Wikipedia talk:Community portal

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

• "Things you can do" section
• "Tip of the day" section

Archives:

• Feb-Mar 2004: Discussion about creating the page and adding a link to the sidebar
• Archive 2 (Feb-Dec 2004)

Trying to revert vandalism

It's still not working, just a link to hotniss.com, which I assume is either a prank site or a porn site.

Somebody trashed the Community Portal pages, so I tried to revert it, following the instructions I found at Wikipedia:How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version but the revert doesn't seem to be taking. Weirdly, though, the markup text in the edit box seems to be the correct, reverted version, but that's not what's displaying on the page. Now I'm hoping that nobody sees my revert and thinks I'm a vandal. 69.160.182.110 11:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ditto 219.176.166.29 11:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, got it fixed. 219.176.166.29 11:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What did you do differently, to make it work? I just noticed that not only did my reversion not take, but my edits aren't even showing up in the page history...(that's me at 11:23, forgot to log in)Rwlane 11:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just went one step further back in the history to do the reversion. And it took. Also, I think the history page may have been altered to remove vandalism. Which explains why, even though we were just trying to fix it, our edits also showed up as vandalism, and were subsequently removed. MikeDockery 03:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I had to use the flush cache link (c.f. the link near the top of the page) Mr. Jones 17:48, 27 Apr 2005 (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.

I've archived discussions from December 2004 and earlier. — J3ff 02:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to post this...

there is someone, they don't have a username, just IP address...they're putting inappropriate language under different articles...i've seen one under the St. Valentine article. (I was trying to find out some info on St. Valentine and up pops this curse word message!) i'm not sure what to do, or where to post this. i'm sorry if this disscussion doesn't fit under a community portal comment.

The Wiki way to report this is to post the user's IP address on the Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#Current alerts page. (You just edit the page like any other.) There's a template you can copy that shows you how to format the new entry. An administrator will see your entry and take appropriate action. By the way, on Wiki, it's usual to sign your discussion posts by putting in four tildes, like this: ~~~~

And welcome to WIkipedia!

Atlant 01:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why the black boxes?

Should we dump those? Looks pretty horrid. I know I can change it meself, but I'm wondering if htere's a reason for them? --62.255.64.9 03:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems someone recently included an extra variable to the {{opentask}} and {{totd}} templates to specify the background colour. This user neglected to actually specify the background colour on this page after making the change, which caused the templates to render an unreadable black. I've specified a white background colour, which should make things readable again. -- Hadal 04:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did that. What browser are you using? Not specifying it resulted in the default to me. 119 04:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IE (yes, laugh if you will). It's not the best browser, but a significant number of surfers use it. That's why I keep it installed; to make sure any changes I make won't crap things up. You made your changes to those templates without any prior discussion; this was improper. I can't easily test on other browsers, but without specifying the variable the templates render with a black background colour. So, on every page featuring the templates without a specified variable, they're now unreadable to a sizeable portion of users. This is why it's important to discuss non-trivial changes to major templates before making those changes. I've half a mind to undo your edits, but I hope you might do so voluntarily. -- Hadal 04:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having identified a problem that affects a 'major template', you're just sitting on your hands hoping it will be fixed? I didn't know there was a problem, I've now fixed the problem. A friendly reminder that you shouldn't order or lecture. 119 04:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would have reverted immediately, but I wasn't aware your changes were undiscussed until after I fixed the rendering on this page (which is the most visiible page using the templates). Fixing one's own mistakes is a good learning experience, I've found. As for "lecturing" you: I'm sorry if my perceived tone bothered you (it was not intended to be hostile), but without pointing out your faux pas, you may easily have repeated it in future. We all make mistakes; we can only hope to learn from them. -- Hadal 04:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More COTW's

Has anyone ever wondered why only the main COTW is featured. I think we could add under that just a short list of the other COTW's (there are really only about three others that are active) and their current articles. I think this would give them more attention and spark interest, not to mention the overall goal which is to improve the articles. Any suggestions? --Dmcdevit 04:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Replace link to Wikipedia:Boilerplate text?

Looking for suitable templates to use, I noticed that there is no link to Wikipedia:Template messages on the Community Portal; only Wikipedia:Boilerplate text is listed. The latter page seems to be deprecated and suggests using the former instead. Shouldn't the link therefore be updated to point to the Template message page instead? --Plek 00:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Added: I just discovered that the "Custom messages" link actually points to the Wikipedia:Template messages page (via a redirect)! That's rather confusing. How about deleting the "Boilerplate text" link and rename "Custom messages" to "Template messages"? --Plek 00:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

more Things To Do?

Has anyone ever thought of adding the Countering Systemic Bias Open Tasks to the "Things to do" section? Especially since they are discontinuing the CSBCOTW, so it will no longer be on the COTW section. It looks like this. --Dmcdevit 04:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay I boldly did it. Whatcha all think? --Dmcdevit 04:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's some excess angle brackets at the top of the template. I took a quick look and couldn't see where they were coming from. Apart from that, it looks good.-gadfium 05:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Wikimedia Collaboration of the Week

I have started a page on Meta for a Wikimedia-wide collaboration of the week: m:Wikimedia COTW. As most of you will know, Wikimedia is the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia. It also operates many other sister projects: Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikispecies, the Wikimedia Commons, and the Meta-Wiki itself, which is used for cross-project coordination, documentation, brainstorming, etc.

Many of these projects need more exposure even within our community. Furthermore, there are tasks which all projects would benefit from which simply do not get done. An example of this is the MediaWiki documentation on Meta, which is out of date and poorly structured. Another example would be an inter-project collaboration, e.g. "add appropriate Wikinews links to current events coverage and write articles for events that don't have Wikinews aricles yet".

The Wikimedia Collaboration of the Week is an attempt to focus the energy of the community on one such task every week, similar to the regular Wikipedia:Collaboration of the Week.

I would like to replace the existing Tip of the Day box on the portal with the box below. The reason is that, ever since I stopped updating the TOTD, it has been very poorly maintained (the last "tip of the day" is from February 16). True, that could be changed, but I'm not sure how valuable the section is in any case. It may be more useful to spend the energy on structuring our help so people don't have to read tips to find random goodies.

So, here is what I would like the first Wikimedia COTW to look like:

The Wikimedia Collaboration of the Week is an attempt to get the Wikimedia community to join forces in tackling problems that affect all our projects, and to rise exposure of little-known or recently launched projects like Wikispecies and Wikinews, as well as of Wikimedia as a whole. You can now make suggestions and vote on what the first COTW should be.

The text would obviously be changed once the first COTW has been chosen. The idea is that a similar box would go on practically all the Wikimedia projects (though not necessarily on the Community Portal).--Eloquence* 23:54, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I would like it if the English Wikipedia participated in this. silsor 03:24, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Urgent help needed

I need help! Someone has redirected my talk page to a pornographic image. Can someone fix this for me? → JarlaxleArtemis 00:21, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Shortcut?

Is there some reason the Community Portal doesn't have a shortcut as almost all major pages do? Surely this is one of the most common. --Dmcdevit 04:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's in the left-hand side menu (in the default MonoBook skin), so it probably doesn't need one. -- Curps 04:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh duh! (you mean we don't have a shortcut to the Main Page?) :) Disregard that. --Dmcdevit 04:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Updating entries

Can we please have a "latest entries" as well as "old entries" link - as otherwise gets too fiddly to add requests for development, queries etc.

Reporting vandalism

AlistairMcMillan is continualy removing sections of the Prometheus Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prometheus_class_starship

He has been told to stop repeatedly and its been pointed out the information he is removing is canon and he has no position to remove it.

-Alyeska

It isn't vandalism, it's a content dispute. The term "canon" has no established meaning on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia and not a fan site. Please continue to discuss the matter with this user, who as far as I can see is offering perfectly reasonable arguments supporting his removals. Perhaps a good compromise would be to have a separate section for specifications and the like which are from sources that are not considered canon, or are disputed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Updates page

Can we please have the link to the relevant pages again - I want to put some queries etc on. If there is no such page, I (and others) will find other things to do.

Speedy deletes

Far out!!! Speedys are taking forever to be deleted tonight. netbux has been around for about half an hour! i mean i wrtoe a good article about netbux, and it got deleted via vfd. which i'm cool about - but then some fucking fuckface goes and writes a crappy ad for netbux, using a referal number. plus there is a heap of other shit on speedy that hasn't been deleted yet. we need more admins from Aus, cause they can be on wiki about now, its like 6 oclock here. THE KING 07:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the referral number when this happens. If the article is constantly recreated, then we may have to have a protected redirect to pyramid scheme, as you or someone else suggested, but we try to avoid having protected pages.-gadfium 08:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Help?

could someone talk to me? I have... I guess the equivalent of an Apple Pie recipe, that I want to put on Wikipedia. I read everything, but I'm still not sure where I should be editing, or if I need a new category. I have 1 original source and 2 primary sources, I also have 50 anti-sources (sources that confirm that said source exists and is possible, and are radically against the existance or knowledge of my chosen interest.) because of this my exact topic of interest is nearly impossible to find any documentation about on the internet, and because of the culture surrounding it's development, I cannot find any books or published reference material directly on it.

-SkaldSircha