion is since it's the only way to keep pages from falling horribly out of date, as has happened throughout projectspace due to its underuse. I think the tan looks fine, but clearly you don't, so give me a minute and I'll make it grey. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 09:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Will have to digress about transclusion, especially in mainspace. Discourages new editors and updates. I always try and make editing and navigation as easy as possible to gain editors. Wikipedia:Keep it short and simple. But here I guess is fine if it works....much more complicated for changes here but O well.--Moxy 🍁 09:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
And now there's no link to Wikipedia:Village pump (all), which is the one I always read. Ntsimp (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ntsimp: I don't in principle object to adding a link for that, but it would need to be in a very unobtrusive spot, given that most others don't seem to share your preference, and I'm not sure where that would be. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Ntsimp, prior to changes discussed in this section, there was no link to Wikipedia:Village pump (all) at Community portal. There was, however, a link to Wikipedia:Village pump. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Having all the sections listed without the main one clearly confused me. Why can't it be plain text below the others, just as it is on Wikipedia:Village pump? Ntsimp (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ntsimp: I added a "view all" link beside the title. I don't feel strongly about it being there, though, so if others object to its presence, it might go. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I like it. Thanks for listening to an unpopular opinion. Ntsimp (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

No article for Science Times (sciencetimes.com)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § No article for Science Times (sciencetimes.com)
 – this page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Community portal. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

basahan Unicode....

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing § basahan Unicode....
 – this page is for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Community portal page. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Expansion to Wikipedia:Community bulletin board

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi everyone. I am writing to let everyone know that the Wikipedia:Community bulletin board has been greatly expanded, with the addition of a section for providing an extensive list by month of current community activities, including group editing projects at WikiProjects, as well as any types of contests, editing drives, general improvement drives, and really any kind of community efforts and activities whatsoever. we hope to expand and update this section in the months ahead.

Please feel free to add any items there that you might wish. I think we might all benefit if we expand this community resource into a constant noticeboard for as many group activities, projects, and efforts as we can. I appreciate the help and effort of everyone here.

I am going to pin this talk page section, as I would like to post this message here indefinitely, as an open invitation to the entire community to help us to build this resource, as a genuine outlet for the whole community, i.e. to hopefully achieve the limitless potential that is implicit in its name. I appreciate the help of everyone here. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Request

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I’m trying to find my help to a forum to apologise for editing mistakes. Thanks for help. Ema--or (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"Community gateway" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Community gateway. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 29#Community gateway until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Community_portal/Archive_19&oldid=1137406164"