This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Excellent, thank you. I was seeking uniformity among the portal names and references, and I think you're doing very well in your proposal towards that. Wdfarmer (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Indiana
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Alright, finished it up. It seems alittle long to me, but I hate cutting up my own creation, so if you wanna remove a few things, that'd be ok. JoeI03:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It almost asks for it's own tab, but I'm not going to suggest it. If I don't see any complaints, I'm not going to mess with it. :-) RichardF (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
?! Please bring me up to speed...
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Was a bit of a shock to find the contents of the contents lists missing.
Took me a few minutes to figure out where the data was located. :)
What's going on with the contents lists, megaportals, etc.?
You'll be waiting forever. The approach that is favored by WP:CONSENSUS is to be bold, and continue to develop until you are objected to. If nobody objects, silence implies consent.
Isn't the defacto structure now a 2-pronged approach? With contents (page-type) lists and (subject-based) megaportals? If so, I'd suggest going forward with that. I built two of the megaportals (based on your and Azatoth's thread), using the same subpages used by your new contents page design. It shouldn't be too hard to build the rest. First build the megaportals that don't step on any toes, and then tackle the rest pausing on for discussion on those for which there is objection. We need to take the discussions to the various portal pages that may conflict with the megaportal concept as we proceed. In other words, proceed until we meet an obstacle, and deal with each obstacle as we come to it. Waiting for a consensus on the overall design on an out of the way discussion page hasn't been very fruitful. Besides, you're one of the most hands-on developers I've met on Wikipedia. "Do it, fix it, try it" has worked on most everything we've applied it to so far, so we should just proceed. As the Megaportal set takes shape, the project may pick up momentum. The Transhumanist00:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
WikiLove
Grrrlriot (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
The best I could come up with was a hack of the {{purge}} template. The margins are goofy, but if you can live with that, you can play with the font color. RichardF (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A tag has been placed on Template:Human geography requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
See my reply at Talk:Appropriate technology #Use of wikipedia to facilitate development work - see my reply there. If you're interested in the content that doesn't fall in Wikipedia's scope of encyclopedic content, feel free to get in touch via my talk page or use (myusername) at appropedia dot org. Or just check out Appropedia.
No prob. Keep it in mind though, especially when there's disputes over whether certain content is suitable for Wikipedia. Good content sometimes gets deleted, when it would be better for it to be transwikied.
I knew your username was familiar - you're the sustainable development portal guy, and the Kivapedia guy. Would be good to chat or email sometime (I like voice chat - my fingers can rest. I have the same username on Skype.) --Chriswaterguytalk01:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Can you tell me why the link to in your text for this was diverted to ? The fact that the link was correct in another page you did a minute later suggests it's not you fault. Did you copy from somewhere? The country category is full of wildly inflated figures for numbers of Buddhists taken from Buddhist propaganda sources. Peter jackson (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Peter, I really don't understand the question. If you see something that needs fixing, please, by all means, fix it. RichardF (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Bogus "copy edit"
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I saw a red link and I fixed it. Watch you accusations when they have no basis in fact. I have no need for your insults. RichardF (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. It was not a red link. It was a working blue link. You changed it to a different working blue link in a way that drastically altered the meaning. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry dud, but you created the red link! [1] Somehow, you fixed it before I got to it. My point that your're a jerk still stands, so beat it!@&*&$% RichardF (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, when someone contacts a stranger with a, self-riotous, confrontational "bogus" accusation, they're a jerk. RichardF (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Help??
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:Indiana_state_flag_detail.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
Thank you. I put a note at the talk page for WP:FPORTC that some of the other reviews at WP:PPREV could use some more input, hopefully a few experienced reviewers will bite. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you weigh in at the WP:FPORTC discussion? I am not asking for you to support/oppose/comment, though you are free to comment however you wish - but specifically a comment was raised about the idea of rotating images in the Intro section - and in response I referenced some of your work at other Featured Portals. Cirt (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't make that template and haven't used it. I was just trying to figure it out myself. I'm guessing two different editors made changes (This= & edit section) to the original tabs that aren't compatible. If I figure it out, I'll make the changes to the project pages. RichardF (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You see, on Wikipedia you get little "edit tags" ([edit]) on the right hand side of every header and sub-header. It makes editing much easier, especially for longer pages. But, when I use the tab codes, that [edit] tag vanishes. Wikipedia:Tutorial/TabsWithEdit supposedly should help at that, but I couldn't figure out how to make that work. It could be a bug in the codes. I don't know who created the codes and can't get directly to that person. Would you take a look at the problem? Oh, and thanks, really, for the effort to help another user. My conviction in the community has got real boost last night (it was night in parts I come from). Aditya(talk • contribs)03:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I saw this and thought it was something that is right up your alley and that you might want to help out with - creating a subpage for the WP:DYK contributors to instruct them on how to add hooks to portal subpages (though those subpages are sometimes organized differently per portal), and also suggestions on some main portals to update and how to navigate to find other portals. Cirt (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
At this stage in my wikicareer, I'm more interested in bots doing the heavy lifting on this one. I added a comment on where that stands. RichardF (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Recently put this portal up at WP:PPREV, as always your feedback would be appreciated. This is a collaborative effort with members of the Textile Arts WikiProject. Also, is it okay that we have (9) articles in the Selected biography section? Cirt (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The number of selected items is just an arbitrary rule of thumb. It just depends on the moods of whomever participates in the nomination process. The better everything else looks, the smaller the the deal one particular section will be. :-) RichardF (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Try it now. One parameter had the wrong number ("5" where a "3" should have been). I also got rid of the serial comma. ;-) A test is here. RichardF (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I love it when I show up just in time for the "Never mind!" That way, I don't have to worry about pretending like I have a clue! All I have to do is say, "Yeah, sure, that's what I would have done!" ;-) RichardF (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know of any other instance of using that in article space, but for {{clade}}, they actually put it in the documentation as the way to box things! (?) :-) RichardF (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. While I'll happily admit it's a creative use of the template. Something about setting this sort of precedent in article space is somewhat gnawing at me.
Well, it is in template space. The documentation for {{Userboxtop}} even encourages such usage to vertically format objects (I can't even touch it, it's so sacred! :-) It mentions {{Gallery}} as its horizontally formatting counterpart. RichardF (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I've only just glanced at them. (I'll look more scrutinisingly over them in a bit.)
(Though I noticed that your alternate plan doesn't seem to show very well on smaller moniter settings. It's all stretched out.) - jc3721:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "smaller moniter settings." My IE setting at 800X600 display size doesn't wrap. Anyway, the only real difference is I copied in most of the Community Portal for plan2. We waste more time on browser/screen compatibilities than we waste on making up stuff! ;-) RichardF (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The monitor/settings I use can vary. Atm I'm using 640x480. WhHen I looked before, it caused the screen to have large sections of "white" area, while the links were spread across horizontally.
Incidentally, please check out my proposal on the subject as well.
(And no, I'm not avoiding looking more closely at yours, I'm just mired atm. Hopefully bbl : ) - jc3701:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't even display that narrow on my screen! >;-o) I still don't know why you would have problems with only the second version. (?) Can you say, "Bait and switch"? ;-) RichardF (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Bait and switch? I understand the term, but not its application here...
And yes, I had the same problem on your main proposal as well...
(For example, you should see how far horizontally distant the links in the header are from each other...)
So consider that my comments are only concerning what was or wasn't included on the main page, and how they were "grouped", and not concerning the "look". - jc3707:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, after test deleting each section, with "show preview", it would appear to have something to do with the featured article section. When I remove that, one section "moves up", but besides that, the spread-out horizontal is gone. Now that I know that, it will be easier to read : ) - jc3707:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Everything is a copy-and-paste from an existing page. The featured article your're talking about is from Portal:Featured content. I'm just wondering how much trouble you with Wikipedia in general. :-( RichardF (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
After I finally managed to find them, I did read your suggestions. After reading them, it will be interesting to see what you think of mine. :-) Why don't you make an actual version of what you have in mind? ;-) RichardF (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I may, but I honestly think that the text version is clearer, and doesn't force the viewer to "guess" what the preferred changes are : ) - jc3707:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking them over
Well in your "main" version, you apparently added more links to the top, with a slightly different layout, and removed several sections, including featured picture (which doesn't seem to appear on either tabbed page).
As for the tabbed pages, that looks interesting, but I wonder if users will get confused. Wikipedia already has tabs, as do most browsers these days. That, and I think most people just aren't going to bother looking on "page 2". It's hard enough to presume that they will scroll down.
That said, I like how you repurposed it at main2. (encyclopedia/community)
Makes much more sense. (Though the tabs still could be a concern.)
The sister projects template needs to be on the front page of the main page. (Though at the bottom.) It's simply a navigation issue.
As for "side 2", I like the addition of at least "some" of the various things from the community portal, but the whole thing needs a better structure/layout. (My current monitor notwithstanding : )
I think that there may be several things that could be "pared". I'll try to make a list of everything you have (guessing that the "checklist" you included was not meant for the "final design" but for illustrative usage. If so, it should be moved to the talk page to avoid confusion.)
Also, I've intentionally not read the talk page to see what others have said. If nothing else, this way, you'll have a (at least semi) objective observer : ) - jc3707:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I really don't expect much of anything to come of all this. I just wanted to see for myself how some design features worked with the Main Page. :-) RichardF (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: Portal usage
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Yes, and no. You can look at the stats for any page (include its entire path), but the stats themselves are incomplete, since Wikipedia's pages are stored in server caches all over the World, and the majority of page views are served from those caches.
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I suggest we start with a copy of the current Main Page, called Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Main Page Draft, and through edits and discussion transform it via consensus into the new Main Page that will be proposed to the community for final approval. Competitions won't work (we tried that last time), because submissions that are only slightly different from each other will divide the vote between them which will drive their basic common design out of the competition, obscuring its support as well as support for particular design elements. Each new design element or change needs to be discussed on the talk page of the community-developed draft, to arrive at a consensus for each as to whether it should be included or not, and what each design element should look like. We need to literally get on the same page and integrate the best features of all those wonderful designs that have been submitted. Let the edit wars editing and discussion begin! :) The Transhumanist01:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
We're on the same wavelength! Cool. The only difference is that the actual draft the community is working on together should probably be centralized. I started a thread on its talk page, to kick things off. The Transhumanist02:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Yeah, I took your idea and played around with it. Glad you like it. It's not finished yet, of course. I still don't know what to do with all the featured stuff; I think it should be somewhere on the Main Page, but it doesn't really fit anywhere in the scheme that I'm thinking of. — Kpalion(talk)22:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with all of your comments - but some things I think you are better at fixing than me. Do you want to take a crack at the coloring? I know you like to do that. I will try to take a stab at the other stuff but I might also need help with that. Cirt (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind about the colors, I experimented and found a nice arrangement, many thanks to your subpage User:RichardF/Palettes/Portals. I think the only thing that still needs addressing is the Topics section, whether to just subst that template and then reformat. Cirt (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for all the updates, but I reformatted {{Russia topics}} to match the portal, so I think that's everything. I'll let the peer review stew for a coupla more days though. Cirt (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm just thinking out loud here. Are you all interested in trying to put together a serious Main Page redesign proposal that actually has a snowball's chance of getting implemented? My current proposals are deliberately out there in a concept car sort of way - just to look at some possibilities. Obviously, this proposal would have to be very conservative with just a tweak here and there, and not breaking any of David Levy's rules. It's just a thought. Let me know what you think. RichardF (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to help, but I'm very busy this week. Will try to keep an eye on anything and give any feedback I can. Will have more time a week Tuesday. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll be happy to help. The question is, where do we start? : )
For me, I think we should list the various components which would be deemed "wanted", and work from there, paring down, and figuring out layout.
I really shouldn't do much on this until the weekend either ;-) I noticed some talk about getting consensus, but I doubt there really is any. The closest thing the redesign probably should pay close attention to is David Levy's post I linked above. I'll start a "RichardF3" we can tear up with a to-do list on the talk page. RichardF (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I was about to suggest the portals browse section should include all the sections on Portal:Contents/Types TOC, until I noticed that Carlaude singlehandedly refactored the classification system to eliminate "Philosophy and thinking," create "Religion and Philosophy" and put thinking under "People and self," at least sometimes. I'm tired of this kind of crap, so I'm not sure how much energy I'll put into this activity. So far we have two concrete suggestions from Quiddity. I think the new Types TOC diminishes the Contents pages, but I won't put any any energy into disputing it. You all decide what you want to do. RichardF (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted the user, asking them to discuss the edits, per WP:BRD.
That aside, to continue this discussion : )
Anyway, I still think we can come up with a list of "userful links", as a start.
The main page seems to best work when it has a concise introduction; a few links for navigating the encyclopedia; a few links for navigating the community; a few examples of exemplary material (WP:FC); showing the "usefulness" of the content (news, and DYK); and links to sister projects.
So from here, it's mostly a question of what the specific links (and FC) should be, and the "layout" of the page. - jc3700:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the sentiment jc37, but check out all the changes Carlaude made. They affect the layout template and all the related sections on all the Contents subpages. It wasn't a simple change.
Thank you, I had missed the other edits. I've reverted, and left a note on their talk page. I would welcome a suggestion as to an appropriate venue for further discussion regarding those changes.
Quiddity, The Transhumanist and I probably had the lion's share of the involvement in the current design. Most of the discussions are at Portal talk:Contents. The Transhumanist moved some related discussions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contents. As I already mentioned, I'm just not into another go-around with a Contents TOC redesign. Besides this latest editor, who appears to have a Christianity agenda, I don't know who is. RichardF (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Even in terms of "twelve portal links," I can debate with myself what "the twelfth link" should be. Eleven links would be the same, with one spot up for grabs. My personal preference, based on defunct WikiCharts usage reports I've seen, is what's listed above, Sports. The purist version of using the established Contents TOC would be Reference. Going with the current main page, it would be All portals. RichardF (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here are some stats from http://stats.grok.se for May/June (#X is overall page rank in Feb, if in top 1,000).
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
After I saw you tag WP:INDIANA with the cleanup tag, I went and put it up on Indianapolis. It was only 6 minutes later, how was I too late? Not angry or anything, just asking. Thanks. HoosierStateTalk18:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Please take a moment to see relevant threads at my talk page and that of Shoemaker's Holiday (talk·contribs). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk·contribs) has asked for help with Portal:Featured sounds, and wants it to become a Featured portal itself. I explained my viewpoint that it is an internal-Wikipedia page and thus would be inappropriate to be considered for Featured portal status, but my discussion with him now seems to be going in circles, unfortunately. Perhaps you could share your view on this as well? Cirt (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on my talkpage. I agree with what you said. As for Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Namespace_for_featured_content_pages that appears to be quite a large discussion/thread, I think I shall take some time to mull it all over. At this point before going over everything in detail that has been said already, I think the most important thing is to be consistent with whatever changes are made/not made. Cirt (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Rchard, I think my redesign proposal is now practically finished. Not that it couldn't be improved, but it's probably as good as I was able get it on my own. Thanks for your comments; the left tab is now the starting one and I think I finally fixed the padding. I will appreciate any other comments and if you'd like correcting something yourself, feel free to do so. — Kpalion(talk)18:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks good! :-) However, the sentiment seems to be soundly against tabs and including a project-related page. Our styles are looking pretty much like Titanic deck chairs to me. ;-) RichardF (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Main page redesign
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks! I've chatted with those guys here and there, and joined their appropedia wiki a while back, but I haven't done much of anything there. I'm spending most of my "free" time with Kiva type activities these days. :-) RichardF (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
re Portal:Schools
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I just wanted to give you an update since the portal's still at FPOC. At the moment, it has 24 articles, 22 pictures, 19x3 DYK, 16 biographies, and at least 3 anniversaries for each month. Regards, --Jh12 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey RichardF, I've updated my Main Page Redesign proposal substantially, and you had some really great points last time you commented - hopefully you'll see the effects of your suggestions. It would be great if you could comment on the new proposal, I'm really proud of how it's shaping up. Many thanks -- PretzelsTalk!08:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pretzels. I'm getting way behind on my Wikipedia activities. I'm not here much these days. I can't promise I'll get to it, but I'll keep it on my list. RichardF (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Straw poll
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, I moved the attractions to they're own tab, mainly cause it was making the page incredibly long. Please have a look, tell me what ya think(it should stay or be reverted), and make any tweaks you see fit(the borders of the tabs look weird). Thanks JoeI06:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I initially tagged this as a speedy delete due to a copy vio. I note that there are many editors of this article none of whom seem to have seen this copy vio so I feel that a major rewrite is now required as the school obviously deserves a page. PasteTalk14:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I hope you are doing well. Any idea as to why there is no break of space between Related portals and Associated Wikimedia in this portal? Thanks, Cirt (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. The Four digit template {{four digit}} will mistakenly pad zeros for numbers that are already zero padded. See talk page for example and description of fix. This is a low use template, and I am going to make the fix which appears to have no ill side effects. Since you have edited this template, I am notifying you in case you would like to review it. -J JMesserly (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
A template thinks a pipe ("|") is starting another parameter, so you have to use "{{!}}" when you want to change how a wikilink displays. It turns out one wikilink also was missing a "]". That should do it. :-) RichardF (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Richard. Thought you might like to know I have posted an article on flat interest rates, which seem a notable topic since a large % of the world's loans are probably structured this way. I notice Kiva still has not changed its own definition of how it discloses interest rates to its users -- the definition you (rightly) found incredibly confusing last year. Perhaps you might like to poke them and get them to come clean on interest rates?Brett epic (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Brett, thanks! I'll have to find a good spot to reference it (assuming you won't do it. ;-) With "PA2," Kiva at least started publishing payment schedules in terms of what borrowers pay MFIs in principle each month. I started a Kiva Friends topic showing a few examples of amortization schedules here - Estimating Entrepreneur Interest Rates from Repayment Term Details.
Real soon now, Kiva has said it will post actual payment schedules from borrowers to MFIs at the bottom of profiles - weekly, end-of-term, flat rate, amortization, whatever. I assume that still will only include principle, not interest and fees. We'll see.
Thanks Richard -- you moved quickly and I just discovered you'd answered! Our discussion of this issue has been on the discussion page of the wiki Kiva entry since July 2007, and nothing in the content of the article reflects that. I was very reluctant to edit this article at that time but I think there has now been time enough. So I've taken the liberty of added a separate section to the article called 'Disclosure'. I think it adds balance to what is otherwise a breathlessly unbalanced article. I know for your own comments to me (and your work on Kiva friends) that you favour transparency and the kind of disclosure regime that puts the rights of poor people first, so I hope you support my additions! I would like to see Kiva start taking the issue of truth in lending disclosure more seriously. If senior managemen can't be persuaded to take this issue seriously I will also be tempted to contact a few journalists I know. Kiva can do much better than this!Brett epic (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Brett, I think Kiva will pretty much be what Kiva already is. I wouldn't expect too much departure from what already is going on. As far as the article goes, it's already beyond my competency level. To be honest, mostly what I do here is dress up portals now and then, and not much of that anymore either. Regards, RichardF (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Are you seeing a weird alignment here? Maybe it is the computer I am on, but it looks like there is no gap between the two columns (I want it to look more like Portal:Finger Lakes, for example). Cirt (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that too, but thought, maybe, you "meant to do that!" ;-) It's probably some goofy "div" issues somewhere. If I figure it out, I'll just change it. RichardF (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Good morning Richard, I have a quick question. How might I recommend an education article to be highlighted on the main page as either the featured item or perhaps one of the Did You Know? pieces? 72.75.10.251 (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the "block" consisting of the filename, button and description is centered! It's just that the block itself is left-justified and long text pushes everything to the left. The "float" doesn't seem to work and I couldn't get everything centered without breaking something, e.g., the filename link. One workaround I show below is to move the description below the template so the filename/button block is centered and the description is centered below it. The downside of that is you get an extra line between the button and description.
Ah okay, I think we'll stick with the current model then, thanks again very much for your help and input, as always. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Templates for Wikipedia-Books linking
Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Good deal. I wasn't sure if the text in {{Wikipedia-Books}} might still need improvement or not as I put both templates together in somewhat of a hurry. I had seen you add a few links earlier and thought templates might make it easier to link to individual books. The documentation for the templates still needs work but I'd hoped the current documentation would allow for immediate use of the templates. I'll have a look at the WikiProject and see about adding them. Tothwolf (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Cool! I'm in a "be bold!" mode, so I'm not all that concerned about totally polished books features right now. Given this virgin territory, I'm more interested in setting up a solid structure before it starts to morph all over the place and then needs to be cleaned up later. Right now, I'm in the middle of going through Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge and Wikipedia's most popular articles to cover the most likely read articles first. The "books box" is coming in really handy to highlight those articles in their "See also" sections to help spread the word. I also promoted it at Category:Wikipedia:Books. Thanks again for putting those templates out there! :-) RichardF (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about the template some more yesterday and remembered there was also a book icon from the Nuvola set. I'm wondering if Image:Nuvola apps bookcase.svg might be better than Image:Office-book.svg for {{Wikipedia-Books}}... Going by links, Nuvola apps bookcase.svg seems to be more heavily used on Wikipedia already whereas Office-book.svg (the current image file) isn't being used too much, so the current icon is probably more distinct. The Nuvola icon has more color and might be better at grabbing attention but the current icon probably blends in better more like the official icons used for other templates as such {{sisterlinks}} and the individual project templates. Tothwolf (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Digging into the links more, it looks like the Education and Books portal boxes are the heavy users of the Nuvola icon so the current icon is probably a better choice for now anyway. Tothwolf (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I like the current book icon better too. The Nuvola icon series can be thought of for articles, so the current one distinguishes itself as a unique medium. RichardF (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Richard,
Long time no see.
I've got a problem, and you are the only one I believe can help block bust it.
I've reached a point where I need help on the administrative (not sysop) side of the Outline of knowledge, from someone who isn't reluctant to roll up his shirtsleeves and who knows how to push a project forward.
So I thought of you, and came here.
I just now looked at your contribs, and I have to say "what a coincidence!"
You've been working on and utilizing the OOK.
Cool. Nice job on the Culture and the arts section. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia:Books, I'm afraid, but some of the books look very familiar. :)
The reason I've come to you is because I'm bogged down.
I'm trying to get the OOK department ready to open up to the rest of the Wikipedia community. At that time, tasks will be placed on every relevant WikiProject page, and notices will be placed on every relevant article talk page and WikiProject talk page. By "relevant", I mean every page corresponding to a subject in the Outline of knowledge, or to a subject listed upon the projected outline (not done or refined yet) presented on the Outline of Knowledge WikiProject page. And each outline will be integrated into the encyclopedia with links leading to them from every relevant article, portal, and index page (many of the outlines are orphans currently). And we're going to go a step further by contacting each member of each relevant WikiProject, with respect to the outline(s) or planned outline(s) matching the subject(s) of their WikiProject. There are 112 members of the Countries WikiProject alone! The number of posts will easily reach into the thousands. The notices won't go out all at once, since we (the OOK project's current team) don't know what volume of responses we'll get. Or the type of responses they'll be.
And that's where the problem is. A lot of editors don't even know what a hierarchical outline is. Over the past few months, we've gotten some weird reactions from editors who are unaware of the concept, from an attempt to AfD an outline to complainty queries on talk pages. Fortunately, these haven't been many, but who knows what will happen when we start contacting people?
One thing is for sure: I won't be able to answer all their comments and queries one-on-one as I have been doing. And most of the notices will be placed by others, which means they will likely get most of the queries generated by this endeavor. We'll need somewhere to point editors to that explains clearly and in detail what an outline is, what an outline of knowledge is, and what they are for. (We'll need guidelines and instructions in project space too, but I'm pretty far along on with those).
The problem is that the article "Outline" doesn't help at all. It just causes more confusion. But it's the most obvious place to point people to for an explanation of the subject.
So I've started a new one as a draft, to replace the existing article once its ready (their histories will be spliced together).
In order to be of any use, it's got to be well written, and well researched, with citations.
The entire project is bottlenecked on the completion of this single article. At the rate I'm going on it, it will take me weeks to finish.
Short answer: "Yes, in a cat sort of way." ;-) Sure, I'll help out as I can, but it will have to be on my own schedule, and as it fits in with my own, amorphous "Project RichardF." :-)
Here are two of my working charts on how I see the Outlines project fitting in with what I'm up to.
Besides, since the writing lab reference in the outline article is to a program in a building a few steps down the sidewalk from mine, how could I say no?! >;-o) RichardF (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I look forward to working with you.
Project RichardF looks interesting. Though keep in mind that I'm completely opposed to moving outlines out of article space, unless it were to a new namespace of their own, and only if the new namespace were included in Wikipedia's searches by default. Portal space isn't included in searches by default, and when it is included the subpage structure used there makes search results virtually unreadable.
I don't understand the second chart above. How do you envision Books and articles to be related?
I noticed your article breakdown on your project page. The members of the OOK team have informally discussed the issue of article structure, and it is the consensus amongst us that since outlines serve as tables of contents, a link to the relevant outline should be included at the top of an article, in a hatnote. Intuitively, tables of contents go at the beginning rather than at the end of a subject.
I'm happy you've adopted outlines in your mapping of Wikipedia.
Your project page needs some more description, so that the people you send there (like me) understand what the diagrams mean. Just a suggestion.
Looks like you are having fun with Wikipedia development. And that's great.
I'm not proposing moving anything, and I'm not all that interested in getting involved in major project discussions, I'm just doing my own thing and interacting with others as we bump into each other. The essay is brand new and primarily for me, that's why it's in user space. I'll add to it as time goes by.
Books are designed as a cash cow for Wikipedia. It just turns out that that also are a handy way to see a collection of articles in one pdf file. I like to use them to scan high-level articles with lots of "main" article links at the tops of section, or to look at a group of articles in a navigation template. I used outlines a few times when an article didn't have many "main" links but the outline did.
In the same way, the parent category Category:Wikipedia:Books on Geography should be renamed to Category:Wikipedia:Books on geography. My intention was to eventually get the entire hierarchy consistent with the naming conventions, but I was doing one category at a time because I wasn't sure the speedy rename process would handle two categories correctly if I ran them through together.
Hi Stepheng3, I'm really not interested in "protecting" these category names. I'm simply interested in being consistent for all subcategories under Category:Wikipedia:Books. If you want to do a speedy rename, please do it at this level. RichardF (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I've finished all the non-Userpage categories. You're probably right about the Userpage ones, but I'm at a good stopping place, and I'm going to rest now.
At some point, I hope the user page categories get updated to reflect their counterparts, as originally designed. As far as adding "the" goes, I always matched a corresponding article category, e.g., Category:Internet, so no additional qualifiers should be added. RichardF (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Tomorrow I may start in on the user page categories if I feel up to it. It's not difficult, just tedious.
I'm not going to push for any thes--just giving you a heads up, as I expect the issue will arise at some point. --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
No rush, I'd just rather get it over with sooner than later. I already changed over the template used to start new articles and categories. RichardF (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi,Kevinalewis. Those categories already were in place when I started new ones so I didn't worrry much about them. What I try to do is create a book category that corresponds to an article category. I just checked Category:Geography, and the subcategories Category:Countries and Category:Regions seem to be the right ones to use. I support your proposed renames! :-) RichardF (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have nominated List of educators, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of educators (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —Ruud18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Another type of OOK!
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
While googling like mad to catch up to you, I came across another example of an "outline of knowledge"
The term "outline of knowledge" is in use all over the place. But I haven't yet found a dictionary or encyclopedia entry for it yet. If there is one, I'll find it.
I also ran across the term "Universal Outline", but haven't been able to ascertain exactly what that is yet.
By the way, your outline goes deeper than MediaWiki's heading levels! MW only goes up to six. It will take nine to accomodate yours. Any thoughts?
All I really was trying to do was organize some background ideas, not necessarily ID section headings. I'm sure many of the ideas simply could suggest paragraph topic suggestions and sequences.
My biggest concern about the OOK project is that it has a clear preference for a taxonomic (parent-child hierarchical) organizational structure. That is what the Library of Congress/Dewey Decimal/Propedia systems use. The academic disciplines example you found is another taxonomy. In actuality, Wikipedia is organized using the multi-dimensional, faceted style of classification. Personally, I'm just not all that interested in promoting a system that doesn't reflect what's really going on. RichardF (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, User:UBX, has been proposed for a discussion. If you are interested, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – imis☂23:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Do you have a few moments to spare to look at the coding of a portal to see why it's not behaving as it should? Cirt suggested that you would be a good one to ask about this.
The "Speculative fiction topics" section isn't displaying the white background like all the others sections. I've looked over the code and compared it to other portals using the same code, but I can't figure out why it isn't displaying properly. Any help is appreciated (and if you can let me know what I did incorrectly, that will be helpful, too). I'm watching this page, so please reply here. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe23:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
It's simply that "random" isn't when it comes to computers, the number it spits out is just hard to predict. The "seed" is a type of starting point. When you have different seeds for different sections, then they don't all change in lock-step and the refreshed pages show up in "apparently" random combinations. That's about it! ;-) Regards, RichardF (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I'm contacting you because you have a userbox indicating that you are a Kiva user. I'm just letting you know that I created a Kiva team for Wikipedians, and wanted to invite you to join it, if you want to. The more the merrier, you know. :-) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Done. RichardF (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Doing... –Juliancolton | Talk 23:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, User:UBX, has been proposed for a discussion. If you are interested, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – imis☂ 23:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
