Wikipedia talk:Community portal/Archive 10

CBB redesign
I have redone the Comunity Bulletin Board in my sandbox. What we'd do, presumably, is divide the sections into the smaller subsections, and then arrange the templates at the master CBB page. We are free to work with this—other then here, it is used only of a few userpages and old CP drafts. But before we get into that, please feel free to tweak my draft (yes, edit my sandbox). Comments?
 * I don't quite like the equal signs under New Pages. --Osbus 21:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops.--HereToHelp 22:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Could we just take that New Pages column from your sandbox and put it under the signpost, similar to that box we had? I'm afraid the 2x2 design doesnt adapt well to different screen sizes. -Quiddity 05:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll try that.--HereToHelp 20:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done!--HereToHelp 22:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See Image:CBB-layout-problem.gif for how it breaks at 1024x768 in firefox.
 * I'll tweak the width to a fixed 300px right column, but it still looks silly at 800x600.
 * We really need to avoid using tables for layout purposes (per accessibility and webstandards in general), it's a bad habit to have gotten in during all these redesigns. I hope to convert them all to css layouts before the end of the year.
 * I'm going to try to use the signpost's code to float the section to the right... -Quiddity 00:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's why we draft and discuss these sorts of things.--HereToHelp 00:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yupyup :) -Quiddity
 * CSS expert? In the draft as i left it, does anyone know how to float the "new pages" box under the "signpost" box? (or a better structural alternative that places the "new pages" section after the "to do" section within the code?) -Quiddity 01:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Project looks acceptable. user:MarcusLHolliman 15:35, 21 May 2006

Okay, see current draft, i've got the placement right by adding a clear:right css to the New Pages box, but the editlinks are broken by the float. I've seen this before, so i'm hoping there's a simple solution? Everything else seems to look good.

Apart from the editlinks, how is the general look for everyone else? -Quiddity 04:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked at the village pump, which got me to this draft User:Quiddity/sandbox. It's problems are it breaks in IE5.0 (ignorable, very old browser); more importantly it's confusingly arranged within the source ("New Pages" is coded into just under the "Notices" header).


 * Lcarsdata has suggested below that we just use the same div-width as the Signpost (see User:Lcarsdata/Sandbox). We won't use up as much whitespace, but that's looking like the only feasible option right now. I'll change Lcarsdata's sandbox now, to match our drafts as regards internal-instructions and footer-css. -Quiddity 16:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. It seems to work quite well.(:User:Lcarsdata/Sandbox)
 * Now, do we need to linkify the projects/collaborations/portals headings?
 * and does the "New pages" section need a box around it? (probably not imo, but might be worth trying once it's on the purple background.) -Quiddity 17:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a little 2-cents on the look of the subheadings, e.g., "WikiProjects." They seem to be incongrous with typical heading structures - too tall & skinny. Have you tried the next level down, like "See also" just to the left of the box? Rfrisbietalk 17:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Will replace with normal bold links, per other drafts. -Quiddity 17:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking good. :-) Rfrisbietalk 17:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Now it breaks if the New Pages list is too long... sigh. -Quiddity 20:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just curious, do you think it might be simpler to just do two columns at about a 70% - 30% split (on my screen)? More specifically, could you make the right side width a little wider than Template:Signpost-subscription, which I believe is "23em"? Rfrisbietalk 21:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That would work, but would leave a large whitespace gap under the "To dos" section in this case. I'll try it out later. -Quiddity 22:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a crude layout with columns, just to see what it might look like at Lcarsdata/Sandbox. Just delete it if it's not helpful. Rfrisbietalk 22:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * p.s. The colors I added are just for testing the layout. The final version would be the same as they are here. Rfrisbietalk 11:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Although it's probably on a different browser, on the one in my sandbox non of the edit links seem to float. Lcarsdata Talk 17:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean they arent floating to the right of their headers (as they should) at all, and are all bunched up in a single spot? thanks :) -Quiddity 18:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the version in my sandbox seems to work well could we agree on this and change it or does it need to be changed. Lcarsdata Talk
 * Look again (at 1024x768 or larger ;) I updated (both versions) to the current CBB contents... This is a hard one, with all the variations entailed. -Quiddity 19:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Another question/comment... was the point of moving the "New pages" under the Signpost for saving vertical space? If so, it seems like the four-column format often saves more space, and it's simpler. Rfrisbietalk 03:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the big problem is, the edit button doesn't seem to mis float, so I see no reason why we shouldn't just implemtent the one currently in my sandbox with a few tweaks (width of second collum) or do a straw poll. Lcarsdata Talk 20:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is, the layout breaks depending upon the size of the content in each of the subsections. see screenshot. (also, polls are evil ;)
 * As i said above, this a hard one, because of the very dynamic nature of the contents (and all the different screen resolutions it needs to look good in). -Quiddity 20:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why can't we just say that if there is lots of new pages seeking contributors but hardly anything in notices in todo we use the horizontal layout and if it is the other way around use the vertical version. (I think you were trying to tell me that the column went to far down compared to the rest) Or maybe that is too much hastle, we could just put the code on the CBB talk page and put a commented out notice on the CBB itself. LC@RSDATA 15:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * good work :-)  Dure  00:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Chuck, IE5
Hey, I use IE 5. There are companies that repair and sell used computers. Lots of people probably use IE 5. I did a little studying of this page and found commands in the Community bulletin board section that conflict with the pink box. They cause IE 5 to see a 6- foot- wide page. Furthermore, those commands make the area to post notices messy & somewhat confusing. My design of the Community bulletin board section eliminates those problems, making IE 5 users able to read the page. Check it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chuck Marean (talk • contribs).
 * The problem is, your fix makes it look bad for the other 99% of us. (between 1% and 4% of people use IE5. But that includes ie5.01 for windows and mac, and ie5.5 for windows. the mac version was the best of the 3. If you are using win95, you're probably using ie5.01, which was the worst of the bunch, and is used by about 0.02% of the internet surfing population.) You're welcome to voice your concerns here, but PLEASE STOP trying to fix the actual pages yourself, using the broken, old tool that is ie5, and your lack of wikicode experience. You're just stabbing blindly in the dark. -Quiddity 00:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * moving the following comment here, from CBB template talkpage. -Quiddity

This template currently distorts Wikipedia:Community Portal in IE 5. I was almost able to correct the problem, and I've only taken one computer course in my entire life. So, surely you computer science majors are able to get Wikipedia:Community Portal readable by IE 5. It is not the fault of IE 5. I found that the tags trying to put columns at the bottom of this template, if removed, prevented the distortion but then the table of cotents didn't work. IE 5 not being able to read Wikipedia:Community Portal is a major problem with this template & not to be dismissed any mature editor.--Chuck Marean 01:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's fixed now. or should be. -Quiddity 02:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll check to see if it is in a little while. I figure it can be, because I think it was working fine a few weeks ago.--Chuck Marean 05:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool it's been repaired. I can read it. It's an important page. --Chuck Marean 06:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Page layout issue (not under Win95!)
Because of a dearth of notices lately, the 'New pages seeking contributors' section is starting to encroach upon the Wikipedia Signpost. Either we should generate several lines of news, or fix the problem :) -- Mithent 13:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

how to add collaborations?
I would like to add the Computer Science Collaboration of the Week, Programming language. Ideogram 00:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It already is, in the list on the right. Community Portal. (The "new pages" list in the Bulletin Board is for a completely newly created subject proposals to start a cotw.) -Quiddity 23:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Question
Where can I find information on Operation Enduring Encyclopedia? 63.23.82.33 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Go to antivandalbot's page. I think you answered the question in your edit summary.-- Alphachimp   talk  03:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a question too:

How do I start a new project?--Nickdsub 23:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Create a List Namespace
How about moving all the lists to their own namespace. "List of Pokemon characters" would become "List: Pokemon characters". This way people who hate lists and think they don't belong in an encyclopedia will be satisfied and people who enjoy lists as navigational aids can still enjoy them. I like lists because they are usually sorted by a single parameter that is different from alphabetical as they are when listed as "categories" and they contain entries that are redlined. You cant have non-existant imformation in categories. They are great for navigational and unexplored topics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Is there a better place where I should be posting this?
 * Village pump (proposals) or Village pump (policy) LC@RSDATA 15:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been proposed many times, and roundly rejected just as many. Can we not go through this again? Rebecca 15:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the archived debate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs).

Portal or portal
Why does this page have a capital "P"? Dragons flight 20:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it refers to the Community Portal, not community portals generally, but only one. This one.--Commander Keane 10:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Being singular or having a definite article doesn't automatically entitle one to be a proper noun: e.g. the jar of honey, the solar system, the United States capital, the village pump, the administrators' noticeboard, the five pillars, the community bulletin board, the arbitration policy. Obviously, I could go on and on all day because most things in Wikipedia are named without extra capitalization (some exceptions being Main Page and Arbitration Committee).  However, the portal caught my eye in particular because "Community portal" is actually the Mediawiki default, not "Community Portal", so I am wondering why it changed, and if it should be changed back.  Dragons flight 13:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned subpage
The Community Portal has an orphaned subpage (Wikipedia:Community Portal/Policies). Is this page important? If not, should it be linked to, deleted, have Template:Historical added? -- kenb215 01:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There are lots . Most are from a redesign draft User:Go for it! was working on. Most of the content is contained within his latest iteration at Department directory. They should be userfied or MfD'd. He seems to be ignoring me, so someone else will have to deal with it. -Quiddity 02:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah: standardize, organize, and then delete what's left.--HereToHelp 17:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is my opinion on what to do:

Keep
 * Community Portal/COTW
 * Community Portal/Redesign
 * Community Portal/Things to do
 * Community Portal/Totd
 * Community Portal/aid-summary
 * Community Portal/ctc-summary
 * Community Portal/gac-summary
 * Community Portal/stc-summary

Delete
 * Community Portal/Collaborations
 * Community Portal/Draft0 (redirect)
 * Community Portal/Draft1b
 * Community Portal/Archive 1 (JUST PROJECT PAGE, NOT ASSOCIATED TALK PAGE)
 * Community Portal/Draft
 * Community Portal/Draft/Menu
 * Community Portal/Draft1 (redirect)
 * Community Portal/Draft1a (redirect)
 * Community Portal/Draft1c
 * Community Portal/Draft2
 * Community Portal/Menu
 * Community Portal/Menu2
 * Community Portal/Menu bar
 * Community Portal/New featured content
 * Community Portal/October 2005 Redesign
 * Community Portal/Policies
 * Community Portal/Policies and guidelines
 * Community Portal/Redesign/Draft2b (redirect)
 * Community Portal/Redesign/DraftA (redirect)
 * Community Portal/Redesign/DraftB (redirect)
 * Community Portal/Site map menu
 * Community Portal/Wikipedia by department

Move to Wikipedia:Community Portal/Archive/...
 * Community Portal/Redesign/Draft
 * Community Portal/Redesign/Draft/Menu bar
 * Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1a
 * Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1b
 * Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1c
 * Community Portal/Redesign/Draft2a
 * Community Portal/Redesign/Poll archive

LC@RSDATA 07:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently working on this on one of my subpages. -- kenb215 01:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I was asked by Quiddity to reconsider my "votes" at Miscellany for deletion (and following). There are two things that I see here: Is there something that I've overlooked? Ardric47 02:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Some sort of dispute between editors, possibly relevant.
 * 2) No reason to delete most of those pages. Not being used is not a reason for deletion.
 * The dispute was part of the CP redesign effort. The massive fragmentation of the CP into various menus and components and redirects, was almost entirely the work of user:Go for it!, which resulted in a new guideline WP:DISCUSS, and a Request for Comment against user:Go for it! (which he ignored, but that's irrelevant).
 * These deletion requests are all an attempt to clear up the mess he left behind. Nothing historical will be lost, as it is all contained in the draft at Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1a. Does that answer all your concerns? -Quiddity 20:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

See also, the more complete list here: User:Lcarsdata/Sandbox -Quiddity 17:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The community portal subpages are now almost fully sorted out, with only a few redirects for deletion and one request for unprotection left to be dealt with. I am in the process of creating a subpage list as using the all pages function splits it into three collums. Lcarsdata (Talk) 14:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The page is at Community Portal/Subpages, I have just checked and the talk pages need a small ammount of work too. Lcarsdata (Talk) 14:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * One talk page is up for deletion at WP:MFD and another at WP:RFD, this should be the last lot of CP pages to go. See Community Portal/Subpages for a list of wikipedia and wikipedia talk pages. Lcarsdata (Talk) 14:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work, thanks for taking care of most of that. :) --Quiddity· (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." You must be joking!
How can you expect newcomers to read the countless pages of rules you have posted for them. It's ridiculous. I came here and naively believed the front page proclamation "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." So I began editing. At first my minor corrections to grammar and spelling in articles were graciously accepted but when I started adding some links to pages I was attacked and banned. Adding RobertZubrin.Com to a page on Robert Zubrin was called "spam" by a guy calling himself Reaverdrop or some such nonsensical handle. He has been harassing me every day and I'm sick of him. I started an article on 'amateur spaceflight' which I thought quite good. Others agreed and yet it was simply deleted for some absurd reason. Not long enough or sounded like an advertisement or whatever. As if I own a bloody spaceship company. I thought others were supposed to help expand on articles but all they seem to do is delete other peoples work. Wikipedia is a joke. Nobody is allowed to edit it except longtime members who have dictatorial powers over everyone else. Its false advertising to lure people here on the pretense that they will be allowed to participate when clearly its just spam. A way of getting people to visit and push you up in the search engines. I see now that all the bad press about Wiki and its charactor assasination of innocents is perfectly true. I have now rejoined yet again under a new name because of being banned for imagined crimes. Wiki sucks. Universedaily 00:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We have "countless pages" on that too...--HereToHelp 00:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Don't be afraid to edit—anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold" From the Introduction! Just try it and see what happens! You get BANNED! Hypocrites! Universedaily 00:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well when you delete something that says "Please leave this line alone", what do you expect?--HereToHelp 00:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the sandbox just now? That was a mistake. I only realised afterwards. The whole reason for going to the sandbox was because the intro said "use the sandbox". It had nonsense about Robots having sex and stuff so I just blotted out the whole thing. Then as I was hitting delete I saw those words. Oops! I only get 2 hours at the Brisbane public library so I really don't have time to mess about. Universedaily 01:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm overdue at the MySpace science forums and have to go. Do whatever you want. I know you will anyway. This place says one thing and then does the opposite. I left a message at your discussion page. Bye for now. I expect you'll have banned me for some unintelligible reason by the time I return. Universedaily 01:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you saying that people have dictorial powers. Ive got this girl who keeps following me on every single edit that i make and reverts them straight away. I find it extremely annoying that they do that and then threaten to block me from Wikipedia. Ive tried to look at ways to get them into that tribunal thing, but apparently they did the same thing to someone else, and the other person went to tribunal and they got blocked instead. I think wikipedia needs a major overhaul of its hierarchy.--Krabby me 04:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking for a Fiction Vampire Book
Can someone please help me? I have been searching for this book for years & have had no luck.

It is a fictional book about a man who is a nighttime bartender. He later finds out he is a descendant of Dracula. I don't remember much else about it, other than that Dracula is resurrected towards the end. I swear "BLOOD" was in the title, but I could be wrong.

Please email me at KrisTheSlayer@verizon.net   Thanks!!

Kristina —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kristheslayer (talk • contribs) 01:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC).


 * This is not the place to ask these, lease instead ask at the humanities reference desk. LC@RSDATA 17:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Red links crossed out?
Why is this being done? It makes the wiki very hard to read. Can someone tell me what's going on? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bremen (talk • contribs) 02:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC).
 * It sounds like a potential browser stylesheet problem (fairly common). Just empty your browser cache, or do a full page refresh (ctrl-F5 or shift-F5). That should fix it. -Quiddity 06:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Or you could have ticked one of the check boxes in Special:Preferences. LC@RSDATA 09:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * perhaps your connection could be the problem?  Dure  03:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

First new page...
Hi everyone, I just created my first new page Anasarca (band) and want to check to make sure if I'm going to attempt to create new articles, that I'm doing it right and not breaking any rules. I also noticed that in creating the page, Anasarca was already existing, so I added the template to the top saying "this article is about blah blah blah, if you're looking for blah blah blah, go here" since there's only 2 articles regarding Anasarca.

Please check it out and leave me a note on my talk page to let me know how I did, any constructive critisism would be welcomed. I've been spending numerous hours trying to get the whole format down and wiki markup - so any help would be appriciated.

Also, I don't know if this is the right spot to leave a note like this.... so let me know about that too!

Thanks! --Keitaro 02:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Editors
I have used Wikipedia for some time now and find the code a bit of a problem sometimes, is there any software that would help make it easier and less time consuming to get the design looking good on pages.

pjb007 11:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * answered at userpage. -Quiddity 20:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Where to add a link?
Hello from Wiktionary. Looking at this page, it is not at all clear where (or if) I can announce the ongoing activities for a new logo for Wiktionary. Wiktionary/logo could really use some collaboration from sister projects, I think. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 01:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You could just make a section, like WIKTIONARY LOOKING FOR NEW MASCOT. explain it, and put the link there.

Once I help to achieve NPOV by going back and getting all of the biased things off, can i take it off the list?Dan 19:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How can i remove an article from "most wanted" after i have done it?Dan 18:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)