Wikipedia talk:Community portal

; Designs and redesigns
	(previous designs); Please draft layout changes here:; Community portal/Draft

Community portal sections
	Community bulletin board; Open tasks; Current collaborations; Article improvement drive; Good article collaboration; Core topics collaboration; Tip of the day; Community portal subpage list

This page is for the discussion/improvement of the community portal only. Large changes to it should be discussed here first.

For general questions about Wikipedia, please consult the Wikipedia FAQ first.

For getting help about how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the help desk.

For other questions regarding factual topics, please use the reference desk.

For discussion unrelated to the community portal, please visit the village pump forums.

Possible page streamline?

Following some discussion at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details, it seems that some editors feel that the Watchlist notices are being abused for things that really should be advertised either here or at the Village Pump. I brought up the concern (with which a few people agree) that as the Community Portal (in particular) is currently laid out, it's difficult to find debates which are "hot topics" or which have wide-ranging ramifications for the community. As an example, one watchlist notice invites users to comment on alternatives to the current Main Page design; but I can't find a notice of the discussion on the front page of the Community Portal. (Perhaps I'm just missing it - which reinforces my point that such information is difficult to find.)

When it was the last time the Portal went through a major re-design? Does anyone else (other than the few of us who commented on the talk page above) feel that the page is cluttered and hard to find things in? -- MatthewDBA (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, do you mean overhauling the whole thing, or just the Bulletin Board (WP:CBB)? I'm the main maintainer of the bulletin board currently, and it grows and shrinks a tremendous amount from month to month, so keep that in mind :) As long as it works at all screen sizes, anything is possible.

The whole portal was last overhauled in early 2006 (2 months after the WP:CBB was invented. the community portal wasn't used for "announcement" type things before that). See Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign for details, including a handy list of previous iterations. Feel free to have a stab at cleanup at Wikipedia:Community Portal/Draft or in your sandbox.

There were also some merge suggestions at Template talk:WP nav pages (header bar)#Directories?, if we were to overhaul the whole thing. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion obviously is related to the one directly below. Even though the proposal itself is unlikely to go anywhere, the table at User talk:RichardF/Main Page/Community could be useful background for any streamlining discussions here. RichardF (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Header redesign

I've redesigned the Community portal header on the draft page. Could this be considered to replace the current one? Pretzels^Talk! 19:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe without the giant cartoon icon. Perhaps something like this? That would keep the standard appearance of the TableofContents box, that users are most easily able to recognize.

Not sure though, would want to hear feedback from more people first. Removing the individual VPump links might frustrate many people who are accustomed to finding them at the top of this page. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we try it out on the portal? That would be the best way to get feedback. Pretzels^Talk! 00:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. This page tends to be pretty quiet until there are complaints ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK! I made a few more tweaks and put it up. To anyone who's unsure about it, compare it to the old one :) Pretzels^Talk! 18:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had agreed there would be no giant cartoon icon?

I replacing it with the design that I understood you were going to implement. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance-wise this new header is an improvement, but I think that over-all it is not an improvement because the buttons "Read help and docs", "Ask a question", etc. are too cryptic. Things were better-explained before, and I think the additional explanation is necessary. For example, "Ask a question" isn't for any kind of question: it points to the Reference desk, which is for questions about the outside world, not about Wikipedia itself. This needs to be stated or we send people to the wrong place half the time. It was stated before. I would like to keep your improved visual format but make the buttons more informative. Renaming some or all of them might help a little. Also, could we stand to have maybe four to six words of explanatory text on the buttons in a smaller font? -- Ong saluri (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: New editors' portal

When I was a brand-new wikipedia editor, I wanted to help out wikipedia, but the places I could begin weren't easily apparent. I clicked "community portal" in the sidebar because it seemed to be a reasonable place to get information on that sort of thing. The problem was then (and is now), though, that the community portal is poorly designed for new users and includes all sorts of arcane processes that new editors probably are uninterested in and could not help too much by their participation, at least at first. Would it make sense to create something like Wikipedia:New editors' portal (linked very prominently from the the front of this page) to have little boxes giving ideas about how to help, maybe a rotating box of editing tips, and other lists of simple ways to get started (find a wikiproject's todo list, look through cleanup categories, how about starting with some basic wikification, etc.). Has this ever existed elsewhere? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. There is a new users page here but it's dated and not geared particularly towards new editors. It includes a rotating tip box, like you mentioned. I think it would be a good idea to merge the Community Bulletin Board (which is basically requests for help) and Help out, with more explanation of each type of task. What would you say to that? I think it would be over-complicating things to create and maintain a whole new portal. Pretzels^Talk! 22:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Welcoming committee page certainly should be geared towards new editors... I'd suggest updating that page to be what you want it to be (and I agree that it needs updating). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent GA articles

Would it be possible for the Notices section to prominently display recent GA promotions? I think that would be a way to promote the process, reward those who worked hard on the articles and encourage more timely reviews. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This information is in the Wikipedia Signpost, that's almost at the top of the Community Portal. Pretzels^Talk! 21:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm... I couldn't find it, and I rarely look under there anyway. It'd be nice to have it more prominently displayed on this page.—RJH (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please please include links when asking about something or explaining something! It helps everyone, including those who do and don't know what you're talking about. It is why shortcuts exist, and it lets you verify your statements, and point out useful context.

Pretzel: new WP:GA are not mentioned in the signpost, only WP:FA are.

RJHall: I'm looking at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Log, and there are between 25-40 new GA every 3 days. That's a lot of lines to fit into this already near-overwhelming page. Ahh, now I see the template Wikipedia:Good articles/recent has hidden-comment instructions that restricts it to 15 items, and provides it in a handy linear format.

Now, the problem here, is if we add the new GA list, we're also going to need to add the new FA list, and it looks like this: Template:Announcements/New featured content.

We could maybe squeeze them both into (or following) the "collaborations" section; however, I'd object to putting either/or both of them in the WP:CBB's ("Community bulletin board") #notices section, as it would push the "help out" and "collaborations" sections down too far. (and make the page significantly larger)

Those are my first thoughts, anyway. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm surprised it's that high a rate considering how many haven't been reviewed in over a month. In that case I think it would be nifty to have a clickable ticker-tape style display for recent FA and GA pages. But that may be more trouble than its worth.—RJH (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Things to do", there is an entry, "Make recommendations on articles listed at Good article reassessment." Would it be reasonable to insert, "Review a good article nomination"?—RJH (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Or expand the GA mention that is already there to include that and other aspects. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, this is a brilliant idea. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which part? There are 3 separate proposals above. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the general idea. Still need to digest the 3 proposals. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbing down

Could this be moved to the end of the relevant list - to avoid "misreading linkage to next entry"? (Such accidentals, however, might be "a good thing" for WP April 1). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entry is at Wikipedia:Community Portal/Opentask/Original research. You could edit it yourself, or just wait for the list to be refreshed. Personally, I think the comma separating the entries is sufficient. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is a quirk of the WP system combined with "creative misreading" (and if "WP Bad Jokes etc" still operated this would be a viable candidate.) (g). Jackiespeel (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link to Wikipedia merchandise

I think there should be an own box introducing Wikipedia merchandise on this page, since it otherwise is very hard to find to. Preferably I'd have it below Donate to Wikipedia at the menu at left - after all, all proceeds from Wikipedia stuff that we sell go to the project, and could generate at least as much as donations - but having it here would perhaps be sufficient. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it could fit in the collaborations section of this article, in the form of helping to give suggestions of designs of clothes or other ideas for merchandise. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, it's done now. Thanks Quiddity! Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the introduction instead of the community portal in the sidebar

Please see and comment here on this proposal. Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture upload

Hi,

A guest here.

Can someone with the appropriate authorizations please receive from me by mail a serie of photographs I've created and upload them globally & freely, so one can use them within some relevant articles on several language-wikis?

It should be noted that I'm an active editor on some 4 language editions.

Thanks in advance

/O 02:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.113.254 (talk)

For global access, you should upload to Commons, our Free media repository. You should be able to do that yourself, if you already have an account at any other language projects. Ask them for help if you have any problems. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motto of the Day

Please could could you have a look at WT:MOTD#The Future? Simply south (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HELP Please

I am attempting to create a new account in Wikipedia Bahasa Melayu (ms). It seems like all IPs from my school have been blocked. What happened to Wikipedia sysops there? 158.143.167.250 (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the slow response - you can get an account set up for you at Wikipedia:Request an account. — Pretzels^Hii! 22:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listing upcoming meetups

I would like to suggest that we list upcoming Wikipedia:Meetups here, maybe through some shortened version of the {{Meetup}} template.--Pharos (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2012

the world is not going t end in 2012 ok do you hear me it`s just a dumb rumour that someone started and if your wondering im not american and I live in nz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.191.94 (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need some knowledge of Pearl Harbor attack

there was 6 japanese carriers, hiru, shokaku, zukaku, akagi, kaga and soryu. Information i am missing is how far those carriers were from pearl harbor? And how did defensive 48 aircrafts did act, were they on carriers and never did fly or were they assisting attacks?

ive been collecting some information of carriers, from single net page only: format: (carriers name: attack wave number, name of aircraft(number of that aircraft)

IJN AKAGI:

  1st wave: zero(9), "Kate"(15),"Kate"Torpedo"(12)
  2nd wave: zero(9), "Val"(19)

IJN KAGA

  1st wave: zero(9), "Kate"(14),"Kate"Torpedo"(12)
  2nd wave: zero(9), "Val"(26)

IJN SORYU

  1st wave: zero(8), "Kate"(10),"Kate"Torpedo"(8)
  2nd wave: zero(9), "Val"(17)

IJN HIRYU

  1st wave: zero(6), "Kate"(10),"Kate"Torpedo"(8)
  2nd wave: zero(8), "Val"(17)

IJN SHOKAKU

  1st wave: zero(6), "Val" (26)
  2nd wave: "kate"(27)

IJN ZUKAGU

  1st wave: zero(5), "val"(25)
  2nd wave: "kate"(27)

can somebody confirm these aircrafts in their right places, and which their objectives where? those defensive combat aircrafts seems not be in carriers so where they were? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.64.4.197 (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]