Wikipedia talk:Community portal/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Any suggestions for how the community portal should be redesigned? - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 04:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• I would appreciate it if any change that left the current six box format intact also preserved the same color for each rough set of links, even if that set is moved to a different location. After seeing the Community Portal several thousand times, my eyes know what to look for where, but having the same information in a different color disrupts that memory. NatusRoma 07:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• See if it possible to group all those reference links in a more ellegant way. Now it looks like a huge mess. Also I suggest posting an announcement on the portal itself to get more attention and more feedback. Renata3 13:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

In the time from your post, someone has complied with the second of your wishes. Don't credit me though, I'm just reporting it. HereToHelp 12:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• I have to ask: What's wrong with the originial community portal?? Jaberwocky6669 02:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I would have to agree Jaber. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.Dan M 02:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that many (see everything below) believe it can be vastly improved. For the most current proposals see #Goals for this page and #Two pages?. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 02:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Get rid of one of the "Requested articles" bits

There's two "Requested articles" sections. One with the "Open Tasks" section and one with the "Counteracting Systematic Bias" section. Do we need both? or is this unnecessary clutter? Or am I being naive? The page is too "code" based for me to edit it anything. --Dangherous 18:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that having the Systematic bias template on the page shows too much favoritism towards them. If they have a template here why can't everyone? So I'll remove it and put a simple link on the list of teams to join. I'd also like to remove the other templates (maintenance task etc.) but haven't thought of what to replace them with yet (I do think they need mention here somewhere).- Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 20:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

COTW

While I'm suggesting...I reckon the Colaboration of the Week section can be cropped. Maybe chop the "At the time of the European discovery of the islands of the Caribbean three major Amerindian indigenous peoples lived on the islands: the Taino in the Greater Antilles and The Bahamas, the Island Caribs and Galibi in the Lesser Antilles and the Ciboney in western Cuba. Trinidad was inhabited by both Carib speaking and Arawak-speaking groups" little summary bit. --Dangherous 18:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

See below comment - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 22:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Collaborations

I think that all the collaborations should all be grouped together in their own section entitled "Collaborations". This would include Collaboration of the Week, Maintenance collaboration, Other collaborations (perhaps renamed to something like "Project collaborations"), Article Improvement Drive and Spanish Translation of the Week. Is the Wikimedia collaboration still active? CheekyMonkey 20:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed the templates in collaboration of the week, renamed the section to just collaborations, and inserted a couple of general staments about collaborating, with links to the "Top level" pages.- Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 22:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose now that support for the COTW is dwindling, the improvement drive article can be quoted. Phoenix2 01:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that the collaboration of the week and article improvement drive notices should be made to stand out more, like they do in the current community portal. These are very important collaborations, and if nobody sees them then they won't get improved. — Wackymacs 14:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There either are too many COTWs to attain critical mass on each single article, or there is not a good standard for announcing/qualifying COTW. If there are at least two editors who deliver on their promise to work on a COTW, then we can enjoy the wiki collaborative action. As it stands, we are getting single editor efforts on too many of the articles, or we need to stretch out the time for a collaboration. Ancheta Wis 21:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

If I ever get the time I will do it, but I thought I should mention that the COTWs on this page(and the real Community Portal) aren't up to date with Template:COTWs. Several more are out there, like Leftism and Mexican. Falphin 18:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

top

There is a need of some visual focus after the lead para. Some graphics, etc. Now it's weird and empty. The maintenance collaboration looked good at that position. There should be something else there. Not logged in user:Renata3 21:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Background colors

This design seems to assume that everybody has their background color for project pages set to white. I go for the traditional everything-except-articles-is-yellow style, and the white table on pale yellow simply looks bad. Zocky 02:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

So what do you suggest? I hate to tell you, but most people do use white....you might consider doing the same. HereToHelp 12:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the background colors for the tables are really hard on the eyes, as compared to the lighter colours used on the Main Page. Want to consider toning them down a little? Dr. Eclectic ^talk 00:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Questioning the structure

I'm not sure that the proposed structure (newby stuff on top, useful stuff on bottom) is a good thing. There should be some quick links on the top for newbies, but the page should assume that the typical visitor is familiar with wikipedia and wants links to useful pages and things to do. Zocky 02:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the rearranged structure, but that would be because I am more interested in the stuff that's been moved to the top. I think the quick links box at the top (to the boxes below), effectively a Table Of Contents for the page, is a great improvement - except that the names don't match up with the titles of the boxes: click 'Using Wikipedia' and you get taken to the 'About Wikipedia' and 'Writing/Reference resources' bit; it is not clear which box you have been sent to, though I presume from the name of the link that 'Using Wikipedia' corresponds to 'Writing/Reference resources'. Ditto for 'Finding areas needing work' which links to 'Open tasks'. It is confusing to have the names change like this. 194.200.237.219 12:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a very good point. I didn't discover the links for about a week, but now I use the part that is on the top in the old design. What if all the expert stuff was on the left, newcomer links on the right? Or at least something to say, "hey new people, there's links here you should check out", even if it's a link to lower in th page. HereToHelp 12:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

About Wikipedia and Resources sections overlapping

The 'About Wikipedia' and 'Writing/Reference resources' sections are overlapping. Some of what I'd expect to find in one of them, is in the other one. And some stuff makes no sense in either, particularly the "Projects" and "Related communities" bits in the 'Writing/Reference resources' section. The Projects" and "Related communities" bits look more like they should be under 'Collaborations' or have their own 'Projects' and 'Communities' sections.

In general, I'd group what is on this page under several broad headings: "About Wikipedia" (both a guide to _why_ wikipedia exists and _what_ areas exist in Wikipedia), "How to use Wikipedia", "Things to do in Wikipedia", and (something not really covered here) "Navigating around Wikipedia" (including mentions of the associated wikiprojects and communities outside Wikipedia proper).

194.200.237.219 12:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Informational Links vs. Tasks

Many experienced editors want the page to have the "tasks you can do" links on top where they can see them, but newer editors won't seethe links for a long time if they are under the tasks. So which way do we go? Perhaps there could be a link to, say, Wikipedia: helpful links with all the stuff with link after link. that way, in my opion, both parties are happy. We just have to emphasiz the link to the links. HereToHelp 23:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I definitely think the "todo" items should go first. There are literally thousands of problems that need attention, and I think this should get the most exposure possible. Which makes it a Good Thing if people have to scroll past them on their way to help pages. I've arranged the portal along these lines, and put big, fat "Help" link up at the top. Improvements welcome/needed. -- Beland 06:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

picture of the day

So picture of the day comes on at weekends onto the main page, right? So I reckon that on weekeds there should be no pic of the day in this community portal. --Dangherous 14:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why the POTD should be here at all. It doesn't need any improvement, since it's already featured. I don't see why it shouldn't be on the main page 24/7. -- Beland 06:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Because we'd run out of POTDs. But by all means, get it out of the community portal. HereToHelp 12:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Layout and refreshing links

Things are slightly out of balance right now.

• The "Projects" and "About Wikipedia" sections need to end at about the same place. We can either add projects, remove "About" links, or my preferred solution would actually be to move the "Related communities" section to the very bottom of the page.

• The "Help" and "Writing/Reference resources" need to be about the same length. These sections are very closely related. Would it be a good idea to get rid of the second title and make the whole thing one color with a single title? In any case, the subsections can just be juggled around to make the layout work better.

The infromational links on the Community Portal have not been freshened recently, at least not in any particularly systematic way. The merger of Wikipedia:Topical index into Category:Wikipedia is supposed to spin off new links for this page. It would not be a bad if folks looked at these two schemes to see if there's anything worth promoting here, so that we can stabilize layout here. And of course, there are bound to be stale links which are no longer needed on the portal, which should likewise be removed. -- Beland 06:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Huh?

"October 2-8 is a special maintenance collaboration, brought to you by Perl and the color red". I don't get it! Sure, Sesame Street, but huh? Too obscure of a connection methinks. --Dangherous 13:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The list of RED links was produced by a PERL script. Quirky, and obscure, I do admit. But hopefully attention-getting? As if John Walsh isn't the star of that little box. 8) -- Beland 01:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It get's your attention, granted, but doesn't make you want to edit it. Make it simple--like google. That's why it's such a success. HereToHelp 12:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Header changes

I just changed the header a bit. It's now tidier and more compact, and features slightly more content.

Suggestions welcome. Constructive critisism will require a bus pass, passport and driving license - no, just kidders. I like critisism. It's good. -Davidpk212

Don't put "Why help" section and cram maintainence collaboration into a tiny corner. Renata3 04:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe. I like the idea of Wikipedia: why contribute? HereToHelp 12:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I reworded the two welcoming paragraphs. I think the exclaimation points and bold italic "you" seem a bit overbearing and desperate. I also cut what I thought were needless words. If other's disagree and what the old text back, I understand. ktheory 03:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Goals

What sort of goals are we working toward here? I propose that if any one has any specific goals that they be listed here or elsewhere maybe in the article itself for now. I don't have any cause I don't see what was wrong with the portal to begin with. Yes it looks busy and somewhat confusing but at the same time thats what makes it exciting. Imagine looking at it with the point of view of a new wikipedian. Maybe that should be one design goal. To design it so that a new editor feels excitement! Jaberwocky6669 21:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Why do the box colors have to always be some kind of dull pastel? Jaberwocky6669

Good point. To make it look nuetral, I guess. Any heavy colors look lopsided and go against NPOV standards. HereToHelp 12:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you are color blind or merely have a bad monitor or troubled vision, black text on dark colors is considerably harder to read. I really don't see how color is POV, though. -- Beland 06:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't get the POV either but the black text and dark background I do understand. Jaberwocky6669 | ☎^Holla! 00:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Goals for this page

I think the goals for this redesign are:

1. Group this page as a whole in a more logical and visually appealing manner.

The page seems backwards to me. Collaborations and tasks are at the top of the page while sections explaining what tasks and collaborations are and how people should edit within them are further along. I think this page needs to be arranged such that it could function as a "Main Page", where new and old users alike can come to explore and learn about Wikipedia. Having the "action items" on top limits this pages usage to experienced users who already know where to find what they're looking for. Some people argue that the collaborations/tasks are to important to put below and more people will get involved if they see them first. I'd argue that you can't force people to get involved. They have to feel comfortable with the concept of Wikipedia first, and pushing them to get deeply involved and "fix things now!", before they get a handle on the basics, will only alienate them furthur. Therefore...

2. Reverse the boxes so the intro comes before the content.

3. Related to the previous item, links need only be referenced once in the page. Currently, collaborations have their own section and are mentioned in "Hihglights" below. Same for maintenance, cleanup taskforce etc. Eliminate doubles/triples.

4. Peoples favorite subjects are being given too much focus. Certain collaborations have their own templates inserted in (seemingly) random parts of the page. And the templates color scheme clashes with the desire to make a portal user comfortable (see item 1). Eliminate all templates/clashing text styles, etc.

5. There is some confusion as to what should be where in the About, Help, and Resources sections. These sections need be be aranged in a hierarchy that will lead a reader from the first link to the last, teaching them in steps, without having to skip around the page.

That's it for now, maybe more can be added here later. For now I'd suggest everyone take a look at a new project, Wikipedia:Usability and apply it here. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 22:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Ah I see, I didn't consider whether or not my new 'brilliant' (lol) color scheme would be hard to for some people to read. I will go back and ghange it... Jaberwocky6669 23:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all I'd like to thank Trevor for starting this redesign, it is much-needed and already looks considerably better than the current incarnation. I made a couple of changes just now, hopefully along these lines in terms of organizing the sections; I removed the long intro as I feel that would be better found at WP:WELCOME or some similar page. I haven't gone through a double-checked placement of links in the sections yet, but I did notice that WP:AID and Wikipedia:Maintenance collaboration of the week (which I moved down with the rest of the collaborations) currently lack current-project templates except in banner form; I left requests on their talk pages that they be created, so they can be updated automatically. — Your server has been MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 09:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"the templates color scheme clashes with the desire to make a portal user comfortable". I think that it should match the Main Page as far as those pastel backgrounds go. Give it rhyme and reason. Also: Perhaps consider using two pages for these two conflicting tasks. HereToHelp 12:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge

Clicking on "Merge" in Open Tasks leads to Wikipedia:Duplicate_articles. I think it should link to the Category: Articles to be merged page. Massysett 19:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Duplicate articles need to be merged, but the latter page goes into more detail on pressing merges and how to do it. HereToHelp 12:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Open tasks space saving idea! / Overall page order

My idea: For each of the different open tasks (Requests, NPOV, backlog, etc.) give two links: One is what the topic is, like NPOV, and what open taks there are for it (the "more" link), like Category:NPOV disputes(it won't let me link). Pro: gets stuff off this page, making room for other things to be close to the top. Con: moves everything to the bloated category pages, and doesn't give people a sample of what there is. But it would look like NPOV:Fix articles with problems of nuetrality. (Fix articles will link to the NPOV category page.) So how do you like it? HereToHelp 12:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Lots of people use Template:Opentask on their user pages. If we were to make such a drastic change, I think we'd need to create a new template to put on the Community Portal. There is perhaps some benefit to giving people 200 articles to choose from, instead of 5 - they're more likely to see something of interest. But having samples right there on the Community Portal seems to promote casual involvement by people just passing through here. Adding clicks between people and articles would probably reduce that kind of serendipity and visibility. Given that we have tens of thousands of articles in need of remedial work and a backlog of 1-2 years, I'd hate to do anything which would reduce the rate at which things get fixed by people just happening to notice them. And the Community Portal is one of the best "advertising" pages there is, considering how distributed the project is. I think Opentasks should really be the first block of links, like it is now. I disagree that it makes sense to "steer" people toward informational pages first. I don't think you get people participating in the project by saying "Here, you probably shouldn't start contributing until you read at least the first 6,000 words of instructions." "Wikipedia is boring, I'm going back to working on my navel-gazing blog." I think wikitext is intuitive enough, and people can start with small enough edits, that we can just present them with articles they might be interested in. "Hey look at me, I just fixed a spelling mistake in this important article! Editing Wikipedia is fun and easy!" Only later when the "Now how the heck do I...?" and "Is it generally OK to...?" questions start popping up, does the other function of the page become important. I fully expect people to actively look for help or information when they need it. If they aren't looking for it, why bother them with it? -- Beland 06:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it encourages the spontaneous editing and improvement you described. However, the beauty of Wikipidia is that suggestions can be made without anyone being compeled to follow them. Everyone's talking about the crucial first page, I thought that this was a way to save space. Even I don't agree 100%, but I thought I'd mention it just in case. HereToHelp 22:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Two pages?

I wonder whether it's seriously time to consider splitting this into two separate pages. I think the page has two broad functions, and this redesign is showing how they are at odds with each other.

First, there is the newbie/resource function. This roughly corresponds to the sections "About Wikipedia", "Help", and "Editing Resources". These are essentially static sections. I think they were, correctly, at the bottom of the page, because they exist more for reference purposes than anything else. If you don't know where something is in Wikipedia, this is the place to start looking.

Second, there is the active editor/project/to-do function. These are the "To Do", "Projects", and "Collaborations" sections. These change regularly, drawing in some cases from outside templates, and thus were appropriately at the top of the old page. Additionally, recently the "Maintenance Collaboration" has occupied a special banner at the top. I think these are all deserving of more attention, and to my mind, these are the appropriate function of a page named "Community Portal", although I can see how other things fit the "community" idea as well such as the Village Pump.

Thus, I'm wondering whether we've reached time to refactor this page into these two broad groupings and give each the breathing room they need, instead of filling up a page with unchanging static information (recommended against by usability gurus) and relegating important, needed attention-getting links to the bottom (although this is not my primary objection). What we need, perhaps, is the navigation sidebar to adjust a little bit. I know that it recently split "Help" and "Contact us"; I wonder if we should consider whether "Help" and "Resources" go together better than "Resources" and "Projects". I'd also throw in, for good measure, a reconsideration of the name "Community portal" itself, since it's not very descriptive of either function of the page, let alone what they might be should this suggestion be implemented. --Dhartung | Talk 01:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Totally agreed. Renata3 02:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, the new community portal which would have only COTWs, opens tasks, etc. could include announcement section: a place where people could announce Wiki news - new projects, proposals, policies, portals, updates, ask for votes, etc. Because now there is no central place where you can go and see what is new in the wiki world. All is scatered among 1000's of wikipedia namespace articles.

The help & resource & reference page should be separate. It might be an incentive to reorganize the whole mess with help pages. Renata3 04:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I like where this is going. Why don't we pull in the non-collaboration, non-featured-content part of Wikipedia:Goings-on into the Community Portal via a template? I don't see why anything posted to Wikipedia:Announcements shouldn't also be posted there. I think if Goings-on were more visible in this way, more people would add useful tidbits to it, like "Wikipedia talk:Bots is on the verge of approving replacement of all instances of 'y' with 'ie'. Comments?"

But if we're thinking of pushing help somewhere else, it will need to be linked from the left-hand navigation bar. Fortunately, Help:Contents is already prominently listed. And looking at what's there, it could really use consolidation with the help info from the Community Portal. (And perhaps a little from the Wikipedia:Topical index / Category:Wikipedia merger.) It's silly to have two such "main" pages, and concentrating effort on one of them would mean it would be better organized and more up to date. -- Beland 07:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You know, if we also bring the "featured this week" log into the Community Portal (which would be reasonably appropriate and interesting, though those articles will sooner or later end up on the Main Page, anyway) then Goings-on will be effectively obsolete. -- Beland 07:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's do it! :) Renata3 22:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Good points, Renata and Beland. To me Help:Contents could use a freshening regardless, but in this proposal is a candidate for absorbing/merging Help/About/Resources types of functions. I just wouldn't think of clicking on "Community portal" to look for help topics, ever, unless I already knew it was there. So, to keep this part of the discussion self-contained, do you guys agree that we should peg Help:Contents as a target? If so, a discussion needs to be started over on Help talk:Contents. If I'm not mistaken, they actually offloaded some "helping" functions -- which I take to be projects and collaborations, but I haven't actually checked -- a year or so ago on the basis that they didn't quite fit. There also seem to be some issues with the Help vs. Wikipedia namespaces that I'm not up to speed on.

That said, goings-on and announcements are also, I agree, a better fit -- if the page is to remain named "Community portal". So, this is a four-outcome question. I can agree to keeping the name and to bringing those internal-newsy functions into the page, if there's consensus that those are a more reasonable fit. I can see that giving those functions a little more prominence than they've had -- I know about those pages but I only visit them infrequently myself. That said, I will lobby a tiny bit against the name -- I dislike the term portal, and I'm not sure that "Community" best describes what we're talking about. It seems to be a relic of an earlier Wikipedia era, probably as something like Announcements burgeoned. Basically, the term feels like a catch-all. But I don't want that issue to derail more productive changes, so I won't harp on it.

Trevor, are you lurking here? Since you began this redesign, what are your thoughts? I don't want to scuttle your efforts, but I think this is something that can complement what you've started. --Dhartung | Talk 23:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. I'd like to see what comes about from my little side project. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 02:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to just briefly comment on what Renata3 said: "there is no central place where you can go and see what is new in the wiki world". I've recently been reading the Wikipedia Signpost WP:POST Archives, and that does give an idea of what is going on at some levels, but not all (as does the Quarto for Wikimedia). What I would really like to see, as well as 'news' and 'announcements' is a 'map' covering at least the major areas of Wikipedia, saying what they involve. It is possible to get an idea of this by visiting lots of different help pages, and portals, and project pages, but I've yet to see a page that tries to bring everything together into a reasonably short page and get the balance right between linking to other pages and explaining things. Probably because this would be a rather big project in its own right. I was expecting this page labelled "community portal" to help, but it turned out to be a mass of links, which is good for a portal, but less helpful when trying to get an overview of Wikipedia. Of course, this overview of what Wikipedia is (not what it is trying to do, or that it is an encyclopedia, but what regions exist within Wikipedia) would change constantly, and any such overview would have to be dated and 'frozen' as a snapshot at that particular time. 194.200.237.219 10:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I say go for it. All the way. Really.

You see, this promotes more space in the all-too-important top page or so. Perhaps Help:Contents should be merged entirely with the second half of the 'portal. Perhaps the Help Portal is a good name. Meanwhile, the Open Tasks could be left at the Community Portal, or moved to, say, the To-Do Portal. If you move it, the Community portal needs to be either deleted to prevent an anarchy of editing and petitions for help (see the Village pump for that) or restructured in another major project. Speaking of the Village pump, this needs more atention. We need a "please help me" page of some sort. But, bottom line, I support the two page aproach--let's work out the nuances later. On the other hand, this seems pretty unanimous, so should we go in to more detail now? Whatever. Support. HereToHelp 22:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

To that end, I've decided to be bold and draft the Help portal. It's basically the bottom half of the community portal, with some influences from Help:contents. Again, this is a draft. Critique, but don't criticize. The idea is for other users to expand it and use it as a springboard.HereToHelp 02:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Err, guess not. HereToHelp 03:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Two comments re: collaboration section

Hey, nice job! I have two comments:

• I don't think the maintenance collaboration template should be displayed above the main COTW project - it should probably be merged in with the rest of the collaborations.
• The Spanish translation of the week should also be in line with the other collaborations, rather than at the top section.

Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 12:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The first one you could debate either way. It's a colaboration, yes, but a special, high priority one. I'm neutral. But the other suggestion I agree with entirely. English is the primary language of Wikipeda, don't advertise a secondary one over any other. On the other hand, i something similar was done for "Translations to English" on another language, then I don't object because English is the main language--let's face it, it is. But kill the Spanish thing, by all means. HereToHelp 22:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the Maintance collaboration is really a critical function yet. Its one of the newer collabs and needs more time for now it should just be put with the others.(I'm not saying they havnen't done good work I just don't think its stabe enough for a prominent position). The Spanish translations is one of the oldest collabs but I agree its best with the others. Falphin 18:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Box switch

Would it be possible to switch the placement of the "Collaboration" box and the "About Wikipedia" box? And the Help links might also be better nearer the top. My opinion. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Brainstorming vs. Active Redsign

On the whole, I've noticed that just about everyone agrees on just about everything. So I say let's go into redesigning this page and move out of brainstorming. On he other hand (there's always another hand), we could continue to think this over more and perhaps make a better product with more time. Which do you like, people? HereToHelp 22:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Personally I'm liking this format. Its a whole lot better than the current one. Falphin 18:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• I think we need somebody to step up and split the portal into 2 pages (as per above) and create both drafts - new "Help Portal" and new "Community Portal." Then we should be brainstorming about those two. I'd love to do it myself just I have barely time to sleep these days. Can please please please anyone take initiative? Renata3 02:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Monitor resolution issue

I think this is a great idea. In particular, the little table of contents at the top is great, IMHO.

My only concern is that some parts of the page (in particular, the Projecs box) don't work very well when viewed at 800x600, which is still used by about a third of internet users. Is there a way to work around that? For instance, perhaps the template could be placed below the intro paragraph instead of floating to its right? -- Avocado 22:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Breaking / Using

I've given a page a tweak or two, and only now found this discussion. Splitting the page. Interesting, I'll agree there are quite a few useless links and notes on the page as it stands, and the introduction is aimed a newbies as well. Which specific sections would we like to be moved or duplicated to the 'advanced' page?

1. Help
2. To do
3. About Wikipedia
4. Active collaborations
5. Ongoing projects
6. Resources

On the other hand, we could just use this page as it is right now, and consider breaking in up later. The existing page isn't broken up either. Is there anyone who would miss an important section? Anyone aching to edit this design before implementation? -- Ec5618 16:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This, as it looks now, is a good intermediate page, somewhere between a beginner's infopoint and detailed lists of links for each section. The current structure is OK, I would just swap "Resources" and "About Wikipedia", to make the flow of information more consistent. Can we also make a shorter version of this, something that would fit above the fold (i.e. on one screen, at least at 1024x768) and would still have the most important info? Zocky 13:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Moving discussion back

I've started a thread on implementing the further changes proposed here on Wikipedia talk:Community Portal. There's no longer a link from the portal to this page, so any futher comments here will probably not get noticed much. -- Beland 23:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)