Wikipedia talk:Community portal/Archive 17

Utter destruction of readability
Wikipedia's new font choices are a disaster. First off, headings in a serif font. Serifs help letters join together ON PAPER. Then what is that weird font they are using for article content? It is almost unreadable. This revision is a COMPLETE mess. Huw Powell (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And the sans-serif font for the content seems to have been either chosen or designed by a lemur. It is f'ing awful. Huw Powell (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The new fonts - the awful serifs for headers and whatever that godawful sans-serif they are now using for content - are both unreadable.


 * I'll be gone from this site - reading and editing - until these awful user-experience errors are fixed. Bye bye. Someone ruined this web site. Huw Powell (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've posted instructions for a fix on your talk page. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * AussieLegend, I appreciate fixing for individual users, but where is the best place to complain about the vomitous new fonts that WMF is foisting upon the world at large? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the two of you are in a vast minority. I'll wager that because of the differences in format (size, bold) most people don't notice a font difference between the title and body of an article, and a majority probably haven't noticed any recent font change. I rather like the fonts.  I don't like the italics, but I don't like how italics look in most every font. I recommend the individual solution. --Yoda of Borg (✉) 04:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Syberia done
On the project page, I saw Syberia listed under "Fix spelling and grammar". I went through it and did that, then removed the flag template per How to do basic copyediting.

But the article is still listed on this project page. Is the list going to be updated by a bot? There should be at least a note to that effect, either on the page or in "How to do basic copyediting". --Thnidu (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm actually somewhat curious as to how this page gets updated as well. Zell Faze (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * it looks like the task list is updated by User:SuggestBot. According to Bots/Requests for approval/SuggestBot 7 it updates the listing once every hour.  The page with the list itself is at Community portal/Opentask. Zell Faze (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Add three blocks to the "help out" section
This portal's section "help out" should have "Create these articles", "Represent a worldwide view" and "Add historical information" as well, since in English Wikipedia there are still plenty of uncreated notable articles and articles requiring globalization or historical information, and these issues are not less important than articles requiring update. By the way, in the past this section has the block "Create" (I forgot its exact name, but I know that it refers to the block listing some uncreated notable articles).--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And Recent changes article requests should be transcluded to the block "Create these articles", since the template contains some uncreated notable articles.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I had made this proposal twice before (see Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_104 and Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_114), but all failed, which is a pity.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: Sounds like a great idea. Globalization and chronological diversity are some of the biggest challenges Wikipedia currently faces. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 11:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, sounds useful, logical, and quite helpful. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, worth a go. Has anyone looked at pageviews or edits to see how listing articles here induces editing? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I ask that you make separate proposals, probably as separate RFCs? I imagine there hasn't been much interest because it's unclear how to implement it on a technical level. I don't know which ones of these have the lists you're actually thinking of and whether the lists are currently sufficient that I'd support adding them here. I know we used to have those redlink lists but I'd need to look that over (WP:MISSING seems like a decent start). I'm assuming the second one refers to articles in Category:Articles with limited geographic scope and I have zero idea what 'historical information' is referring to and how is that different from "update with new information" (old information?) or "expand short articles" or "fix original research issues." Right now it feels like it could be accepted but it's not clear enough to me what you're thinking. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The first one refers to articles belong to Recent changes article requests, the second one refers to articles in Category:Articles with limited geographic scope, your guess was correct. And the third one refers to articles in Category:Articles lacking historical information, and articles lacking historical information means that they are of systemic bias towards recent information, see Adding historical information.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Good job, fellows.
I just wanted to thank you for your efforts. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse
Shouldn't the Community portal have a link to the teahouse? ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 20:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, it is in the main top navigation. It's not labeled Teahouse because newcomers wouldn't know what that is for.  Instead it is described as a peer help space.  Cheers, Jake Ocaasit &#124; c 01:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. I see what you mean about newcomers not knowing what it's for if it was called teahouse. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 01:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

statistical area
''hi, i'm phd student.first semester.i need to confirm. can i use word 'dominant' in my research objective ? eg: To identify the 12 most dominant trait PPT2 young lecturers IPG "'' TQ Cikgulah (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)cikgulah


 * Hello fellow grad student. Wikipedia isn't really the place for those questions.  Try the Math or Statistics pages of StackExchange.  Good luck.  --Yoda of Borg (✉) 02:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

come'on wiki guys.. do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.233.111 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

How many Telugu / Telangana people were and are British and now Indian army.
Dear sirs,

Can any body tell me the confirm statistics of contribution of Mordern andhra pradesh/Telangane peoples since the era of British colonial and latter post independent India. The statistics shall not include the support staff or medical staff/ people worked in supply core/ administration. I want to know how many of Common soldiers, NCO/JCO/CO officers served our army while participating in 1st WW, later 11 World war, Goa liberation, 1962 china war, 1965/1971 and the great Kargil war with Pakistan. also as on today why Indian army could not have Andhra regiment in the line like Madras & Maratha. was there any substantial contribution by SO CALLED TELUGU'S for the indian country other than the stupid films and living life happily on the others sacrifice at Boarder and after studies migrating to USA ets. Regards, S.Venkat Rao — Preceding unsigned comment added by SVR1954 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2015
This page incorrectly reflects Los Lunas High School being located in Moriarty, NM. It is actually in Los Lunas, N.M. Please correct this.

LINK: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Los-Lunas-High-School/107912819228837?pnref=about

67.0.131.78 (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Community portal. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  00:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A link to the Images needing articles page
Is there any page that newcomers see that could contain Requested articles/Images? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

If not, that is okay. I just thought that new accounts might want to be creative and start their own article. They would probably find that very rewarding and may get into editing. What better way than to have a notability-pre-approved subject with an image at the ready?

Of course, there is the risk that, considering their likely inexperience, they might stub one or many, and leave a bit of a mess. Then again, they have us for support.

Ultimately, connecting Requested articles/Images and newcomers could mean a new article factory and a source of many new, throughly Wikipedia-addicted editors. Thoughts?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * OK I've added it to the see also section on Requested articles. Also I've added it to Wikipedia community which is at the bottom of this page and others.  --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Fantastic!!!! I've removed it from Requested articles because there is already a section there. Great to see it at Wikipedia community. I've arranged it a bit and started a talk discussion about that here. Any other places? I am a big promoter of that page, as you can see. :) Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oops didn't see that. I've updated the template how you suggested. Well I'm not quite sure really, but I'll have a think about it and update it if I come up with anything.  --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

How to know who is in the community ?
Hi ! Please guide me to know that, what is community definition ? and some how to be a community member ? and what is the core community ? what are the parameters for core community members ?

If you can explain please take example of sa.wikipedia.org because I want to know this things there. Thank you NehalDaveND (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Redlink Examples
Here a red link sample is used, but alas it creates a red link which ends up in Special:WantedPages. I've developed a template here just for those types of things. I was thinking about bringing it over here, but the name is already taken by another template. If anybody agrees with bringing this over, please feel free to copy my code over to here under a free name and integrate it as seen necessary. Curiouscrab0 | Got a problem? 23:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * just a note. I think that red link color differs for various skins. -- Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 22:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

script errors lately in biographies
there seems to be a lot of script errors lately in biographies such as this one - Michael Cristofer--68.231.26.111 (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a software error yesterday; see Village pump (technical)/Archive 139. A "purge" has fixed Michael Cristofer. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks--68.231.26.111 (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Highly cited women scientists without articles
I object to because after the removed text was added, the corresponding project experienced an upward turn in participation. Why isn't the community portal "really the proper venue for it"? EllenCT (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I fell a terrible person for saying this, but FEMALE scientists. What is it with feminism and insisting on 'women'? I've seen so many feminist articles that use women! This is by no means an attack on feminism, I'm just commenting on slovenly language practices, that for some reason many feminists partake in (men's rights groups might be as bad but I don't see nearly as much from them as feminists). The Pastafarian Church (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You fell? Which aspect of the usage do you believe is incorrect? EllenCT (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I fell a terrible person. That person was you. Chopped ya right down. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is the reason why it doesn't belong here: this is primarily a portal, not a billboard. The message would make much better sense as an entry at Community bulletin board, which happens to be included here and is where billboard-like items ought to go. As it stands, this particular issue got its own special advertisement in a very prominent place so it's not surprising the project received an up swing in participation. You'd get a big upturn if it were put on Wikipedia's Main Page too but that doesn't mean it belongs there. And because the ad had been here for a while, I expect we are well into the diminishing returns phase and therefore it is becoming more cruft-like day after day. Further, the added text makes a messy-designed page even messier by adding a new format to the "Help Out" section contained in the Community portal/Opentask. The mere fact that this ad was added to this portal page rather than the Opentask subpage underscores its "bolted-on" nature. Maybe it could exist as one of the sub-headings with bullet points for several scientists. As for the topic of the message, female scientist articles are just one of many particular important areas. Why does this even need such a special notice that it literally get puts first in the list of things needing help on at Wikipedia? Plus, I am not even convinced it is countering systematic bias as is claimed. Correct me if I'm wrong but the linked article at WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Thomson-Reuters most cited scientists doesn't discuss gender at all; and on Wikipedia, I didn't find any comparison of the completeness fraction of male scientists from the list to that of female scientists. It seems like somebody just decided that focusing on women in the list helps fix bias without any justification. It is possible that we are actually adding systematic bias with this project. If a thread exists that gives a convincing argument that the article's list exposes a gender bias on Wikipedia, I invite you to link it. So I think it's best to remove the message from here and discuss this on the talk pages of the bulletin board or the Opentasks to figure out if it should be included and how. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that you are actually arguing that the community shouldn't be allowed to use to portal to counter systemic bias. Did you actually read what you wrote? You acknowledge that the systemic bias is real, and then hypothesize that a common sense measure (which I have measured carefully pre- and post-, by the way) may actually be making things worse. That isn't even the semblance of a logical argument. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the call to action is not an effective way to address that bias? EllenCT (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is the argument at all. What is being argued is that the portal should be used as a portal not a bulletin board, which is what they believe you were using it for. If you want to use a portal to counter systematic bias then Jason is saying you need to do that in the manner of a portal.
 * You also seem to be misunderstanding the comments about the list - the list contains males and females, with no distinction between them or analysis of whether the men on it are more or less represented than the women on it, and Jason has been unable to find any discussion of why focusing on women in the list helps fix bias. It may or it may not, but simply saying "it's common sense" is not a good enough justification for such a high profile advert for a project - you were invited to submit or link to evidence supporting your assertion but you have chosen not to - "which I have measured carefully pre- and post-" does not fill that either - what have you measured? how have you measured it? where are the results? A call to action can be a good way to counter a bias, but only if the action does actually counter the balance it intends to. Jason believes that there is a risk that it will actually exacerbate the bias, which would make it a very ineffective way of countering that bias. The way to determine whether the action will have the intended effect is to (a) clearly define the problem, (b) clearly define what needs to happen to resolve that problem, (c) determine a method to achieve that resolution, (d) analyse that method to determine all effects it has, (e) make sure that it has either (i) no side effects, (ii) only positive side effects, (iii) it has positive and negative side effects or (iv) it has only negative side effects; and, if e gives iii or iv, (f) either work through each negative side effect starting at (a) or start again from (c). Jason has been unable to find where any of this has been done, which makes him think that making the call to action was at best premature. If this has been done you can just link to it so Jason's perfectly reasonable fears can be allayed. Thryduulf (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the distinction between Portal and Bulletin Board calls to action based in policy, guideline, or even precedent?  The link from this portal was to WikiProject Missing encyclopedic_articles/Thomson-Reuters most cited scientists which is a sublist of women only. Since you and Jason are unable to achieve enough good faith to believe that I measured it during my discussions on the talk page, I invite you to make your own measurements of the article creation rate for the formerly redlinked women on the list before and after . I am confident mine are correct both in terms of raw article creation rates and relative to the formerly redlinked men scientists, but the data is not immediately available to me at present, being as it is on an old laptop in storage. In the mean time, I intend to replace the deletion, unless your faith in my measurement is so lacking as to cause further objections. The community has been working on defining the problem and trying to resolve it for the better part of a decade now. Should you have any plausible hypotheses about "side effects" one way or the other, I invite you to state them in concrete testable form instead of hypotheticals. EllenCT (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there the same number of known female scientists as male though (in English)? A female chemist who was asked to work at Los Alamos was asked how well she typed. Merka is an absurdly sexist country, is it really possible to have a similar number of female scientists? They just mightn't be acknowledged at all. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @EllenCT Sorry for the late reply. EllenCT, Thryduulf did a great job replying to you on my behalf. I will first endorse that comment. Your continued focus on article creation rate establishes you are missing the point of contention. The article creation rate is of minor concern. The point is whether we should be trying to increase the article creation rate for female scientists based on that list. The only discussion on the talk page that discusses the whether Wikipedia under-represents woman from the list compared to men seems to be in the "Proposed procedure for removing unsourceable names" thread, and then only near the very end. The same concerns I am raising are raised in that thread and the only counterargument given is by FourViolas. agrees that focusing on female scientists in the list may be a mistake but then clearly offers the view that it would be okay to add female-bias to the set of scientists articles to counter an overall male-bias on Wikipedia. Adding bias to counter bias is not how WP:NPOV wants us to achieve neutrality at all! That is not aiming for a neutral point of view but is a fully biased point of view and against policy. Popish Plot in the last reply in the thread even . I do not see that it's been established on that talk page that focusing effort on creating articles for female scientists from that list is helping counter gender bias on Wikipedia. The possibility is still open that it's helping to add bias to the set of scientists articles. The rationale for the banner simply has not been established and it should be removed in light of possible NPOV violations. The "measurement" you ask me to trust from a laptop in storage (really?!) appears to be on the article creation rate and is therefore not of interest at the moment. You have not given satisfactory responses to the concerns over the banner and it's not even clear to me they were understood. I must continue to oppose its addition. On a different note, please do not suggest that Thryduulf and I are not assuming good faith; it's perfectly possible to have good faith in somebody while disagreeing with their editing. (As for the place where the banner would go, it can be discussed if the banner's existence is properly justified.) Jason Quinn (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV pertains to assigning appropriate weight to different sources within an article. The issue at hand is whether we should allocate particular energy to creating certain articles. Since Wikipedia isn't following a master plan, it's hardly inappropriate to suggest that meta-bias exists in which articles are created. FourViolas (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. My sentiments exactly. EllenCT (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I anticipated a slippery slope possibly happening but I think we should face that when it comes to it. This is probably similar to a permanent revolution meaning Wikipedia's rules, policies, initiatives, even what banner to have or not have on certain pages, will always be debated. I think we want to have all the facts in Wikipedia, right now this topic of women scientists can be improved, and it can't hurt to "advertise" this need all over Wikipedia. This community portal and whatever other places. Why not? Can't hurt? In the future someone might make the argument that we need more articles on male scientists. Hey go for it if it's properly sourced and all that. Popish Plot (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * On what grounds do you claim that the call to action is "POV pushing" as you wrote in your edit summary? I see nothing in your or Thryduulf's arguments which indicate that you have any substantive objections to the inclusion, only that you think there isn't enough evidence to support the call to action. And I am appalled at the views aligned with yours which you have chosen to leave unaddressed above. Your question "(really?)" indicates that you don't have faith in my recollection of the data I collected, and frankly I can not reconstruct the details from the tallies I have. I am asking for a wider range of views to be expressed on this issue. EllenCT (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @EllenCT. You have been recreating the banner without directly addressing (yet alone dispelling) the concerns raised. First, the banner is misplaced but at the moment I'm not even concerned with that. Of far more importance is that it may be introducing bias to the set of scientists articles and you've made it very clear that you are assuming without any evidence that it's helping eliminate bias. Further, the "Proposed procedure for removing unsourceable names" thread, which by elimination you must have been citing as the justification when you referred us to the talk page, uses the idea that it's okay to add bias to fix bias and openly admits no bias may exist among the scientists listed. The WP:NPOV policy applies not just to articles but to content in general. This is established literally in the first sentence. So the idea that fixing bias by adding bias is allowed under NPOV is completely wrong and therefore so is FourViolas's interpretation WP:NPOV. The few comments that address the issue of bias in the thread do not establish that the creation of female articles helps eliminate bias from the set of scientist articles; so no persuasive argument have been given that this banner is preventing bias. You are taking the pro-active stance, the onus is on you to provide the evidence not me. By definition, if something is not NPOV, it is POV. As the current rationale for the banner's existence relies on arguments that are against our NPOV policy. your continued efforts to keep reinsert it is POV-pushing.
 * As for your personal research, it doesn't address the concerns expressed (it's about articles creation rates, as stated above) so let's not let this turn into a red herring. If you want to know why the "really?, it's simple: asking people to accept blindly the results of personal, unreproducible, unlocatable research is completely unacceptable in merit-based discussion, especially considering you were under the impression it was the data needed to justify the banner's existence and therefore you were using it to try to end the discussion on the very topic under scrutiny. I don't know how you can think "I did personal research I cannot show you" would be a valid response here.
 * To those only now joining this discussion, I really want to underscore what's at the heart of the matter and what's by FourViolas: to counter an overall bias on Wikipedia it's okay to add bias to subsets of articles by affecting which articles are being created. EllenCT used FourViolas's idea when telling use the argument is on the talk page to support the banner's existence. Popish Plot says "we might regret making it an official policy". (I'm not sure in what way a couple comments tacked onto the end of a long discussion starts being refereed to as "official policy" but it's clear that EllenCT thinks some sort of consensus was established in that thread. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If I hear you right, you think we need evidence that WP is biased in this area (biographies by gender) before we take action steps to counteract this supposed bias. That's a very reasonable position, and I completely agree with you. Fortunately, this research has actually been done.


 * Wikipedia articles on women are more likely to be missing than are articles on men relative to Britannica.
 * From
 * Does that settle your concern? FourViolas (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * what other evidence or information would you need to see, if any, to replace the call to action? EllenCT (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You are not hearing right, FourViolas. I am not suggesting there is no gender bias in Wikipedia. I have repeated multiple times now that the issue is if we may be adding bias to the the subset of scientist articles and I think I have been pretty clear. Imagine if the representation of scientists on Wikipedia currently represents gender neutrally. If we then focus on creating female scientists articles, we would actually be harming Wikipedia in this case. To establish that focusing on the creation of articles of female scientists is helping eliminate bias, what needs to be given, EllenCT, is an measurement (or even a viable estimate) of the ratio of the fraction of scientists with Wikipedia articles from that list to the fraction of female scientists with Wikipedia articles from the list. If there is no bias, this ratio should be about 1. More accurate yet but harder would be to measure the ratio of the fraction of notable male scientists with Wikipedia articles from that list to the fraction of notable female scientists with Wikipedia articles from the list. The talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Thomson-Reuters most cited scientists already has a bit of discussion about the complication notability adds. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand.
 * A 2011 study proved that notable women in general are less likely to have WP articles than notable men.
 * No parallel study has specifically investigated Thomson-Reuters listees. (Such a study would be hard to do, as you note. Most of these scientists are not yet Britannicated, so we don't have that external notability benchmark.)
 * EllenCT and I think it is reasonable to assume that whatever forces created this bias in favor of men in general also apply to male recently highly-cited scientists specifically.
 * You think it is not reasonable to assume that whatever forces created this bias in favor of men in general also apply to male recently highly-cited scientists specifically.
 * I respect your position, and in the absence of data at this level of detail I think further discussion won't change either of our minds. (A more recent study, again general, found that en.wp now has a smaller general pro-male coverage bias, and other Wikipedias even have a pro-female coverage bias.) If you agree with the above characterization, let's let the community decide which assumption is more logical. FourViolas (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC on call to action for missing heavily cited female scientists
Should the call to action deleted at be restored? Alternatively, should a selection of redlinks for missing heavily cited female scientists be included in Community portal/Opentask? 15:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Restore - as proposer, to address longstanding systemic bias reinforced with obvious sexism above; or include redlinks of the names of missing highly cited female scientists in the open tasks. EllenCT (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether the page should have a note about this topic, where it was placed seems pretty inappropriate, giving major prominence to it over everything else on the page. Sam Walton (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to scroll down with my browser almost at full screen to see it at all. Redlinks in the open tasks, which used to have redlinks in them, would be more prominent. EllenCT (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, on my screen it does seem more prominent than other items on the page. Most likely just due to the initial use of bold typeface coupled with its placing near to the top. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose restoring. It was added ten months ago [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACommunity_portal&type=revision&diff=627612820&oldid=613923290] and the page had around three million views while it was there. It already got too much exposure when there are numerous other ways to improve Wikipedia. It isn't Wikipedia's most overwhelming problem needing big attention forever above everything else. The text also had several issues. The bold red  New!  was too attention seeking, it claimed "New!" for nine months, and "Please make sure" is not a good way to ask volunteers to work in a particular area. Such wording is better for asking to be careful to not make errors. "Please help" is better for recruitment. "highly cited scientists" could easily be misunderstood to mean highly cited in Wikipedia, such that article creation would help make blue links. Many of the scientists aren't currently mentioned in Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would think there's a place for WP:CSB or WP:MISSING, even if we don't link this specific issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: In my experience with drafts of articles about women researchers at Articles for Creation, editors have a great deal of difficulty creating one that is acceptable unless they are very familiar with research, academics, and finding independent sources. So the Community page is not the best place to look for editors to do this. It would be better to approach WikiProject Women scientists. Their Worklist collects lists of articles to be created or improved and works on them, turning the red links to blue. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per PrimeHunter. Not much I can add to that really. There are other things that could use attention that haven't had a turn so recently at the proposed location. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 06:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment How many scientists are we talking about here? On the linked page there are about 30 missing pages for highly cited women scientists, but are there more? If it's only 30, then that could probably be rectified locally by WikiProject Women scientists. If there are more, then you could start a WikiProject Women scientists article drive (maybe like they do at AFC) and link to it from WP:CENT. And if there are really a lot (more than 500?) maybe you could even get a watchlist notice. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 11:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I examined page views for all 20 articles currently listed at articles created or developed as part of this drive. They are at least three months old and have 42 to 128 views in the last 30 days, with 74 on average. At this size a significant part may be bots. Articles on notable subjects is always good but we are not satisfying a reader demand here. For comparison, Marie Curie has 64887 views in the last 30 days, and her article is number 3537 at User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is circular reasoning. We do not write articles about XX category of articles because readers do not look for XX. Readers do not look for XX because they are mostly unaware of the existence and importance of XX. Readers are unaware of XX because there are little information, including in Wikipedia, about XX. Sure, we are not in the business of making right all that is wrong, but we are not also here to make it worse. - Nabla (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Rebrand. Editors don't get excited about the idea of writing articles about random women to try to compensate for the bias in other people's interests.  What they do get excited about is the idea of completely covering a topic.  Instead of selling this as a way to balance coverage of the sexes, instead, sell this as a drive to get editors to cover (or exclude) every person on the Thomson-Reuters list or other lists that may be available. Wnt (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to go with User:Wnt on this. There appear to be currently a couple of dozen female scientists from the list, that are still missing, compared with hundreds of male scientists.  If people can "finish off" the female part of the list, all well and good, but we can't really sell 100% female coverage (given the reported 48% of computer scientists, 38% of  psychologists and psychiatrists, 33% of biologists and biochemists and 22% of physicists - we might guess 40% male coverage) as "evening things up."  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC).


 * Rich, if I understand 's comments on the project talk page correctly, both the men and the women currently visible are a very small fraction of the total list (for copyright reasons). FourViolas (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 *  Support  Keep on the community bulletin board (maybe at the top of #Projects seeking help) for PR reasons. The community portal is (of course) the introduction to the WP community for many new users and non-users. That community, as described at Gender bias on Wikipedia, is disproportionately male, and that is a systemic bias problem, one we (Jimbo, WMF, etc) claim to be addressing. This call to action is a tangible, highly visible statement of WP's values: we want to share knowledge, and we are, really, honest, working to address the gender gap. It tells the world that Wikipedia is taking action steps to fix one of its toughest problems. It helps encourage female newbies to believe that they really are welcome here, and consequently helps WP tap in to a population of valuable potential editors it's currently wasting.


 * The existence of programs like Google's "Mind the Gap", or the Association for Women in Science's corporate partnerships, implies that publicly embracing this issue is a savvy move. The call to action is good for WP's image. FourViolas (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree it could be appropriate somewhere (the community bulletin board probably), the portal just isn't the place for it. Sam Walton (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a fair compromise. Adjusted my !vote accordingly. FourViolas (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree that placing such a notice at the top of the portal is undue. That space is for general tasks anyone can dive into quickly, IMO. However, adding WP:WikiProject Women Scientists to the Projects Seeking Help section of the bulletin board would be appropriate. BethNaught (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, one line on the top of the open tasks, each of which are several lines in three columns, isn't even visible until you scroll down. EllenCT (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Restore :I did wonder if it might become a slippery slope where many other groups demand special (not sure what right word to use here) rights on Wikipedia to get more attention to their cause. I don't want to edit this topic too much myself because I am not a science expert. I don't see a legitimate reason mentioned here to stop this initiative, not right. If it becomes a slippery slope let's address it then. Right now it's not broke so why fix it (by not restoring). Popish Plot (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Not really against, but... shouldn't we do better than that? Why do female scientists that get forgotten should have a special message, but male scientists that get forgotten don't? Shouldn't we have an action for missing heavily cited scientists, period, without gender bias on that call? Sure, probably such list will have more women than men, maybe many more women, but why only women? BTW, why only scientists...? - Nabla (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support affirmative actions in attempting to re-balance from cases of evident systematic bias. Detecting and responding to systematic bias should be taken more seriously.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Restore a systemic bias tasks list. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: this seems a typical cry from “equality” fundamentalists who ironically push for a preferential treatment of their favorite minority/non-predominating group, in detraction of an actually equal treatment, in order to achieve their standard of equality in results that the minority/non-predominating group in question is incapable of achieving by itself. To encourage contribution to cover specifically one such groups is a break pf neutrality, especially on a generic venue like this. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for the advocates of any such non-predominant group. The criterion of female scientists isn't any different than the criterion of scientist from any X country or with Y age range or hair color, or a particular physical handicap; this is simply the preferred criterion of the editor who added the cry.
 * If we were lacking coverage in important scientists, there is no reason to encourage contribution about female scientist more than male scientists, just like there is no reason to encourage contributions on scientists who meet the criterion preferred by any other editor. The reality is that important people is already covered in Wikipedia, often by very mature articles started more than 10 years ago. We have millions of articles, many of which are on people; we have so much coverage on people that we are in the point where barely important people is covered as well, like run of the mill singers. Furthermore, if some researchers who are frequently cited have not had enough impact in society for somebody to write an article about them, that says a lot about how important they really are. Statistics gathered from scientific journals are not a magic source of information, they can be corrupted easily; just see SCIgen.
 * Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

Alternative proposal
Should a selection of redlinks for missing heavily cited female scientists be included in Community portal/Opentask? EllenCT (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems like that page is for already existing Wikipedia articles that have one specific problem such as spelling issues or needing updated news added. A red link is of course a page that doesn't actually exist yet. Starting a whole page on something especially a BLP is a bit more work that the list of tasks there I think. I did vote for restore above and think a selection of redlinks for female scientists should be somewhere prominent. Popish Plot (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There used to be a list of redlinks in the Open tasks for "most requested missing articles" by top redlinks pointing to the same article. EllenCT (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to make a navbar wrap?
Perhaps having 2 navbars side-by-side that look like one until there is not enough room for them across the screen. Then the second one is pushed underneath the fist.

Is there a way to do that without doubling the borderline between them? The Transhumanist 18:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Shaded headings for Community portal/Opentask subpage?
Greetings: The other day, I posted a proposed change and example for the Opentask subpage. IMO this will make the rows and columns easier to read. Please leave your discussion and comments at Community portal, Opentask subpage, Proposal: Shaded heading boxes? section. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * feedback & discussion on above shading example.
 * JoeHebda (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * [[File:Internet-group-chat.svg]] Asking for comments at Community portal, Opentask subpage, Proposal: Shaded heading boxes? section.. JoeHebda (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: double stack icon bar
Example below:JoeHebda (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

{| id="Lookforhelp" style="width:100%; margin-top: 2em;" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"  Looking for help?
 * colspan="3" style="background:BlanchedAlmond; text-align:left; padding:0px;" |
 * colspan="3" style="background:BlanchedAlmond; text-align:left; padding:0px;" |
 * style="width:100%;vertical-align:top;" |
 * style="width:100%;vertical-align:top;" |

{| id="Moretodo" style="width:100%; margin-top: 2em;" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"  Interact more
 * colspan="3" style="background:BlanchedAlmond; text-align:left; padding:0px;" |
 * colspan="3" style="background:BlanchedAlmond; text-align:left; padding:0px;" |
 * style="width:100%;vertical-align:top;" |
 * style="width:100%;vertical-align:top;" |


 * I don't see how this is an improvement. The help desk, reference desk, village pump & teahouse links are not just for seeking help; they are also for encouraging the providing of help. So the "interact more" header seems more appropriate. And the tips and help directory provide little in the way of interaction, or no more than the myriad of other help pages.
 * I think a lot of the proposals confuse help pages with the community portal: the community portal is not really a help page. It is instead to direct editors to ways in which they can contribute to WP: fixing specific articles, working on the help desk, etc. For help with how to edit, people should go to Help:Contents.  --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As mentioned in the previous discussion, Village Pump is not a help department (though one of them is, the rest are discussion or decision-making forums).
 * The tips library and help directory are not interactive, and do not fit that set. Plus they are already included in the standard navbar at the top of the page.
 * Interaction is the selection criteria for the entire set, so there's no need for a second menu title.
 * Good proposal. Just needs some minor adjustments. (Reducing the set back to its 7 original items and retaining the one title). The Transhumanist 19:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Here it is, adjusted
And shrunk a bit. See below. The Transhumanist 19:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

{| id="Todo" style="width:100%; margin-top: 2em;" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"  Interact more {| style="margin-top:0;" align="center"
 * colspan="3" style="background:BlanchedAlmond; text-align:left; padding:0px;" |
 * colspan="3" style="background:BlanchedAlmond; text-align:left; padding:0px;" |
 * style="width:100%;vertical-align:top;" |
 * style="width:100%;vertical-align:top;" |
 * style="width:100%;vertical-align:top; align:center;" |
 * A good solution, looks good! Thanks JoeHebda (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarify interaction
Below is another idea based on above, after I've had a chance to rethink...

{| id="Todo" style="width:100%; margin-top: 2em;" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"  Interact more The following are places for editors to collaborate together offering help to other editors, as well as asking for help. The following are places where editors can work together improving articles within WikiProjects, resolve disputes, and give awards to other editors.
 * colspan="3" style="background:BlanchedAlmond; text-align:left; padding:0px;" |
 * colspan="3" style="background:BlanchedAlmond; text-align:left; padding:0px;" |
 * style="width:100%;vertical-align:top;" |
 * style="width:100%;vertical-align:top;" |

Note: - Adding a single summary sentence for each icon toolbar group clarifies the kinds of interactions that can be chosen. JoeHebda (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)re
 * The purpose of the large showy icons is to entice users to click on them. The only way for them to understand what each of these pages are for, without a full description being presented here, is to clck its icon. Text around them competes visually with them.  These are navbars, designed to click over and over again. Users will know what each icon is for after clicking on it once. The Transhumanist 17:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Testing - Gallery icon bar
Another variation of the icon bar, using gallery. JoeHebda (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * How well does it render on smart phones? The Transhumanist 20:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't have a smart phone, but when I click on Mobile view & narrow minimum browser window, it single stacks the icons and the transparency grid goes away. So it looks better than Desktop view. JoeHebda (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)