Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Community portal/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

This page is for discussion/improvement of the Community Portal. For general questions about Wikipedia, see Wikipedia FAQ and the Village pump.

The following subsections of this page have been moved into the Template namespace to make them editable; see Editing the main page for details.   Purge the cache

Archives: Feb-Mar 2004: Discussion about creating the page and adding a link to the sidebar

I have protected this page

A vandal fiddled with it, and I decided that we probably want this main page protected semi-permanently, just like the main page. If you disagree, please say so here. I will list this at Wikipedia:Protected page also. Thanks. :) Jwrosenzweig 23:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree -- at least until a while has passed since the press release went out. Otherwise we should create an informal team to watch it. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:26, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. Lots of pages get vandalised. There's no huge danger if this one is. This page is lower traffic than the main page. Further, those reading it will already be aware that Wikipedia is a wiki. Duly unprotected. Martin 00:02, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I respect your disagreement, but I disagree with you, Martin (a rare thing). :) I won't re-protect though....obviously we can handle the vandalism here for the time being (though I admit I would like not to have to be vigilant here long-term). I guess I would just like to have the main information accessible to potential new editors. If I want to contribute and hit "Community Main Page" to find out more and see "jack iz gay" or similar vandal nonsense, I probably give up then. At least give first-timers a chance to see all the different places and aspects of Wikipedia. As it stands, they couldn't find "how to edit a page" or any of the other useful things if the page is vandalized (previously the protected main page allowed this access). This will be lower traffic than the main page, I agree. But it will be proportionately much higher trafficked by those who want to contribute. Shouldn't that have protection? Jwrosenzweig 00:15, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Let's try it in unprotected mode a little while longer to gauge how big the problem is, OK?—Eloquence
Makes sense. I guess I figured once in two days of this setup was a bad omen, but you're right, my sample is too small. :-) I'll wait and see a while. Jwrosenzweig 00:46, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Recall that the vandalism lasted precisely two minutes. Martin 00:58, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
True, true. For that matter, though, we could unprotect Main Page. I guess I don't see a huge difference between the two, and as I support protecting MP, I support protecting W:MP. But if 2 intelligent experienced fellows like you and Eloquence disagree, well, I have to assume I'm in a minority position. :-) Just wanting to make my position heard, is all. Jwrosenzweig 01:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I see no reason to protect it. Unlike the main page, this is going to be trafficked by regular users who've already seen all kinds of vandalism anyway and know how to deal with it - revert. Anthony DiPierro 07:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have found that now that I can influence the main page (for instance), the wiki feels much better; I don't want to be feeling that I want to be sysop, just to be able to to central wikipedia tasks. I want this page unprotected, and I think that the current solution for the main page is a very good one. — Sverdrup (talk) 23:33, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Auto updates

Jdforrester had a great idea that I was able to make reality. I created Template:February 26 and referenced it via {{msg:{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}_{{CURRENTDAY}}}} to get:

{{November_29}}
Is that cool or what? For the selected anniv queue I'm going to use the naming syntax [[MediaWiki:Month day selected anniversaries]]. [[MediaWiki:Month tip of the day]] or even [[MediaWiki:Month day year tip of the day]] may be good for the tip of the day queue (if you decide to create one - although I think you would be daft not to! ;). --mav 06:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Alright, I get the idea that you like it.—Eloquence 06:56, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Feedback link on every page

We could really use a feedback link at the top/bottom of each page, which runs an appopriate script

Say, gives the users an edit page that appends a comment to the end of a new Feedback page? to the MediaWiki bug report/feature request page? to the top of a "Cleanup (raw)" page? and pre-fills in what page they were on when they clicked the link, a user/timestamp, and what their prefs settings are

The problem: often I encountered a problem with WP ("what links here" fxnality breaking, the sidebar working in an unexpected fashion, a key page obviously missing (but I'm unclear where to put it), a kind of debate/interaction that makes me want to go away and not come back for a few months -- and there's no obvious or appropriate way to express my observation. Making it easier for users to provide feedback is important to making the project better, and to better serving/hearing from a reliable cross-section of its audience. +sj+ 09:20, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)

Protecting this page

Shouldn't the Community Portal page be protected just as much as the Main Page is? RickK 02:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • I think so. --Monsieur Mero 02:25, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • I did this, initially, and was shouted down instantly by mav Martin/MyRedDice (sorry for the confusion, mav!) and Eloquence, I believe (though if my memory is bad, I hope neither of them will hold it against me). Someone instantly unprotected it and disagreed with me....something about how people need to be able to edit this page. It has been vandalized a few times (always reverted fairly quickly), but I still agree with Rick that, if the Main Page is protected, this one should be too. No one has ever answered me on that claim (explaining why the pages should be treated differently). I'm open to having my mind changed, however. Jwrosenzweig 02:29, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)P.S. -- See Wikipedia talk:Community Portal#I have protected this page above for the initial discussion. Jwrosenzweig 02:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes; CP has equal status w/ the Main Page, no? --Monsieur Mero 02:32, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
        • Most of the Main Page is now editable for non-sysops through MediaWiki. Much of this page is not. Also, the community page is not usually the first impression for people from the outside, so the vandalism is less of an image problem. Better to leave it unprotected and rely on reverts. --Michael Snow 02:43, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • That the Main Page protection has a loophole alarms me, but shouldn't the CP have at least some protection in the non-MediaWiki areas? --Monsieur Mero 02:46, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
            • There is no loophole in the Main Page protection — since the {{msg:tags}} don't update the main page instantly, there is a time offset from the edit of the msg til it reaches the main page, and that is good protection. The Community Portal shouldn't be protected, since I don't like protected pages in the first place, but also because vandalism happening only sparsely is not such a big problem that we will want to bow for it and inhibit the editability of the page.— Sverdrup 21:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Since this has not been mentioned here yet - I think CP should not be protected precisely because it will be frequented by new editors. As a pretty new editor myself, I was very happy that CP was unprotected, because otherwise I could not have fixed the links to Article Resourses that I did. The great thing about a Wiki is that anyone can modify any page, and new editors are editors because they value that ability. The pages they frequent should be least likely to be protected! Protecting the Main Page is reasonable, because visitors, who have no interest in editing pages, or fixing minor vandalism, or even knowing that they can edit pages, are very likely to view the Main Page, and it should be arranged for them(as well as other audiences). But CP is for editors - people who want to edit pages, and fix vandalism, including editing and fixing CP itself. That's why I think CP is different from the Main Page. JesseW 03:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Has the Meta-Wikipedia been officially abandoned?

I've been away for a few months and this is the first time I've seen this new arrangement. I'm impressed. The main page looks very interesting and professional, and I like the idea of this "community portal". I'm a bit puzzled though that there seems to be no link to the Meta-Wikipedia as far as I can see. I always thought Meta was a very important facility that was grossly underused. Is it now official policy that Meta-type discussion should be carried out only by E-mail, with all its disadvantages? GrahamN 03:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's a link to meta down at the bottom, where no one will ever see it, and of course there's one on Special:Recentchanges. --Brion 05:24, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why has it been put down at the bottom, where no one will ever see it? Surely it would be better to put it prominently up at the top somewhere, or at least in the middle, under "ways to communicate"; unless it is now official policy that Meta-type discussion should be carried out only on the mailing lists. Is it? GrahamN 16:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agree strongly. There are certain discussions about overall policy and organization, particularly ones that newbies like to take up, which should take place on meta -- or at least be informed by some of the age-old structural docs on meta. [for instance, just about anything involving translation, multilingual support, and foreign-lang WPs] +sj+ 20:57, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)(edited the word `strongly` it was spelt wrong... Dry○Thirst)

Merge proposal

I propose that Wikipedia:Goings-on is merged into this page. To reduce the amount of scrolling,

  • Get involved and the current top box of Goings-on should be merged into one
  • The "New to Wikipedia" box should be merged with the intro text, and shorter

I further suggest that the current archiving process is reconsidered, because it makes it very easy to miss updates. The archives are also not particularly helpful, as there are too few items per page, so e.g. you have no complete log on one page of featured articles on the Main Page.

Instead, each box should have their own archive:

Pages would be added to these archives whenever the respective sections get too long.


Comments:


This would increase the incentive to visit the Community Portal, and to keep goings-on updated. If there are no objections, I will do this ASAP.—Eloquence 08:18, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

This makes no sense to me, could you share your reasons for proposing we merge a news page with a newbie-friendly links portal? fabiform | talk 08:52, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The Community Portal is not particularly newbie-friendly. Instead of trying to make it two things, we should work on pages like Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and link these more prominently. A real newbie intro should have lots of nice pictures, use simple terms, and provide relatively few, carefully selected links to crucial "hub" type pages.
Stuff like Template:Opentask and even the tip of the day is often more useful to regulars than to complete newbies, and the link directory itself is rather overwhelming for first-time visitors.
Now that it is also part of the sidebar, the CP should provide regular updates that are of interest to long-time members. What incentive is there for me to click the Community Portal every day? If I like the tip of the day and opentask so much I can include either on my user page and access them from there. No, the CP should feature more than just these two dynamic elements. And Goings-on is exactly the kind of regularly updated "What's going on" information that is appropriate for a real community portal.
I have found that I personally don't check Goings-on much because it's not part of the site navigation. My bookmark toolbar is already full, the full bookmark menu is too slow to access, so I end up not visiting the page. If the goings-on information was accessible from the sidebar instantly I would read it more frequently and, obviously, update it as well. But we don't need another sidebar, we just need a single, well-integrated community portal.—Eloquence 10:37, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and you do know how long the goings on page gets at the end of a week before it's archived? E.g.: Wikipedia:Goings-on/March 7, 2004 - fabiform | talk 09:28, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That's because it covers a whole week. It doesn't need to, not in all areas.—Eloquence 10:25, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

The Get involved section is poorly updated (how long has Talk:Evolution been listed there now?). We need something better, and we could use material from Goings-on instead. But there is way too much stuff at Goings-on that we would lose in a merge. The mailing list synopses, for example, are an excellent substitute for people who don't want to subscribe. People need a place to go for information they've missed out on, especially because events happen quickly and many places have high turnover. We could, however, merge Goings-on with Announcements; those two seem to have overlapping functions. --Michael Snow 18:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Eloquence states that one of the reasons to merge them is that the Community Portal isn't terribly newbie-friendly. It seems like adding the content from Goings-on will only add to that. Right now the topics are: Syntax Extensions - discussion about proposed ways to include different markup for music, hieroglyphs, plots, graphics, etc.; The Accuser of Kobe Bryant (reprise); Proposal to Merge Goings-on with Community Portal; and Revamping of Boilerplate Request for Permission. BCorr|Брайен 19:07, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, of course it would add to that. As I explained above, the newbie-friendly page should be entirely separate, e.g. Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers. The Community Portal would be primarily of interest to regular members of the community.—Eloquence


Spent the last 30 minutes going back and forth between both pages. A more interesting, integrated Community Portal is definitely needed. Merging the pages would facilitate this. Also, the increased eyeballs on a single page will address the initial concerns about disorganization because it will inevitably result in more edits and better layout. I will rehash Eloquence, the Community Portal should be targeted to all Wikipedians with a more developed Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers page linked prominently. Merging the pages would add value to the left-hand side menu bar and simplify the namespace- two big bonuses. The real significance of this vote is not simply "merging the pages" but is changing the purpose of the Community Portal to being a place that has value for everyone. Merging is a step in the right direction. -- Chevan


Support:

  1. I think this is a great idea - the "Goings-on" section of this page can be an analog to the "In the news" section on the Main Page. Perhaps Wikipedia:Announcements can be the analog to Current events. --mav
  2. —Eloquence 10:25, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support, but move the mailing list stuff to Mailing list summary as it won't fit on this page. Angela
  4. Support, I do like goings-on a lot and almost suggested this Matthewmayer 18:39, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Chevan 13:54, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  6. SimonP 14:55, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  7. Lockeownzj00 20:27, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Timwi 08:46, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) — I really don't understand the point in this. The Community Portal serves a particular purpose, the Goings-on page servers another, different particular purpose.
  2. Not merge, but use a condensed version to replace the Get involved section. I'll elaborate below. --Michael Snow 18:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose strongly. Goings-on has been successful because it is standalone and focused. If Community Portal is not effective, then redesign it and fix it, you don't add more to it. Personally, I would get move either "Tip of the Day" or "Things you can do" to the side so the FAQ can make it "above the scroll." I can't stand Tip of the Day in MS Office, I don't like it here. Also, how silly is it that the FAQ for Wikipedia is at least three clicks away (if you can even find it) from the front page. Fuzheado 03:21, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your kind words about my daily work on the tip of the day section, it is much appreciated. The FAQ is two clicks away from every page: Help->FAQ.—Eloquence 06:00, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • (Seinfeld alert) "It's not you, it's me." I just don't find tips of the day useful. It's not a slight against you personally. As for FAQ, it's nice to know an alternate path, but it still feels lost in the shuffle. Fuzheado 06:22, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Cyan 04:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) — I think I would prefer Goings-on to be a stand-alone page. -- Cyan 04:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. silsor 05:56, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Hmmm. Fuz said everything i was going to say. Fuz, are you reading my notes? :) Kingturtle 05:59, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Anthere 05:58, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) (added by Fuzheado, by Anthere's request on IRC. Kingturtle a witness. "[13:54] <Anthere> fuz, please vote for me") (it is true, i was witness to Anthere's request. Kingturtle 22:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC))
  8. Pilaf 21:12, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. fabiform | talk 22:19, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. BCorr|Брайен 19:07, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC) See my comment below.
  11. +sj+ 20:53, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC) mav's first sentence above is exactly right -- but does not entail a merge of these pages. "I think this is a great idea - the "Goings-on" section of this page can be an analog to the "In the news" section on the Main Page." But it should then link to the current Goings-on page, which has a lovely format, a well-defined purpose, and a very satisfied user base.
  12. I agree 100% with SJ. →Raul654 23:13, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Ryan_Cable 03:42, 2004 Apr 1 (UTC)
  14. I think the current link on the Community Portal is fine, the portal is really for new users, and I doubt they'd be interested in the going-ons of wikipedia. Adding going-ons to the community portal would simply clutter it and detract from Community Portals main purpose, informing new users about how wikipedia works. --Flockmeal 05:19, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Undecided:

  1. On one hand, I think information such as this is spread across too many pages. Some of the information on Community Portal would be pretty useful added to Goings On as well. However, they both serve a purpose, and Community Portal is handy as a newbie-oriented page. Ambivalenthysteria 09:53, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Donors treated as vandals

Curiously, the Schools FAQ link was recently deleted and allowed to remain deleted after another donor made the edit, but when the original donor of the article earlier attempted to remove the link, citing the same general errors and imcompletion in the article, the original donor was widely treated as a vandal. The primary difference in the claims that eventually led to the durable removale was that the final removal included the allegation that the article was "Bird product." Apparently the tradition of weeding out "bad actors" instead of confronting "innacurate information" allowed the link to be deleted when it was attributed to a "bad actor". The same band of thugs that refused to allow the orignial donor to make further edits related to an article nobody else was actively involved with are continuing to bar efforts to correct the errors cited in edit summaries and talk pages. Even more curiously, the process that led to the original donor being treated as a "vandal" was exaclty the process Wikipedia encourages - in which donors are solicited to contribute information to the best of their knowledge in hopes that they or others will come along and fix the article. A donor created an article reflecting a very narrow point of view that endorsed wikipedia. When the donor used that knowledge to develop countervailing knowledge that was critical of Wikipedia as an academic resource, those defending an encyclopedia salesman's POV about Wikipedia concluded the attempt at balance and accurcy was vandalism. The primary result of the conflict was that a very astute and resourceful donor choose to advance the case that collegial behavior is not always the best approach to participation in the editorial collectivity assembled here, authored articles for other publications highly critical of Wikipedia, and began providing technical assistance to parties who aggressively oppose Wikipedia. Now this donor determines to be a bad actor in as much as other donors maintain the claim that some people are bad and have nothing to offer a community, rather than working from a scholarly posture that examines information on its merits alone. (anon)

In my mind, this post resembles the style used by Bird in his various incarnations. As the person who removed the links, I stand by my actions. The correctness and value of the content were disputed by a number of people, and there was no consensus to link it on this page. The Schools FAQ was not deleted; it is still available at Wikipedia:Schools FAQ. --Michael Snow 23:27, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The link should be removed and if nobody has anything to contribute to the FAQ other than their hatred toward the original donor, it should also be deleted. Your reply , Mister Snow, revealsa disfunctional reasoning process in that you are unable to recognize and acknowledge the content of the comment you responded to here, but instead continued your personal campaign of hatred toward a pseudonym. Your continued citation of the user name as the problem instead of citing the exact errors, the controversial points and the point-of-view problems in the article betrays that your are a mental midget who makes decisions based on your opinion of the social status of persons and not on the merits of information presented in an article. Your inablity to recognize the concerns and interests of others disqualifies you as a non-fiction writer, which is probably why you are here pretending to establish authority in a context where truth takes a back seat to group allegiance. You can rest assured your continued aggression today has been redressed with a retaliatory attack to a part of this document where you will be unable to repair the damage. This is how the rest of the world operates in the face of aggression by the likes of you and your countrymen. (anon)
Yep, that definitely sounds like a Bird comment. I suggest we reinstitute the links to the schools FAQ now that the draft copy is being used. →Raul654 01:57, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
If this mental midget may still offer an opinion, since I can't edit this page while it's protected, and I wasn't aware it had been unprotected for a little while--I have to ask: 1)Do we need to proliferate FAQs? 2)How many of these questions are actually, or conceivably, frequently asked? 3)Can't most of the content be found in, or incorporated into, our existing FAQs? 4)How much of the content is really specific to schools? 5)Wouldn't Student FAQ be a better name, anyway? 6)Do we need to perpetuate this page, considering that it will probably serve as a magnet for Bird in the future? --Michael Snow 03:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Intro paragraph, categories

Since the New to Wikipedia stuff was combined into the introductory paragraph, I don't think we need the separate New user information category. That category contains very little and mostly duplicates stuff found at the top of the page (we could stand to get a link to Welcome, newcomers in the intro, though). Real newbies will never find one category mixed in with a bunch of others, but there's a good chance they'll read the opening text. I also prefer Goings-on back in the Get involved section where it was, with the icon. --Michael Snow 17:12, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think the separate section for newbie links is more useful than the intro paragraph. It makes the links clearer and easier to find. I agree about the Goings-on icon though. Angela. 19:27, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Introduction

Why has the introduction moved to the bottom? That doesn't seem a sensible place for it to be. Angela. 00:49, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Article of the Week

Ok, we have links to where to vote for the AOTW, but we need an announcement somewhere semi-prominent saying that this week's article is Situs inversus. Where should this go? Isomorphic 16:06, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Eloquence suggested replacing the ancient pages box, and I concur. In fact, I'd move the tip of the day box down too. Tom- 21:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
I've added it, but it could be improved. I'm not convinced the snippet from the article is the best idea or not, so feel free to change it completely. :) Angela. 07:38, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

How about launching a link-chain contest? Take two random titles, e.g., incest and electronics, and see who can build the shortest sequence of articles starting with incest and ending with electronics where each article is linked to the next one. Adding links to articles to make the chain shorter should be allowed provided they are appropriate (appropriateness can be voted). This way, the contest would promote both reading and editing. -- Lev 18:28, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Six degrees of Wikipedia. Angela. 00:43, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
incest to anthropologist to natural sciences to Electrical engineering to electronicsPedant 08:36, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

The new Election link added yesterday now breaks the layout in Mozilla 1.6 (win2k). The tables following the link are now restricted to the width of the election link. I viewed the revision before the link was added, and everything displayed fine at that point. RedWolf 16:05, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Same problem with Mozilla 1.7rc2 on Mac OS X. RedWolf 16:22, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

New Wikipedia

I noticed today that since there is the new Wikipedia software (or at least since today), I see squares instead of characters with carons (lie š,č..., e.g. in Slovak language). Could someone tell me, what the problem might be? Juro

The new skin specifies the font more specifically, and thus your browser may not be able to find a font that contains the slavic characters. A temporary fix is to go to preferences and use the standard (old) skin. ✏ Sverdrup 11:33, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Question about article content.

This is not a criticism, but rather a question. I just spent some time editing an article on the Community Portal page caller Maxim Kammerer. I was just putting in some links and editing spelling and such, but during the course of this, I was reading some of the article. It appears to basically be a book review. Isn't this site meant for encylopedic content? And would a book review be considered as such? I would think an article about a book would say something about the authors, book contents, and other knowledge, but a book summary seems strange for an encyclopedia. Could someone comment on this please. I am relatively new here and don't know exactly what is acceptable yet.

Skyler 19:05, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Just glancing at it, it does read like a summary of a book, but since Kammerer is apparently a fictional character, it's not necessarily wrong for the article to include relevant plot summaries. It's possible that the article focuses too much on the book and not the character specifically. Is there a separate article on the book itself? --Michael Snow 21:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
there are several book titles, Maxim Kammerer is a character in all of them.... there is an article on Sherlock Holmes, too. I think that the article as it's written now is a suitably encyclopedic entry, in the context of all the other fictional characters written of in WPPedant 08:41, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

Copyrights and so on..

Hello. I'm in a class, and I've copied information on Ayn Rand to paper. Since we are all paranoid, my teacher INSISTS on giving credit to all the authors of the page. Knowing my teacher, she doesn't know of (or understand?) the GNU license. What should I do? What does Wikipedia say? Do I just have to say "I got it from Ayn Rand"? That seems to satisify myself... What do most people do in these situations? How can I teach my educators about Free Software, the GNU licenses, and that it's possible that some material is meant for education (in such my case)?

The article has been edited by 61 users (Aravindet, Bedevere, BigFatBuddha, Blanchette, Brenton, Calieber, Cantus, Carbuncle, ChessPlayer, Chinju, Clutch, Daniel Quinlan, Delirium, DHN, Enkrates, Graft, GreedyCapitalist, Ihcoyc, Infrogmation, IZAK, JamesReyes, Jasper Chua, Jiang, JoXn, Lacrimosus, LarryGilbert, Liftarn, Loweeel, Lucidish, Martijn faassen, Maveric149, Merovingian, Michael Hardy, Mike Krakora, Millerc, Mirv, Mkweise, Mkweise, Neilc, Nikai, Octothorn, Oliver Pereira, Philwelch, Polynova, Radgeek, RickK, Ronabop, Ruhrjung, Sciabarra, Scottryan, Seth Ilys, Simonides, Someone else, SWAdair, Synaptic, Synthetik, Timo Honkasalo, Wik, Wiki109, Wile E. Heresiarch and Zoe), plus 51 anon IPs and 2 bots. The GFDL says you should list the 5 main authors, but I don't know how you would pick out the main 5. If the main authors are those who have made the most non-minor edits, then they might be Neilc, Octothorn, Wik, Sciabarra and Loweeel, but this is basically a guess. Angela. 16:45, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Could you possibly autogenerate that text? Ambush Commander 02:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Has anybody created a Wiki international news service?

Has anyone here ever thought of the possibility of creating a wiki national news source? Indymedia is struggling to get off the ground - and it's still riddled with logistics problems. But, one thing it's been able to do is to encourage ordinary people at the location of news events to get out and do video and photo documentation.. which has been used very creatively in at least one television broadcast program which I've seen.

One thing I really admire about the designers of wikipedia, is that they have very thoughtfully accounted for social logistics. It's a miracle that this place works in the manner it does - and it's because of a very thoughtful design of the auspices. In like manner, members of our community ought to, perhaps, start contributing ideas towards the construction of a wiki web news source...Rainbird 20:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See m:Wikinews.--Eloquence*
Thanks indeed, my dear eloquence ----Rainbird

Page layout

Something appears to be broken on this page, as the various links headings suddenly are crammed into the Tip of the day box. --Michael Snow 21:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now it's fixed, but all section headings are suddenly numbered, so I take it there must be some MediaWiki updates being worked on. --Michael Snow 21:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I changed the color of the bottom two borders to the same grey the top four boxes use. As I was trying to do it, I was previewing, and someone messed up the thing before I could submit. So somehow, I resubmitted the mess - or something like that. I copied and pasted from the text editor I was using, and the thing fixed thank God. Is there any reason the bottom two boxes are black? --Wilz (Talk) 17:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

General Wikipedia Spacing

I'm not sure if this should belong here, but does anyone else think that the paragraphs in Wikipedia are a little too closely cramped together? I hope it's not presumptuous for a newbie to be questioning such a long-time tradition but I find that my eyes have trouble differentiating one paragraph from another, especially in long articles where there are many paragraphs to a section/sub-section. It would serve readers better if article paragraphs are spaced out just a bit more so that paragraphs are distinguishable through jungles of text. This is of course a technical issue which can only be solved across Wikipedia by the programmers - but a quick change of a single variable in the CSS should do it. Wilz (Talk) 16:51, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mention vandalism on this page?

Maybe I'm blind, but every time I spot some vandalism I struggle to find the page(s) on Wikipedia describing what to do about it. I can't see it on the main page or on this page, which is to me the obivous place to look. If I'm right, could we have a link to the relevant pages from this page? Thanks. -- S

Here's a tutor:---- Rainbird 05:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Am I the only one who noticed that there is something wrong with the links of the 'update' part/section, under the 'things you can do' box. I really don't think is's supposed to link here As_of or here Special:Whatlinkshere/As_of_1911. Will someone who knows more than me look this up. Thanks. Cal 1234 15:52, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Merged articles and credits

If one article (A) is merged into another article (B), should those who edited the former (A) be credited? If so, how?--Logariasmo 18:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, request a history merge. So that the history of A is moved to B. Mgm|(talk) 12:14, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Sub cotws

Should the subCOTWs articles be listed there in the COTW section? IMO yes, either remove the quote from the main COTW text or downsize the text. Then, add the subCOTWs something like this:

What do people think? JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 17:00, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Semantic Markup?

This page is marked up quite badly, I think -div-s should be used instead of tables, and I don't think that -center- tags etc should be used at all.

As a result, the page code is huge and hard to follow.

Should I try and fix the markup, (offline first)?

-A Wikipedia newbie

divs aren't available in all browsers, we try to keep wikipedia as compatible as possible with other systems. We also have wiki markup to make table coding easier and shorter, that should address most of your concerns. Mgm|(talk) 12:11, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

The Recent Changes has been Taken Over

AAAAH!!! I went to Recent Changes and I have this freaky The Willy on Wheels thingy! This is a very disturbing annoyance and I need some admin to somehow purge this from the history (I have a feeling that he used the summaries to plant it there). HELP! HELP! Ambush Commander 00:01, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Oh wait, it's gone now. Who did it? How??? Ambush Commander 00:09, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
And now I find that the Special:Recentchanges links to a template Wikipedia:Recentchanges which can be edited by anybody but it's really hard to trace back to it. Grr! Ambush Commander 00:23, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)


Copyedit pages

Can the talk pages be shortened - getting long enough for the system to complain.

Could some form of date-system for queries etc be returned to - present system too cumbersome (especially when Wikipedia is slow, and there is limited time available).

A link to the encyclopedia listings again would be useful - I was going to extend some of them, but can't find them.

Discussing the contents of a specific page

Unfortunately I have not been able to post a remark for a specific Wikipage: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksander_Suworow" as it says that the article does not exist (though it does exist). How can I do this?

The problem is that the last bit of information given there (on Suvorov shooting soldiers who refused to attack the enemy and the resons of his victories) is a little biased or at least too limited, so probably there are people who will be able to check it and edit the article in a more objective (?) way.

Inogoro

Discussing the contents of a specific page

But where??!!


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Community_portal/Archive_2&oldid=1137406170"