Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Community portal/Draft/Archive 2

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

A possible idea mooted a few months ago was to split the community portal over 2 pages, that and other ideas can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:Community_Portal/October_2005_Redesign. - CheekyMonkey 13:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I definitely like the idea of having a layout similar to the Main Page, in fact I was planning to start work on a redesign myself along similar lines. the wub "?!" 15:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we need continuity of style - even the web has fashion. We can't have one page wearing a shirt and tie and another wearing a hoodie and t-shirt. Also, the community portal looked fine when it was last redesigned - it now looks like a huge mess. With more mess, and even more, and some litter on the floor. Davidpk212 17:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both of you and had worked some on Wikipedia:Community Portal/Draft (Here's the version we had). I was pretty much alone in the effort (though, a few others chipped in), which was continually thwarted by User:Go for it! who prefers making edits directly to the Wikipedia:Community Portal page. I was also fine with the community portal before all the edits in the past month(s), but if it needs to be redesigned then so be it. I'm willing to help out. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Could the person who put the bottom section into three colums put it into either 1 or 2 columns please? 3 makes it look too much like the current configuration; beautiful at the top, ugly at the bottom. Sorry if this offends you. Davidpk212 18:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That was me. To be honest I wanted just two columns at the bottom myself, and to get rid of all the deletion stuff. But I can't figure out the code, every time I try the two columns shrink down so they don't spread across the page. the wub "?!" 10:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)



I like this a lot more than the current one, especially the heading. Not too crazy over the current heading. I also like the background of white, instead of the yellow and purple criss-cross combination. Nice work!Osbus 00:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought this might be interesting for ideas. Furthermore, what about putting {{totd}} here? HereToHelp 01:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, a similar approach had been unsuccessfully tried by User:Gareth Aus and others for Help:Contents, with Help:Contents/Draft. The help pages now needs help too. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. and your comments above too...
Re: the help page, someone suggested just putting the Help:Contents/Site_map back as the main help page. which i think is an excellent idea, but dont have time to work out how to fix the "ToC" links to be inter-page links. That would be my recommendation for now. --Quiddity 12:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we redo them Main page style? Also, those templated-in level 2 headings look bad—they're bigger than the regular headers! HereToHelp 02:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I really like that version. It could do with the Signpost adding in and probably a cut down of the Archives section. Having the other collaborations spread over two columns is a good idea though and saves a lot of space, and I don't really think the new featured content section fits all that well on the CP. the wub "?!" 10:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: TotD. No Absolutely not. see this short thread (Help_talk:Contents#Tip_of_the_day_-_remove) for my and other's dislike of the "tip of the day", and a solution from CBDunkerson. --Quiddity 11:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I really like where this is heading.
I agree with the wub that the featured content section doesnt really fit with the page. it is already prominently linked at the newly invented Wikipedia:Featured content page that is linked from the main page. --Quiddity 12:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at commons:Help:Contents, which is actually helpful now. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
And Commons:Community Portal. So simple, helpful, easy to scan and find what I'm looking for. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Community bulletin board

I'm also beginning to think that having the community bulletin board and everything else all on one page is too much. I have to scroll down just to get to what used to be the community portal. At least I know to scroll down, though. New users might not. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How Commons:Community_Portal implements "news" looks like a good solution. What do you think? --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I just tried shortening the news section and providing a link to WP:CBB. It would be okay with me to add a few highlights from CBB to this section, but I think this really needs to be brief, so that scrolling isn't needed to see the rest of the community portal. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the (recently implemented) bulletin board idea. It has had a surge in popularity, primarily due to its placement on the CP. Some of the content is useful, some not so much (see "anti-stub" near top of it). If it remains at the top of the CP, it will quickly overwhelm the rest of the content, so i propose that if we do include it in the redesign, it be placed at the bottom of the page where it can expand un-hinderingly, but still be useful. (its creator has currently made it the only content on the CP, which is, well, typical of him.) --Quiddity 00:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
We can't move stuff, we have to delete it. This should focus on the people. Help:Contents on writing articles. Kill everything that doesn't fall in the latter category (except WikiProjects and other things that have both), and have one master link to the help page.--HereToHelp 02:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The bulletin board is one of the best ideas in a while. It should go at the top. I don't like how it got clogged up with WikiProjects and Portals real quick, but that can't be helped. Ashibaka tock 03:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The key thing with the CBB is for it to be more compact. Maybe a way to do that is to list fewer items on the CBB, and cycle items through it and to the archives more quickly. I don't dislike the CBB, but just its size in relation to everything else. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Well almost every entry repeats the basic key information - "(endeavour-name) has just started/renewed and seeks additional volunteers, contact (username) for details".
This could easily be solved by creating an entry format along the lines of the "New Featured Content" lists.
==WikiProjects==
Help out at some of the freshest projects (contacts):
Then it could be a thin column. --Quiddity 04:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Nice idea. I implemented it. Ashibaka tock 15:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not base the community portal design on the main page design

  1. It's confusing if they both look the same. The community portal should have a distinct look and feel of it's own.
  2. The main page design relies on putting everything inside multiple levels of boxes. This is a bad design methodology that would be terribly exacerbated if implemented on the community portal (where there is far more information to present). The community portal should instead use color and whitespace as the primary means of organizing information visually and then use lines and boxes only where necessary. These are basic principles of good web design that wikipedia seems determined to ignore.

Kaldari 18:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I told go for it!, a verteran of many redesigns, about this. In return I got this well thought out response. I urge everyone to look at that.--HereToHelp 00:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with his philosophy. While wiki-style editing is generally fine, with key pages such as the main page, community portal, and help:contents, there needs to be some stability for the sake of readers and editors. If stuff keeps moving all around so rapidly as has been happening, edit wars going on, etc., you get usability hell. I can't possibly keep up with Go for it! (yet alone new users). This is partly why I gave up with Wikipedia:Community Portal/Draft. And while I disagreed with changes he made, here and there, I'm reluctant to join in on the edit war and make the situation worse for users. I think we really need to treat the help:contents and community portal in the same way as the main page — some consistency please (over time). Some cohesion across these various pages would also do users a lot of good. Whether all these pages should look so much like the main page or not, I don't care. But with a draft, we can experiment with various options. And, some consistent style and organization across these pages would be excellent. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Then we have are job cut out for us (the right way is always the hardest!): We have to make each page similar and consistent without confusing users between über-similar pages. First, though: What should be here? The community? Becuase it seems to have developed an air of "how to write an article". I thought the point was to go outside the main namespace.--HereToHelp 02:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm okay with the community bulletin board here, but it could be more concise, so scrolling isn't required to see beyond it. Other "news" and "community"-related items are good too. If we separate out the "how to edit" links to elsewhere (while retaining a single, prominent link here to that), that could be helpful to trim the amount of information on the community portal. The key policies (and Wikipedia:Five pillars) should still be linked here, however, as this is what we refer back to when there are disputes among editors. I'm open to ideas. What are your thoughts? --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: Community bulletin board - I experimented with placing "news" into the left column, leaving the right oclumn for something different (so people know there's more than news here). Or we could keep CBB at full screen width, but fewer items (cycle through them more frequently, and archive them). Or maybe some other way. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with his aesthetics and his methods. He voted for the Italian inspired main page redesign. He scattered Template:Catbar and Template:Browsebar across 300+ pages, and then argued as if they were a tradition, until called on it. He is primarily responsible for the recent community page confusions-for-all. I believe he should spend more time in the article space, before he "leaves his mark" across more of the wikipedia namespace. He has only been here since November, and the ~9000 edits does not make him a veteran or an interface designer. Sorry for the stern words, but gentle hints havent been working. He does tend to steam-roller people with his edit count and his ability to nitpick language usage (the curse of philosophy students...), and i know my opinions are shared by others and admins. --Quiddity 02:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
He has some good opinions and some not-so-good ones. As said above, we need to strike a balance between consistency and repetitiveness—which will prove to be much harder than either of the two extremes.--HereToHelp 03:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Could he somehow be encouraged to confine his additions to the linguistic side of wikipedia, and to stop trying to experiment with visual design? He is leaving a trail of frustrated editors and a mess of code. --Quiddity 08:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
He definetly needs to hold back and discuss stuff a bit more when he is making those community wide changes of him. - The DJ 19:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to the design, there is one part where i agree with Go For It, and that is that the Community Portal needs something that makes it look different then the Main Page. I think the way to do this is to use for instance some icons that clearly represent "editing and community", as well as perhaps a different colorscheme. Give it a bit more of an advanced look then the Main Page. Unfortunetly, i'm not really gifted when it comes to actually doing design :D . -The DJ 19:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking at this page, I prefer the current design. We just redesigned the CP a few months ago and I think how it looks right now is just fine. We need to at least call a vote before implementing this design. Ashibaka tock 15:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What if we use the blue, green, and purple from the Main Page with the current layout?--HereToHelp 15:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
That sounds well enough. The thing that's most annoying me on the redesign is the white bar at the top copying the Main Page. Ashibaka tock 02:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with you about the top header (white box). --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please make the structure transparent

Neither the current portal nor this revised proposal group similar topics in a transparent way. IMO it would make sense to make three groups of topics (listed current headers from the proposal, missing ones in parentheses):

  1. Policies and community affairs
    1. (Introduction, Wikipedia for beginners, on top please)
    2. (A list of relevant policies)
    3. Wikipedia news
  2. Help and How-to
    1. Help
    2. Editing
  3. Content, collaboration, things to do
    1. New featured content
    2. Jobs to do
    3. Collaborations
    4. Deletion

It would make sense to use identical colors for each group and put them together in three columns or in another simple arrangement so that things can be found easily. Kosebamse 14:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a plan of "content we want to include" and "how to structure it" should be sketched out.

Just for reference, here are some snapshots from the recent CP history:

(before and after it was a mess). --Quiddity 00:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


April 1 changes

  • I attempted to insert the colours from the old october CPP, and similar ones.
  • added the "Ongoing projects" section. (mostly to fill the space, for aesthetic testing/proposing)
  • added the bulletin board to the bottom. (there'll be an outcry is it goes?)
  • fixed the header links to coincide with the above
  • i removed the "new featured content" section. We should instead maybe be fixing up the Wikipedia:Featured content portal, so we can convince the-powers-that-be to link that in the navigation-sidebar box, instead of the "Featured articles" link that got added this week.
  • (and added a banner link at the top of Wikipedia talk:Community Portal, directing anyone here.)

thoughts? thanks. --Quiddity 07:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


My current understanding of the goal for this redesign, is a Merge of

  • the cognitively-simple layout in the October design (though not as short. just as non-labyrinthine..)
  • a to-be-decided upon selection of the information/links from the current Community Portal (before its subsectioning)
  • and the aesthetics of the current Main Page (with complimentary but non-confusing colours to the main page and the old community portals.)

that sound somewhat like the consensus? --Quiddity 08:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


At least it sounds like a good idea. Another good idea would be to state some consensus that the community portal is too important to be everybody's playground. Major design or content changes should be discussed before being implemented. Kosebamse 13:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh that's a given (unless you're GoForIt!) --Quiddity 19:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Davidpk212 reverted my first test, so i'm trying a new one, but with flipped original colours. This helps distinguish it from the main page, and is also contextually relevant: news in blue (as on main page), article collaborations in green (related to featured articles on main page). --Quiddity 19:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I have only recently discovered the degeneration of this once-relevant and usable page into that mess. Has this been going on for a long time? If you are saying that it is essentially a sibngle user's responsibilty then something must be done about it. I have seen his comments on Wikipedia talk:Community Portal, but has he been approached about this by more than a few users? Or has there been a clear statement by a substantial number of users that the community portal is not everybody's playground? Kosebamse 07:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
In a word, yes. But he continues regardless. He is leaving a trail of frustrated admins and users. From the history, He essentially took over the place in early February. I've listed some links on his talk page. The same pattern is being identically repeated at the Help:Contents page, (and elsewhere), and was apparantly encountered throughout the Main Page Redesign. --Quiddity 08:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
My concern is that if the Main Page wasn't protected, he would have tried the same thing there. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Color

These are the only 2 useful colour links i've found so far:

Is there anything else official to guide us on colour suggestions? (a meta meta stylesbook?) --Quiddity 03:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I updated the colour selection at the first link. (code is horrible, working on colours first though, then cleanup). more suggestions? --Quiddity 02:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I like the color scheme at commons:Help:Contents as pointed out by the first link. Somewhat like the Main Page, but different colors and no lighter color above the header make a good enough distinction between the pages.--HereToHelp 02:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, i like that layout a lot too, the problem is it's in a table, and i don't know how to translate it into divs efficiently. Can anyone help with that? Create a template I/We can copy and paste new colours combos into? --Quiddity 03:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Wikipedia:Colours. There we are. and Wikipedia:Infobox colours, I'll add a note on Wikipedia:WikiProject Color seeking input. --Quiddity 05:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There's even a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability. Looks like it's worth reading / contacting. Kosebamse 06:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That was my first link in the thread ;-)
Grmbl. Kosebamse 08:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
And i think they're mostly here already. Many of the Main Page redesign people migrated here.--Quiddity 07:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

ideas

And I still think we need something like a "pencil" icon in the header. To clearly give it that "Editors" look and distinguish it's functionality from the Main page. If only I were any good with a "pencil" myself. BTW, what happened to the current CP? - The DJ 00:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You might as well face it: the CP is constantly evolving, and it doesn't wait for projects like this. It now has elements of the MP (the colors and the header with a grey border) but it also has its own, unique feel. A nice compromise between consitency and not having confusingly identical pages.--HereToHelp 01:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I could go in and unilaterally, directly overhaul the current CP to suit my personal tastes and opinions, override Go for it!'s edits, and ignore others opinions. Others could do the same, and cause even more of an edit war (somewhat analogous to a "wheel war"). However, for the benefit of users and the community, I won't take that approach. We need to use a sandbox, such as this, to test and work out ideas, get feedback, discuss, and find consensus. Let's please keep the CP fairly constant, with minor tweaks (okay), and updates to the content (e.g. collaborations, new featured content, etc). --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Now, as for design aspects of the current draft, I'm not sure I like it to look just like the main page. Maybe we should come up with a few design variations and seek feedback. But before we do that, we need to consider what elements to include on the community portal (what should go to help, or elsewhere), and how to configure/layout these elements. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
"Design variations"? Dont get Go for it! started with multiple drafts...--HereToHelp 01:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Basically, though, we need to decide between a main page-style Community Portal or something somewhat distinct, like the commons help and community portal pages. Either way, the style is just like paint on a house, and the structure beneath it is what really matters most on helping people find information. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I really like this idea. It is distinguished from help:contents and the Main Page, yet the color scheme prevents it from being too off the wall or too random.--HereToHelp 02:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Re: ""Design variations"? Dont get Go for it! started with multiple drafts..."
no kidding, i just went back to the main page redesign archives. i only found the project in the end days of the draft six multiple-choice. But, it really is nothing but him arguing points with david levy for pages and pages and pages.
So Stop encouraging him!
And after all the arguing about cartoonish icons at the help:contents, you suggest adding them on the community portal? and then threaten to use your new admin powers to lock it down, so that the person you quoted in a one-sided Wikipedia Signpost article gets to keep his design experiments?
Please please think twice before encouraging his unilateral habits, and amateur design experiments, and read all the criticisms that were left unanswered by his recent talk page shuffle-and-archive. --Quiddity 04:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Calm down. This is almost bordering on a personal attack on Go for it! and I. Icons: the Main Page is different from this. There were no icons on the old Main Page so we kept it that way. Help:contents is a very big page and having all those icons is bad for load times; but 6 ones won't affect it much. Those were already on CP (though, admittedly, added by you-know-who); I just went from dull monochromatic ones to colored ones. Look at the vote for the different drafts (yup, there's Gfi! again) and you'll see that I added the bolded comments against locking the page. I will if I have to, but that's a last resort. That would not favor Gfi! who is not an admin. I am very familiar with his criticisms and...regretable editing habits, but you losing control isn't going to help. I support the vote because, unlike the design for the Main Page, there is a minimal number of drafts and they are all very different from each other. In geneal, he makes some good points that, when balanced with the ideas of other users, are very good. The problem is when he goes and edits by himself without community approval. I'd rather have the drafts than anarchy-style editing. After 9000+ edits, I think he's here to stay—so you might as well get used to him.--HereToHelp 22:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Community Bulletin Board

The CBB needs to be more compact, and get rid of the white space there now. I see a few options:

  1. Get rid of the "Signpost" box, and move the new WikiProjects and Portals there.
  2. Move the WikiProjects and Portals to a different section of the Community Portal, separate from the CBB.
  3. On the current Community Portal, there's a section for "New Featured Content". We could move that to the top, right column and put the CBB in the top left column. These two sections could complement each other nicely.

Any thoughts regarding these options, or other suggestions on making the CBB more compact and concise? --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

3. - copied from above - maybe we could be fixing up the Wikipedia:Featured content portal, so we can convince the-powers-that-be to link that in the navigation-sidebar box, instead of the "Featured articles" link that got added this week. --Quiddity 04:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
1 + 2. - Yeah. But move the CBB to occupy the top right column. (I really think "Jobs to do" should remain at the top of the page. They would also complement each other, and the CBB would be above the Collaborations.) (The "News" section should also be above the "jobs to do", it got cut out accidentally when the CBB was moved up in the last edit.) --Quiddity 05:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Header box

problem(s) with the header box:

  • The within-page links in the top right, are actual page-links in the Main Page's header box. That is confusingly inconsistent.

I suggest we try making the title box 50% width, and leave a normal ToC floating in the top right. (as on the current CP) --Quiddity 05:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The title box looks good with a 300px width. Then if we have 2 columns of content, it would be good to have 2 matching columns of intra-links (as on the help:contents/sitemap). I can't manage to code a box that floats top-right though. --Quiddity 09:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

eg 

Contents:
-News    -CBB
-Jobs    -Collaborations
-Editing -Deletion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Community_portal/Draft/Archive_2&oldid=1072199788"