Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Community portal

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sj (talk | contribs) at 20:53, 31 March 2004 (=Merge proposal= oppose, but pls add links to it from CP). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Learn more about this page
Today is Tuesday, August 26, 2025; it is now 00:31 (UTC)

See Wikipedia FAQ for general questions about Wikipedia; you can ask questions at the Village pump.

Subsections of the page have been moved into the MediaWiki namespace to make them editable. See Wikipedia:Editing the main page.

See also: Wikipedia:Editing the main page

Purge the cache

Archives from this page

/Archive 1 Feb-Mar 2004: Discussion about creating the page and adding a link to the sidebar

I have protected this page

A vandal fiddled with it, and I decided that we probably want this main page protected semi-permanently, just like the main page. If you disagree, please say so here. I will list this at Wikipedia:Protected page also. Thanks. :) Jwrosenzweig 23:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree -- at least until a while has passed since the press release went out. Otherwise we should create an informal team to watch it. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:26, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. Lots of pages get vandalised. There's no huge danger if this one is. This page is lower traffic than the main page. Further, those reading it will already be aware that Wikipedia is a wiki. Duly unprotected. Martin 00:02, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I respect your disagreement, but I disagree with you, Martin (a rare thing). :) I won't re-protect though....obviously we can handle the vandalism here for the time being (though I admit I would like not to have to be vigilant here long-term). I guess I would just like to have the main information accessible to potential new editors. If I want to contribute and hit "Community Main Page" to find out more and see "jack iz gay" or similar vandal nonsense, I probably give up then. At least give first-timers a chance to see all the different places and aspects of Wikipedia. As it stands, they couldn't find "how to edit a page" or any of the other useful things if the page is vandalized (previously the protected main page allowed this access). This will be lower traffic than the main page, I agree. But it will be proportionately much higher trafficked by those who want to contribute. Shouldn't that have protection? Jwrosenzweig 00:15, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Let's try it in unprotected mode a little while longer to gauge how big the problem is, OK?—Eloquence
Makes sense. I guess I figured once in two days of this setup was a bad omen, but you're right, my sample is too small. :-) I'll wait and see a while. Jwrosenzweig 00:46, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Recall that the vandalism lasted precisely two minutes. Martin 00:58, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
True, true. For that matter, though, we could unprotect Main Page. I guess I don't see a huge difference between the two, and as I support protecting MP, I support protecting W:MP. But if 2 intelligent experienced fellows like you and Eloquence disagree, well, I have to assume I'm in a minority position. :-) Just wanting to make my position heard, is all. Jwrosenzweig 01:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I see no reason to protect it. Unlike the main page, this is going to be trafficked by regular users who've already seen all kinds of vandalism anyway and know how to deal with it - revert. Anthony DiPierro 07:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have found that now that I can influence the main page (for instance), the wiki feels much better; I don't want to be feeling that I want to be sysop, just to be able to to central wikipedia tasks. I want this page unprotected, and I think that the current solution for the main page is a very good one. — Sverdrup (talk) 23:33, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Auto updates

Jdforrester had a great idea that I was able to make reality. I created MediaWiki:February 26 and referenced it via {{msg:{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}_{{CURRENTDAY}}}} to get:

Template:August 26
Is that cool or what? For the selected anniv queue I'm going to use the naming syntax [[MediaWiki:Month day selected anniversaries]]. [[MediaWiki:Month tip of the day]] or even [[MediaWiki:Month day year tip of the day]] may be good for the tip of the day queue (if you decide to create one - although I think you would be daft not to! ;). --mav 06:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Alright, I get the idea that you like it.—Eloquence 06:56, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Feedback link on every page

We could really use a feedback link at the top/bottom of each page, which runs an appopriate script

Say, gives the users an edit page that appends a comment to the end of a new Feedback page? to the MediaWiki bug report/feature request page? to the top of a "Cleanup (raw)" page? and pre-fills in what page they were on when they clicked the link, a user/timestamp, and what their prefs settings are

The problem: often I encountered a problem with WP ("what links here" fxnality breaking, the sidebar working in an unexpected fashion, a key page obviously missing (but I'm unclear where to put it), a kind of debate/interaction that makes me want to go away and not come back for a few months -- and there's no obvious or appropriate way to express my observation. Making it easier for users to provide feedback is important to making the project better, and to better serving/hearing from a reliable cross-section of its audience. +sj+ 09:20, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)

Protecting this page

Shouldn't the Community Portal page be protected just as much as the Main Page is? RickK 02:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • I think so. --Monsieur Mero 02:25, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • I did this, initially, and was shouted down instantly by mav Martin/MyRedDice (sorry for the confusion, mav!) and Eloquence, I believe (though if my memory is bad, I hope neither of them will hold it against me). Someone instantly unprotected it and disagreed with me....something about how people need to be able to edit this page. It has been vandalized a few times (always reverted fairly quickly), but I still agree with Rick that, if the Main Page is protected, this one should be too. No one has ever answered me on that claim (explaining why the pages should be treated differently). I'm open to having my mind changed, however. Jwrosenzweig 02:29, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)P.S. -- See Wikipedia_talk:Community_Portal#I_have_protected_this_page above for the initial discussion. Jwrosenzweig 02:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes; CP has equal status w/ the Main Page, no? --Monsieur Mero 02:32, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
        • Most of the Main Page is now editable for non-sysops through MediaWiki. Much of this page is not. Also, the community page is not usually the first impression for people from the outside, so the vandalism is less of an image problem. Better to leave it unprotected and rely on reverts. --Michael Snow 02:43, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • That the Main Page protection has a loophole alarms me, but shouldn't the CP have at least some protection in the non-MediaWiki areas? --Monsieur Mero 02:46, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
            • There is no loophole in the Main Page protection — since the {{msg:tags}} don't update the main page instantly, there is a time offset from the edit of the msg til it reaches the main page, and that is good protection. The Community Portal shouldn't be protected, since I don't like protected pages in the first place, but also because vandalism happening only sparsely is not such a big problem that we will want to bow for it and inhibit the editability of the page.— Sverdrup 21:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Has the Meta-Wikipedia been officially abandoned?

I've been away for a few months and this is the first time I've seen this new arrangement. I'm impressed. The main page looks very interesting and professional, and I like the idea of this "community portal". I'm a bit puzzled though that there seems to be no link to the Meta-Wikipedia as far as I can see. I always thought Meta was a very important facility that was grossly underused. Is it now official policy that Meta-type discussion should be carried out only by E-mail, with all its disadvantages? GrahamN 03:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's a link to meta down at the bottom, where no one will ever see it, and of course there's one on Special:Recentchanges. --Brion 05:24, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why has it been put down at the bottom, where no one will ever see it? Surely it would be better to put it prominently up at the top somewhere, or at least in the middle, under "ways to communicate"; unless it is now official policy that Meta-type discussion should be carried out only on the mailing lists. Is it? GrahamN 16:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that Wikipedia:Goings-on is merged into this page. To reduce the amount of scrolling,

  • Get involved and the current top box of Goings-on should be merged into one
  • The "New to Wikipedia" box should be merged with the intro text, and shorter

I further suggest that the current archiving process is reconsidered, because it makes it very easy to miss updates. The archives are also not particularly helpful, as there are too few items per page, so e.g. you have no complete log on one page of featured articles on the Main Page.

Instead, each box should have their own archive:

Pages would be added to these archives whenever the respective sections get too long.

This would increase the incentive to visit the Community Portal, and to keep goings-on updated. If there are no objections, I will do this ASAP.—Eloquence 08:18, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

This makes no sense to me, could you share your reasons for proposing we merge a news page with a newbie-friendly links portal? fabiform | talk 08:52, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The Community Portal is not particularly newbie-friendly. Instead of trying to make it two things, we should work on pages like Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and link these more prominently. A real newbie intro should have lots of nice pictures, use simple terms, and provide relatively few, carefully selected links to crucial "hub" type pages.
Stuff like MediaWiki:Opentask and even the tip of the day is often more useful to regulars than to complete newbies, and the link directory itself is rather overwhelming for first-time visitors.
Now that it is also part of the sidebar, the CP should provide regular updates that are of interest to long-time members. What incentive is there for me to click the Community Portal every day? If I like the tip of the day and opentask so much I can include either on my user page and access them from there. No, the CP should feature more than just these two dynamic elements. And Goings-on is exactly the kind of regularly updated "What's going on" information that is appropriate for a real community portal.
I have found that I personally don't check Goings-on much because it's not part of the site navigation. My bookmark toolbar is already full, the full bookmark menu is too slow to access, so I end up not visiting the page. If the goings-on information was accessible from the sidebar instantly I would read it more frequently and, obviously, update it as well. But we don't need another sidebar, we just need a single, well-integrated community portal.—Eloquence 10:37, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and you do know how long the goings on page gets at the end of a week before it's archived? E.g.: Wikipedia:Goings-on/March 7, 2004 - fabiform | talk 09:28, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That's because it covers a whole week. It doesn't need to, not in all areas.—Eloquence 10:25, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. I think this is a great idea - the "Goings-on" section of this page can be an analog to the "In the news" section on the Main Page. Perhaps Wikipedia:Announcements can be the analog to Current events. --mav
  2. —Eloquence 10:25, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support, but move the mailing list stuff to Mailing list summary as it won't fit on this page. Angela
  4. Support, I do like goings-on a lot and almost suggested this Matthewmayer 18:39, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Timwi 08:46, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) — I really don't understand the point in this. The Community Portal serves a particular purpose, the Goings-on page servers another, different particular purpose.
  2. Not merge, but use a condensed version to replace the Get involved section. I'll elaborate below. --Michael Snow 18:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose strongly. Goings-on has been successful because it is standalone and focused. If Community Portal is not effective, then redesign it and fix it, you don't add more to it. Personally, I would get move either "Tip of the Day" or "Things you can do" to the side so the FAQ can make it "above the scroll." I can't stand Tip of the Day in MS Office, I don't like it here. Also, how silly is it that the FAQ for Wikipedia is at least three clicks away (if you can even find it) from the front page. Fuzheado 03:21, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your kind words about my daily work on the tip of the day section, it is much appreciated. The FAQ is two clicks away from every page: Help->FAQ.—Eloquence 06:00, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • (Seinfeld alert) "It's not you, it's me." I just don't find tips of the day useful. It's not a slight against you personally. As for FAQ, it's nice to know an alternate path, but it still feels lost in the shuffle. Fuzheado 06:22, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  1. Cyan 04:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) — I think I would prefer Goings-on to be a stand-alone page. -- Cyan 04:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. silsor 05:56, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Hmmm. Fuz said everything i was going to say. Fuz, are you reading my notes? :) Kingturtle 05:59, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Anthere 05:58, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) (added by Fuzheado, by Anthere's request on IRC. Kingturtle a witness. "[13:54] <Anthere> fuz, please vote for me") (it is true, i was witness to Anthere's request. Kingturtle 22:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC))
  5. Pilaf 21:12, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. fabiform | talk 22:19, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. BCorr|Брайен 19:07, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC) See my comment below.
  8. +sj+ 20:53, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC) mav's first sentence above is exactly right -- but does not entail a merge of these pages. "I think this is a great idea - the "Goings-on" section of this page can be an analog to the "In the news" section on the Main Page." But it should then link to the current Goings-on page, which has a lovely format, a well-defined purpose, and a very satisfied user base.


Undecided:

  1. On one hand, I think information such as this is spread across too many pages. Some of the information on Community Portal would be pretty useful added to Goings On as well. However, they both serve a purpose, and Community Portal is handy as a newbie-oriented page. Ambivalenthysteria 09:53, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

The Get involved section is poorly updated (how long has Talk:Evolution been listed there now?). We need something better, and we could use material from Goings-on instead. But there is way too much stuff at Goings-on that we would lose in a merge. The mailing list synopses, for example, are an excellent substitute for people who don't want to subscribe. People need a place to go for information they've missed out on, especially because events happen quickly and many places have high turnover. We could, however, merge Goings-on with Announcements; those two seem to have overlapping functions. --Michael Snow 18:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Eloquence states that one of the reasons to merge them is that the Community Portal isn't terribly newbie-friendly. It seems like adding the content from Goings-on will only add to that. Right now the topics are: Syntax Extensions - discussion about proposed ways to include different markup for music, hieroglyphs, plots, graphics, etc.; The Accuser of Kobe Bryant (reprise); Proposal to Merge Goings-on with Community Portal; and Revamping of Boilerplate Request for Permission. BCorr|Брайен 19:07, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, of course it would add to that. As I explained above, the newbie-friendly page should be entirely separate, e.g. Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers. The Community Portal would be primarily of interest to regular members of the community.—Eloquence

Donors treated as vandals

Curiously, the Schools FAQ link was recently deleted and allowed to remain deleted after another donor made the edit, but when the original donor of the article earlier attempted to remove the link, citing the same general errors and imcompletion in the article, the original donor was widely treated as a vandal. The primary difference in the claims that eventually led to the durable removale was that the final removal included the allegation that the article was "Bird product." Apparently the tradition of weeding out "bad actors" instead of confronting "innacurate information" allowed the link to be deleted when it was attributed to a "bad actor". The same band of thugs that refused to allow the orignial donor to make further edits related to an article nobody else was actively involved with are continuing to bar efforts to correct the errors cited in edit summaries and talk pages. Even more curiously, the process that led to the original donor being treated as a "vandal" was exaclty the process Wikipedia encourages - in which donors are solicited to contribute information to the best of their knowledge in hopes that they or others will come along and fix the article. A donor created an article reflecting a very narrow point of view that endorsed wikipedia. When the donor used that knowledge to develop countervailing knowledge that was critical of Wikipedia as an academic resource, those defending an encyclopedia salesman's POV about Wikipedia concluded the attempt at balance and accurcy was vandalism. The primary result of the conflict was that a very astute and resourceful donor choose to advance the case that collegial behavior is not always the best approach to participation in the editorial collectivity assembled here, authored articles for other publications highly critical of Wikipedia, and began providing technical assistance to parties who aggressively oppose Wikipedia. Now this donor determines to be a bad actor in as much as other donors maintain the claim that some people are bad and have nothing to offer a community, rather than working from a scholarly posture that examines information on its merits alone. (anon)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Community_portal&oldid=2999446"