Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Community portal/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Discussion

  • Firstly, thanks for all the work that went into the new main page. It is lovely and an asset to the project; it draws attention to parts of Wikipedia that really needed it; and above all, it's fun. I caught the featured article in the middle of being switched, and for a moment I thought someone had implemented a randomizer for the "featured" section of the main page- I was so excited about that, for a moment I entirely forgot my pain:
  • Secondly, Ouch! Here I was been so pleased with the quiet beauty and efficiency of the previous main page, I'd been shouting its praises to the whole world... it was, in fact, the reason I decided to finally get an account and spend time here. Does it still exist somewhere outside of a "page history" archive? If so, could you put a prominent link to the old version on the current Main Page? I'm sure I don't represent the majority of visitors, but I assume there's at least one old-timer who liked it the way it was; it had a coherent beauty that can only come from much attention.
  • Thirdly, a suggestion: what I'd really like to see, since no main page pleases everyone, is a user-prefs flag letting one self-identify as a newbie, and a user-prefs textbox that lets you enter the title of the page you want to be your "Main Page", linked from the icon and sidebar. Then a) only newbies would have to see those community-page sexns that others won't need, and b) you could split the obviously separable sections of the main page into different [[MediaWiki:{{{1}}}]] ([{{fullurl:MediaWiki:{{{1}}}|action=edit}} edit] | [[MediaWiki talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [{{fullurl:MediaWiki:{{{1}}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/MediaWiki:{{{1}}}}} links] | [{{fullurl:MediaWiki:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs)es, allowing a small number of maintainers to maintain a large number of final page-layouts. +sj+
  • Finally, regarding the current layout: please conserve screen space at the top of the page. Currently, the top three content items are 1) an intro that will get old the tenth time one sees it, 2) msg:opentask which was never intended for such expensive screen space, and 3) msg:totd, which will both get old for many viewers before it changes and takes up too much space. Suggestion II: (1) reduce intro to a very short, cordial note (I took a stab), (2) either change msg:opentask's format everywhere, or create a special version of it for this page [no icon/smaller icon in the "Open Tasks" header, no bullets, tasks selected in part for their condensability into 2-3 words], (3) reduce to ~50 words with a (read more...) link, and (4) move all of the chatty cells like msg:totd, "are you a newbie?", etc to one side, leaving the other free for cells/groups of high-density links. If you worry about "too many links" on the page, you might consider making better use of bold/italics and of color [of links(unused:green,orange), or of link-backgrounds(light shades of gray/yellow)]. +sj+ 11:34, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)

Older Discussion

Good stuff, it really is all a bit of a maze of policies when you first arrive.  :) There should be a link to the sandbox front and center though, to encourage people to dabble (in the right place!). Should we say what creating an account involves (as little as picking a username and password, no scary commitment, and no spam, etc). The tip of the day is cute as well, we can explain the mystery of the four ~s for example.  :) /first impressions. fabiform | talk 13:40, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

By the way, at the top of my talk page I have a little link library I find useful. I'm sure other people do too on their userpages or in their bookmarks. Perhaps we should all nominate which we think are the most useful, and hard to find, links while editing wikipedia. I nominate: Wikipedia:Utilities, Wikipedia:Boilerplate text, Wikipedia:Writing resources, SAMPA chart for English (is SAMPA the officially favored way of producing pronunciation guides?), wiki simplified tables, Wikipedia:Extended image syntax, redirects (very mysterious when you're new!), and bad jokes. fabiform | talk 13:49, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
fabiform, be bold. I just was and reorginized the links and added a few. It felt good to do something I'll likely be barred from doing in a week or so when this page goes live and gets protected indefinatly. :~) Gentgeen 14:57, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I am trained not to edit pages that look like the main page. But just for you, I overcame my timidity and did a bit of (minor) bold editing.  :) fabiform | talk 16:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Just FYI, I don't think this page should ever be protected. The regular Main Page is protected only because of its high visibility.—Eloquence

I created two new sections, one for newbes, and one for the village pump seeing as these are common destinations for people not familiar with the site. What do you think? mydogategodshat 04:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer it to put additional emphasis on the already existing links to both.—Eloquence
But they are hard to find and give no explanation about what a village pump does. mydogategodshat 04:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I guess it is OK to have this stuff in the introduction section as long as there is some way of really making it stand out. mydogategodshat


I also added links to related communities. I don't know if this is the best place for these links, but I think they should be somewhere on the page. mydogategodshat 04:55, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just one more thing, I don't see the Wiki-manual of style listed on the page. Do you think it should be? mydogategodshat

I think the links to the sister projects and other languages should go on the new Main Page, as they are more usefull for readers, most editors would have some idea that they exist already. Oh, and the Manual of style is in the links on the right side of the page. Gentgeen 11:38, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Maybe they should go on both seeing as they are both a navagation issue and a community issue? mydogategodshat 02:28, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like this page too! There are just so many admin links that we can use now that I find it almost impossible to keep track, and this brings a lot of them into one neatly-organised place. Well done to everybody who's contributed to it so far. I think this will make a great pair of 'front pages' :) KJ 11:36, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just as a warning, Main Page/Test is gathering support to go live soon, and this page kinda goes live at the same time. Any changes/improvements need to be completed soon so we're ready. Gentgeen 17:34, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the term "Readers Main Page". It sets up a false dichotomy between readers and writers. It deals with navigational issues, and is useful to writers as well as readers. What is wrong with calling it the "Main Page"? mydogategodshat

Can someone change the image for the todo list into a gif with a transparent background? I don't know how the current Image:Info bulb.png renders on other browsers, but on IE it has a muddy grey background, I think it would look a lot better if it were transparent, and IE doesn't support transparent gifs. Also, re column widths, if you look in the page history we've just tried 40/60%, 45/55% and 50/50%, which do people like best. On my browser, 45/55 is best, as the content fills the two columns equally. fabiform | talk 01:12, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Main Page replacement

A discusssion to replace the Main Page with Main Page/Test and Wikipedia:Main Page is currently going on at those two pages' talk pages. The current concensus is to make the change. Gentgeen 17:43, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • I like what is evolving. But I foresee an upcoming conflict. It looks as though both proposed pages are intending to "Go Live" soon. We need to put together a formal selection process that allows users to discuss and vote on: 1) Keep the current version, 2) Move to the Main Page/Test version, 3) Move to the Wikipedia:Main Page version. Kingturtle 19:40, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If I've understood your comment, I don't think you realise what's being planned. The current main page will be replaced by both of the two pages linked above. There's a "readers main page" which will be the default - the page that visitors see when they arrive, designed to help people use wikipedia as a resource, and also a "community main page" which will be used in parallel, designed to be useful to longterm contributors, but also to encourage people to contribute, and to help them make their first edits pain-free. Does that make sense?  :) fabiform | talk 19:59, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. Still, shouldn't there be a user-wide discussion about this, and possibly a vote about this? This is a major change that will affect all users. Kingturtle 20:18, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I blanketly oppose any major change of the main page until it is taken to a proper vote. Also, I'd like to say that while Main Page/Test looks good, it also looks like it's very high maintence. And Wikipedia:Main Page is just plain ugly. →Raul654 20:23, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
Raul, on Wikipedia we try to avoid voting unless it is absolutely necessary. We try to seek consensus first. Right now there appears to be a consensus for using Main Page/Test. You are the first person who has expressed that Wikipedia:Main Page is "just plain ugly", would you care to elaborate on the talk page?—Eloquence 00:35, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
Well, these replacement pages do seem to have appeared out of nowhere without any publicity. I was completely unaware of the proposed changes until this item appeared on the pump, and it looks like the proposers are getting ready to impliment them. I do have a feeling of being railroaded here. It's very easy to achieve consensus if you don't tell people something is proposed! I'm in two minds about these designs, myself. -- Arwel 01:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's just plain ugly. There's also not consensus on this over at the discussions - methinks you've been paying more attention to those agreeing and not paying enough attention to those saying it is worse (and needs work and similar). I've asked for a vote over there so we get some better idea for the number of people, other than those who developed it, who think it's better than what we have now. Jamesday 10:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's just plain ugly. Please elaborate on which parts of the page you think are "ugly".—Eloquence
How do concerned wikipedians get to know about the discussion? Is it enough with this announcement on the Village pump? Personally, I think that's much more important issue than voting or the interpretation of a voting. The community front page is a great idea, though.--Ruhrjung 22:05, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
We will be able to find out about discussions and polls from this page if it ever gets implemented.mydogategodshat
I am in favour of the change in theory. The split is sensible and a more visually appealing and easy to navigate front page is, I think, essential to make Wikipedia a usable resource for those people who aren't also interested in editing. The proposed main page might be high maintenance, but as I won't be someone maintaining it that doesn't bother me. I do think that any of the current maintainers should think carefully about this before agreeing to the change though.
Regarding the community page, I agree with →Raul654 in that it is horribly cluttered and likely to frighten off any new contributors almost straight away (actually, that's my interpretation of what he means by 'plain ugly'). As a regular contributor I also know that I wouldn't use it as a jump station for my common activities. It isn't ready to go live yet - don't be hasty! --HappyDog 02:37, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

All main pages seem ugly to me

All main pages, Main Page, Main Page/Test and Wikipedia:Main Page seem ugly to me. The reason is the use of tables which result in making the life difficult to users who have low screen resolution or doesn't like having maximised browser windows. Optim 02:33, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Man I've just had about 8 edit conflicts in a row chasing this article from the Village Pump, with Optim one step ahead all the way :) -- finally got my oar in though! Anyway, regarding Optim's comments I think that in the long term Wikipedia needs to look good to a web-savvy public. This may not be an issue yet but at some point we need to be an encyclopedia for the public who want Information but don't care about contributing. Whereas most sites suffer from style over content, WP is currently a bit too far in the other direction. I'm not suggesting anything particularly flash (sic) but if you're ruling out tables then really you might as well ask for a plain text site, which is really not going to help! --HappyDog 02:43, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plain vanilla main page

See Wikipedia:Plain vanilla main page. Optim 02:54, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why this page is confused

I've been looking at this page for about 10 minutes, trying to figure out what is wrong with it, and I've realised that the problem is that we don't know what we want it to be.

If it is here for new users, to explain the site, to help then become contributors and to provide a central source of information then it is far too detailed and cluttered. It should instead focus on the common beginner questions, with headings for Getting Started, Advanced Editing and Procedures and Policies, each with a bit of text and a small set of the 3 or 4 most useful links, with maybe a link to more information... like the sections on the proposed Main Page.

If it is aimed at existing community members then it should contain some additional useful information - pages needing work, requests for assistance, current issues (e.g. New main page proposal - feedback requested) and a few carefully selected community links (e.g. village pump). It doesn't need many though, after all the side bar gives me pretty much all of the pages I currently view. Currently my Wikipedia bookmark goes straight to my watchlist. For me to use this page it would need to be at least as useful as my watchlist!

Either way, there is no use in having a massive links list as a top-level navigation page. --HappyDog 03:07, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Currently there is no way to navigate the huge jungle of links in the Wikipedia: namespace -- there is no central overview page of these links. It is only logical that Wikipedia:Main Page should provide a way to reach all pages in the Wikipedia: namespace, either through an overview page or directly. If this page is cluttered, it means that we need more overview pages, not that the approach is wrong.
I do agree that having a separate section for current issues would probably be a good idea.—Eloquence 03:11, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that some sort of overview pages are required, and we already have Wikipedia:Community_Information_Directory. But I strongly feel that this shouldn't be the first page people see when they come to the site (or when they go to the 'community' section if that's how it'll work). Just have a link to the full directory instead, and make the page useful in its own right - and I think there is a lot of scope for making this the first port of call, rather than your watchlist. If this was already the case then everyone would have seen this discussion, rather than a load of people (such as myself) joining it when an announcement on the Village Pump says that a concensus has already been reached! --HappyDog 03:18, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see the contradiction. There's no reason why this page shouldn't have useful current information (it already has the tip of the day and the list of open tasks) and a reasonably complete directory of pages in the Wikipedia: namespace.—Eloquence 03:31, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
I share happydog's concern that newbies will have difficulty finding the links that they want in amongst all this clutter. However I don't think a separate Newbie Page is the answer. We could have a newbie section near the top of this page. mydogategodshat 04:18, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am wondering if the phrase "Here are some open tasks:" is needed? mydogategodshat

Yup. This is part of Template:opentask, which is also used as part of many new user welcoming messages.—Eloquence 04:22, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
I prefer "We would like your opinion" to "Current issues" for the same reason that I like "Things you can do" to "Articles needing attention". In both cases the former has a friendlier tone. Can the New editors section be condensed? mydogategodshat
How about "Get involved"?—Eloquence
Much better. I hate to be a pest, but what would it look like if the light bulb was slightly bigger, and in the top right hand corner of that box? mydogategodshat
On my screen the lightbulb and the clipboard are in the same vertical position -- I like that a lot. Does it look different on your screen? We can't scale up the lightbulb as it's a bitmap graphic and it would get pixelized.—Eloquence 06:38, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
Could we please make the lightbulb background not clash with the page background? Is it supposed to be transparent? It isn't on IE. fabiform | talk 14:58, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's transparent on Mozilla. I don't know how to make it IE-compatible. User:Brion VIBBER has done that a few times, maybe you should ask him.—Eloquence 19:03, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
I re-uploaded it. Is it ok now? Angela. 19:11, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
Ah, perfect. Thanks Angela. I asked Brion to do it yesterday (as well as the magnifying glass on the thumbnails, which is now fixed). That's what prompted all the questions about it on your talk page Eloquence.  :) fabiform | talk 20:28, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Major probs with this page and IE6 and Cologne Blue skin

This page has major overlapping problems with this combination. Most people use IE6!! ChrisG

OK, I've done my best to fix this by adding some more white space. It now looks good to me in Cologne Blue using IE6 - tell me if it's still bad for you. Note to others, please don't take the extra blank lines and top-padding out; it's needed badly in the above combination.  :) fabiform | talk 02:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Looks much better in general but still huge overlaps of text with:

  • Resources and Incentives
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Boxes and Boilerplates
  • Content Categorisation
  • and need a little more white space above Things you can do which doesn't seem to above the column beside it.

Did people change it after your edits? Everything else is okay, though a tiny bit cramped, but that will muck up the behaviour with other browsers I imagine so I wouldn't change it anymore. ChrisG 21:07, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Could you do upload a screenshot to show people who might know (better than me) how to fix it? Cheers, fabiform | talk 21:29, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Looks fine to me except the headers are a bit on the big side. --Brion 10:38, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Problems with dual mainpage system

Just a really simple problem - but no simple solution: What is "the" wikipedia mainpage, now? I see myself mostly as a contributor at the moment, not as a reader. So the best mainpage to link to in my shortcuts would be the "Wikipedia:Main Page". But if I use this to open Wikipedia by default, I'll miss things like current news etc. I like to see. The old main page allowed both without being to cluttered (in my opinion). Now I have to chose one or the other, and that is a problem. -- till we *) 20:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I had this same thought myself, tillwe, but I realized that in two weeks I won't even really think about it--I'll go to the "reader page" first and then jump to the "contributor" page in a couple moments if nothing strikes my fancy. So, I guess my advice would be that if we wait a week or so, we may find ways of resolving early concerns (which I have a few of, but I'm adopting the waiting stance, anyway). Jwrosenzweig 21:35, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Would it help to have the Wikipedia:Main Page in the quickbar? Or is having a link from the other Main Page enough? Angela. 21:50, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
I think another link in the quickbar would be overkill. I have to admit I kind of like the idea of having to go through the regular Main Page first. This exposes it to much peer review.—Eloquence
I agree with Angela. I don't think it's overkill....when I want to surf to the Mailing lists page, I don't want to have to jump through the user main page every single time when all I really want is the W:MP. I'll give the Main Page plenty of peer review -- I think it would be much more efficient to add W:MP to the quickbar. I'd go so far as to say that it could replace Current Events, which I frankly have never used. I'm sure some do, but I'm suggesting it as a way of limiting how many links are in the quickbar, if that's Eloquence's concern. Jwrosenzweig 21:57, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
By the way, shouldn't we move the community page to Community Main Page or Wikipedia:Community Main Page? And should it be an option in our preferences which main page we want to visit when we click the wikipedia logo?
Many people would strongly disagree with removing current events (myself included). If you want it in the sidebar, we'll have to come up with a solution that 1) doesn't waste space, 2) doesn't eliminate any important links.
Regarding the title, I think Wikipedia:Main Page is great, because it is a good example for the namespace concept in action -- the same page in different namespaces has different purposes.—Eloquence
But wouldn't Wikipedia:Community Main Page work just as well for that. I find it a bit odd seeing the title of the page as "Wikipedia:Main Page" and then the first line reading "welcome to the Community Main Page" we normally repeat the article title in bold. fabiform | talk 22:27, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I knew suggesting CE was a bad move...well, frankly I don't think one more link will hurt. I know I'd find it useful, especially if I'm accessing from slower dialup...sometimes waiting for a page to load with several thumbnails (like the Main Page) is annoying. I like the title Wikipedia:Main Page and agree that it is exactly what namespace is supposed to do. In summary, I don't think adding Community Main (or however we can shorten the name acceptably to make it fit the quickbar) "wastes space"....frankly I think it a very good use of space. After all, we expect that contributors will use WP:MP more often than MP, simply because WP:MP navigates to more useful pages -- if that's why we had a link to the one MP in the past, I don't see why linking to both MPs (now that they've separated) is a "waste". Just my 2 cents, Jwrosenzweig 22:07, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

J, I agree that such a link would be useful. I'm concerned, however, that it might make part of the sidebar invisible in the lower resolutions. This is especially problematic when the sidebar is in "floating" mode (a user preference), where you can't scroll to see the parts which are invisible. With the sysop links the vertical sidebar is already pretty huge. I really think we're on the limit in terms of vertical length.

Something like Main Page (2) would work space-wise, but be rather unintuitive.

Caching problems didn't allow me to see the answers ... argh. Anyways, I'd like a dual Mainpage link in the sidebar, but maybe Main Page / W:MP would be more intuitiv. -- till we *) 22:43, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey, here's an idea. How about making the logo point to the community main page, and the Main Page link to the regular one?—Eloquence 22:13, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

I like that idea, but I think the other way round would be more intuitive. People expect the logo to link to the Main Page, and the Main Page is still more of the main page than the Community Main Page is, so I think the logo should point there. Angela. 22:41, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
I agree, it's a good idea. But it should be the way round that Angela suggests, it's definately more intuitive (for me, at least). fabiform | talk 22:45, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think the best idea would be to make it a user option 'Main Page links to Community Page', defaulting to no for new users, but customisable for those of us who more often want to go to the community page. The graphic should, I think, always go to the Main Page, but this could either be controlled from the same setting or from a different setting if that is more useful to others. --HappyDog 23:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like a link in the left-hand sidebar; you can tell I like it because I suggested it right at the beginning for the new main reader's page design. :-) "If we added a sidebar link under Main Page to Contributors' Page Contributor Help or some such, I could still get there with just a click. " (I, also, have never used the Current events link until just this moment to see what it did.) Elf 00:24, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you go there frequently, just add the page to your bookmark toolbar! Perl 02:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tip o' the day.....or Tip o' the week

Do we have people willing to change this everyday? Maybe it should be weekly? Kingturtle 23:51, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have plenty of tips. I think I can handle it. We'll see.—Eloquence

Why is this page called Main page rather than Community Main Page? It is confusing with two Main pages. 152.163.252.195

  • I agree. The Community Main Page should just be called the Community Page. Kingturtle 01:54, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. It is more logical for the community Main Page to be in the Wikipedia: namespace. It's a good way for newbies to learn the meaning of namespaces. The fact that this comment was made by an anonymous user demonstrates that.—Eloquence 01:58, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Eloquence. — Perl 02:10, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm going to suggest Wikipedia:Community Main Page for the third and final time. After that I'll get the hint that no one likes this idea and not mention it again.  ;) fabiform | talk 02:36, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Fabiform. mydogategodshat 02:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Should be a redirect. Done.—Eloquence

quickbar

A button for "Community Main Page" should be placed between the "Main Page" button and the "Recent changes" button on the quickbar. Kingturtle 03:56, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree, a button like "Community page" should be in the bar. Also, "Current events" is not necessary since the Main Page is in fact 90% current events, and not much more than that. I still do not like the fact that this community info is so hard to find, but that's another battle. Fuzheado 04:21, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, button to this page would be useful. Also agree that the main page (not this main page) is starting to look more like a news magazine than an encyclopedia. mydogategodshat 04:24, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Same with me (button and not-so-cool news magazine look), but see discussion two above. -- till we *) 09:01, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Let me say this more forcely....We need to have a button on the quickbar for the Community Page. Kingturtle 20:10, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zap moving pages

Since Zap's been moving things around, WP:Main Page has been moved to Community Page... I don't really mind the new name all that much, but we should be all going through consensus decisions first, so you can express views on a possible move to a new name here. Dysprosia 11:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cleaning up Wikipedia namespace

Before the redesigned main page and community main page went live, User:168... created several directories of the Wikipedia namespace and backlinked them in a number of the pages listed in these directories. The directory pages include Wikipedia:Community Information Directory, Wikipedia:WikiCivics, Wikipedia:Policy Library, and Wikipedia:Style and How-to Directory. Since we have ample space now on the community main page, with links broken down into useful categories, I believe the primary functionality of these pages is no longer needed. I propose to convert them into redirects to the community page, and remove the backlinks that clutter the Wikipedia: pages. However, 168... objects to this. Please comment. --Michael Snow 23:00, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree 100%. These pages ware a bad idea to begin with. The titles are uninformative, and the backlinks are annoying.—Eloquence 03:26, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
I object to the removal of these links. Please put them back in. Redirect them to the new community page. Until we get a Community Page button on the quickbar, these "backlinks" are useful to me. Kingturtle 23:26, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree that including the community page on the quickbar would be a better solution. I believe there has been some objection to that on the grounds that there's too much stuff there already. --Michael Snow 23:35, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Until that time, can we keep these "backlinks" and point them to the Community Page? Kingturtle 23:37, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
168... has now reverted my edits anyway, but I have changed the message to point to the community page. --Michael Snow 23:48, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have gotten more positive feedback about these directories than i have gotten negative feedback, and so it boggles my mind that Michael Snow or anybody else should consider it appropriate to simply dismantle the project without discussion with others. In fact, it pisses me off no end. The community page does not make these directories redundant. The community page is a visually busy and hard to use montage of directories with non-systematically named pages and less natural groupings. The backlinks are vital to ease of use. I don't care what it looks like or what the names are. But something functional like this will make a HUGE difference to the navigability of the meta pages and to the problem of redundancy, which happens in part because people don't know what other existing pages touch on the same theme that they're writing about.168...|...Talk 23:55, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • It is true. I have been very pleased with the 'backlink' in question. I use it many times a day. Kingturtle 23:58, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No argument about Kingturtle's satisfaction with it, but I thought the suggestion above was even better. There was considerable objection when 168... created this project several weeks ago, and I don't think it was necessarily resolved. At this point, we should probably move the dispute resolution process on to a poll. --Michael Snow 00:03, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The "considerable objection" was primarily from ignorant hot-heads, at least one of whom (Taku) has recanted. They misunderstood the goal and didn't like the nomenclature. The goal has since become clear to those who have tried to grasp it, and the names of the pages have changed, and are still open to change, and so the initial objections appear to have been addressed, if one only cares to open one's eyes to look. I might note that there was considerable objection at first to voting rights for women. People don't always make the best decision at first glance and without discussion.168...|...Talk 02:00, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Now that the community portal has been added to the sidebar, I believe that fills the functionality provided by the backlinks. I maintain my objection to the backlinks as clutter that makes the pages in the Wikipedia namespace more difficult to read and use. Therefore, I intend to create a poll on this talk page and link it through msg:communitypage by adding a parenthetical statement like: (Whether you find this backlink useful or cluttering, please [[vote in the poll]].) --Michael Snow 00:02, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Maybe we could take the contents of Wikipedia:Community Information Directory and place it in MediaWiki:Community...and then place {{msg:community}} in the Wikipedia:Main Page. Kingturtle 00:34, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Most of those contents are already present on the community main page, so that doesn't really seem helpful. That's part of why I consider those pages redundant. Putting the community main page in the quickbar is a much more elegant solution. --Michael Snow 00:46, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Featured Article is static

Why is Featured article stuck on Bible codes? There appears to be a successor article in the queue. Selected anniversaries changes daily, why not Featured article? 169.207.89.21 11:14, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

try holding down ctrl and click refresh(F5) to refresh it. Perl 15:22, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Visibility poll

Should we add a prominent link to Wikipedia:Community Portal and if so, where?

Sidebar, and keep all other links

Votes in favor:

  1. Kingturtle 06:57, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 07:51, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jiang
  4. Seth Ilys
  5. Jrincayc 20:11, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC) But I would recommend calling it the Community Page instead of Wikipedia:Main Page since that is harder to distinquish.
  6. Gaz 13:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) and make the name "Community Portal" or just "Community"
  7. PMA 12:39, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Sam Spade 19:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) keep link on the main page, please
  9. Minesweeper
  10. Elf 23:21, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) (but, if we have to remove something, I've also expressed preferences below)
  11. Lyellin 05:22, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
  12. - SimonP 21:10, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC) (I'm fine with dumping Special Pages or Related Changes if it's really necessary)
  13. Alex S 16:44, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  14. till we *) 17:26, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  15. Ryan_Cable 15:22, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Votes against:

  1. —Eloquence 01:18, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Michael Snow 02:17, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. — Sverdrup (talk) 09:08, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. Angela (unless a link such as related changes is removed)
  5. Taku 03:30, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Warofdreams
  7. Spikey 04:24, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Eclecticology 08:10, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

Arguments against:

  • Sidebar is already very tall, especially for sysops, and making it any longer will break it in low resolutions, especially when "floating" mode is enabled in prefs and scrolling to invisible parts becomes impossible.
    • Could someone make a screenshot so I know what it looks like in low res, and floating mode? Kingturtle 20:37, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Certainly: 800x600 give or take the odd window border. Note the absence of any way to go "below the window frame". The more we add, the less people can use this viewing mode. - IMSoP 00:37, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Pesky Floating-mode. I see. How many 800x600 users are out there? Is that something we can pick out with stats? Can we tell 800x600 users not to use float mode? Kingturtle 23:13, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Most of this can be merged with the Main Page if we get rid of "In the News" generally bring the Main Page back to basics

Arguments pro:

  • The side-bar length probleme is only a admin user problem, because normal users don't have the Protect/Delete links. And if it really is to long, one still could do something like Main / Community instead of Main Page. -- till we *) 17:26, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sidebar, and remove current events link

Votes in favor:

  1. Sidebar contents need to be cut back, but community page needs to be included. Special pages link could go instead, in my opinion. Michael Snow 02:17, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jiang
  3. Taku 03:30, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Timwi 14:01, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) (good idea, and then link to Current Events from Wikipedia:Community Portal)
  5. +sj+ 18:45, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
  6. Minesweeper
  7. Warofdreams
  8. Elf 23:23, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Spikey 04:24, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) (agree with Timwi)
  10. Minh Nguyễn 19:53, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. Mikez 02:15, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) (never understood the point of 'current events' - might as well get rid of it:)

Votes against:

  1. James F. (talk) 07:51, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Angela
  3. Perl
  4. mav - current events is a very important page - it helps keep the encyclopedia up-to-date.
  5. RickK Keep Current events, do away with Community pages, or whatever that name is.
  6. Davodd 10:18, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC) Current events is very important.
  7. Alex S 16:47, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. till we *) 17:26, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Ryan_Cable 15:22, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arguments in favor:

  • Sysops knows how to find current events anyway, and if the sysops' link are getting out of hand, remove that link from the sysops only. Mikez

Arguments against:

  • Current events is already very important to lots of people and receives 30-40 edits a day.
    • It receives this many edits and goes way beyond its 32kb limit because it is linked. Is is not necessary to link it. --Jiang
    • Besides, you can go to there from the new main page now. Just two clicks away.
      • Same for this page. --mav

Replace Wikipedia logo link to Main Page with link to Wikipedia:Community Portal

Votes in favor:

  1. —Eloquence 01:18, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 07:51, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jiang
  4. Taku 03:30, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Warofdreams

Votes against:

  1. — Sverdrup (talk) 09:05, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Angela
  3. Seth Ilys 19:42, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. Gaz 14:07, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. Timwi 14:10, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  6. +sj+ 18:45, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
  7. Minesweeper
  8. Elf 23:23, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  1. Spikey 04:24, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Davodd 10:18, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Alex S 16:47, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. till we *) 17:26, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Paddu 06:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Ryan_Cable 15:22, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Mikez 02:15, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arguments against:

  • Confusing to have a logo that says Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia link to the community page instead of the encyclopedia page.
    • Oh, absolutely agreed! That's an internet standard. Elf 23:23, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • A logo link should link to the bottom of the hierarchy, i.e. the Main Page, everything else is confusing. For consistency, we should not have some links as images and some as text.

Keep Wikipedia logo link to Main Page and replace Main Page link with link to Wikipedia:Community Portal

Votes in favor:

  1. Main page also has a link using text at the top and bottom, anyway. Michael Snow 02:17, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. I am pro making the sidebar a tool for those who like to read the WP:MP — Sverdrup (talk) 09:08, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Angela
  4. I agree with Michael's reasoning. Jwrosenzweig 02:51, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. There are too many links to Main Page now. BTW we can make all sidebar lookout changeable in preferences. Different people need different sidebars. ilya 21:26, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Minesweeper
  7. My preferred option Warofdreams
  8. Paddu 20:37, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Votes against:

  1. James F. (talk) 07:51, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Seth Ilys 19:42, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Taku 03:30, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Gaz 14:07, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. Timwi 14:10, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) (too confusing/inconsistent)
  6. Too confusing/inconsistent. but I do thing the "Main Page' link could be dprioritized a bit -- perhaps make the first line in the side bar "Main | Random page" instead? The 'Main' might be confusing the first time or two, but there *are* 3 other links to it from each page. And this would save a line in the sidebar.
  7. Elf 23:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Spikey 04:24, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Alex S 16:47, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. till we *) 17:26, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. Ryan_Cable 15:22, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arguments against:

  • I need an immediate way to main page like recent changes.
  • My second-most-used link; even though logo goes there, this one is more obvious to everyone


Sidebar, and remove related changes link

Votes in favor:

  1. Kingturtle 18:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Angela
  3. Elf 23:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. till we *) 17:26, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Paddu 06:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Votes against:

  1. 'Related changes' is a marvelous concept, and *extremely* useful for tracking edits for any active subject (and more and more subjects are becoming 'active'); I didn't realize what it was for for over a week, despite its location. Keep; perhaps bold. +sj+ 18:45, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
  2. Warofdreams
  3. Jiang 05:09, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) (recent changes is regularly used and very important)
  4. Taku 21:30, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Ryan_Cable 15:22, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arguments for:

  • This already occurs at the bottom of each page anyway.

Sidebar, and remove Special pages

Votes in favor:

  1. The Special pages list is (or could easily be) duplicated on the Portal page. -- Kimiko 17:21, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Michael Snow 22:51, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) (See my vote re:current events above)
  3. Warofdreams
  4. till we *) 17:26, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Votes against:

  1. Angela. No! That's the only place the special pages link occurs.
  2. —Eloquence 00:02, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC) (essential link for advanced users)
  3. Taku 21:30, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Paddu 06:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Ryan_Cable 15:22, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's already on the sidebar as Main Page and the content belongs at Main Page:

Votes in favor:

  1. Jamesday

Votes Against:

  1. Prefer the separated main and community pages. Michael Snow 22:51, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ditto. Elf 23:26, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Angela
  4. Spikey 04:24, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Alex S 16:47, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Taku 21:30, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Paddu 06:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Ryan_Cable 15:22, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Don't add Community Page to side bar. Instead, add it to the TitleLinks (top bar)

Votes in favor:

  1. Kingturtle 23:13, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Angela (this is the best option)
  3. till we *) 17:26, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Paddu 06:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Votes against:

  1. —Eloquence 00:02, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC) (I don't want to push away the new messages notification which may appear in this space)
  2. Spikey 04:24, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) (Just not apprpriate there)
  3. Jiang 05:09, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) (side is more accessible; community portal is important!)
  4. Alex S 16:47, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Taku 21:30, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Ryan_Cable 15:22, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


I'd rather the Main Page link be changed to the Wikipedia:Main Page as there is already a link to the Main Page at the top, and the logo is a link to the Main Page as well. If somehing has to be removed from the sidebar, I'd prefer to remove the related changes link as that is linked to from the bottom of the page already. Current events isn't linked to elsewhere on the page, so that link should stay. Angela. 13:35, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

The sidebar is at a location more accessible than the top bar. Why not move current events, which is much less important, to the top if it is to be kept at all? --Jiang 02:37, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Move "Random page" into the body of the new look Main Page, and allow space for both "Main Page" and "Community Portal" in the Quickbar. We could make a little feature of it below "Did you know...". - Gaz 14:13, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is now officially the most confusing poll ever, requiring us to indicate whether we want a sidebar link, top link, or no link because we only need one main page, and if a sidebar link, which of the myriad of possible permutations should we adopt? I can't even begin to contemplate voting. Jwrosenzweig 23:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Who coded the sidebar?

Because "Community Portal" points at a redirect, which is a bad idea, methinks. Should I be leaving a note for Tim or Erik or who? Jwrosenzweig 16:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What happened to current events????? The removal of current events link on the sidebar was made without consent from the Wikipedia community, and it should be added again! Perl 17:53, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

I absolutely agree. I have no need to have this link on my page, whereas I go to Current events every day. I don't want to have to type it into the Search bar, especially when the Search stops working again. RickK 03:33, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The above vote in no way shows a consensus for any of the suggestions. I am surprised action was taken so swiftly. I am curious what was seen as justification for the move. Kingturtle 22:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am as surprised as Perl and Kt. I do have to admit I won't miss the current events link personally, but as at least some people will, I am surprised that it is gone so swiftly. Jwrosenzweig 00:02, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like it. No opinion on process... BCorr ¤ Брайен 00:05, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

I mean who made the change? Do we have any right to choose which links we like to see at the side bar but some guy whom no one has no idea who is can just change at his will? What the hell! -- Taku 00:28, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
Eloquence did it by editing MediaWiki:Currentevents. There doesn't seem to be a way of avoiding the redirect, as the page title has to match what is written in the sidebar, and Wikipedia:Community Portal would be too long. The "Contact us" link can link directly to the Wikipedia namespace because there is MediaWiki:bugreports as well as MediaWiki:bugreportspage, but the current events link doesn't have an equivalent MediaWiki:currenteventspage. Angela. 01:00, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
I'll add the required variable ASAP. In the meantime, feel free to revert the change if it annoys you, but it appears to reflect majority opinion in the poll.—Eloquence 02:25, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
What poll came to the conclusion that we should remove the current events link? I missed it and I assume others have not gotten to vote either. Perl 19:03, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Scroll up a little way, the poll is just above this discussion. fabiform | talk 19:12, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Fabiform. This should have been discussed on the village pump. Users who don't use community page will probably not have this page on their watchlist! Perl 19:14, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
As a non-{sysop|admin} may I request that somebody revert the change - apart from being an ugly hack, I don't think it represents any degree of consensus, even amongst those who did get a chance to vote. [Meanwhile, I'll publicise the vote on the pump, as Perl suggested.] - IMSoP 19:36, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty agnostic as to what, if anything, we should delete from the sidebar. However, I think it's abundantly clear that the community portal needs to be included. There's a strong demand for that, and only one vote against so far (which is really a vote to go back to the main page before the redesign). --Michael Snow 22:56, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I was so thrilled when it showed up briefly in the sidebar--I used it! I would continue to do so. Elf 23:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we should make the sidebar too different to how it is on the non-English Wikipedias. If I go to a Wikipedia in a language I don't speak, I want to be able to find the links to "special pages" or whatever by assuming they are in the same position as they are here. Adding the link to the top, next to the disclaimers one, would seem the best option as there is plenty of room for links there and it prevents anything needing to be removed. Angela. 23:41, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

That's the place for the new message notification.—Eloquence


I think there's room for both. If not, put it next to "main page" in the top links. Angela. 08:29, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

ACK! Too many different options in the poll! We need a link to the Community Portal Page but it doesn't matter where it goes. Just add it in somewhere and be done with it. The Main Page currently gets THREE links at top, bottom and in the side bar. I'd just add in 'Community Page' next to each of them (and I've NEVER used the current events link so you could remove that for all I care...) Special pages is a good link except that half of them are permanently disabled. If you really want to save space, add Community Portal into the Special Pages list and at least then it's accessible from anywhere... KJ 01:18, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Trying to think about this systematically. What do the sidebar links have in common? They take you to hub pages that allow you to navigate further in Wikipedia (main page and community portal, if it gets added like it should be). They perform specific functions related to the current page or user account (edit and talk, page history and relationships, watchlist, contributions, etc.). They allow you to reach other special functions (recent changes, random page, upload, special pages generally). That leaves us with Current events, Contact us, and Donations. It seems appropriate to have contact and donor information available on every page, for the benefits to the project. Which leaves us with Current events, a page which doesn't lead you anyplace else and performs no specialized function. That tells me it doesn't belong. I know some people use the link, but it would only be one step further away. I think we can manage to keep things updated even if it's not in the sidebar. --Michael Snow 01:19, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, I just read all that and I get your logic. Now tell me where Random page fits into that logic again, cos I don't get it. Random page would make a fine link in the body of Main Page. Under the Selected anniversaries OR Did you know....
e.g. Be adventurous... try a random page now!!! - - Gaz 12:24, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I just checked Pages from English Wikipedia with more than 1000 hits in Feb 2004, and Random page DOES NOT RATE!! - Gaz 13:00, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Having it in the sidebar makes it very easy to get a sample of articles - just click "Random page" again. That's an important feature for quality comparisons. While I think we could do without it, I think it's fairly cool to have it in the sidebar.—Eloquence 13:08, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
It may be cool, and as I said, it could be featured on the Main Page, but with less than 1000 clicks in an entire month is isn't winning any popularity contest. - Gaz 13:14, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Those 1000 hits might be all me. I use random page daily. Kingturtle 03:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ditto; I'm not sure that clicking the sidebar link satisfied whatever tool was used to count up hits... maybe it was 1000 different users? I find "Random page" to be a very useful sidebar link. But... isn't there some way to allow people to set what sidebar links they want in their preferences?? I work on a large screen, and have room for an extra 10 or so sidebar links. Moreover, I don't turn to WP for current events, nor do I want 'special pages' or 'contact us' on my sidebar. I would love an option somewhere that let me put one or two of my user pages, and some overview/utilities pages I use all the time, in my sidebar instead. +sj+ 12:07, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)
See below "re: Quickbar button for Community Portal" - Gaz 12:21, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just to add some hard data to the mix, here's a screenshot from the current sidebar in Mozilla, as a sysop, on a user talk page. This is the maximum length of the sidebar:

As you can see, the height of that image is 600 pixels. That means that if we add a single more link to the sidebar, 800x600 users will no longer be able to use it in floating mode.—Eloquence 15:29, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

I note with interest that the Random page link has not been visited. - Gaz 16:06, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've probably used it only twice in my Wikipedia career, but in those two cases I found it very helpful that I could just keep clicking the link to fetch new pages to review. Nevertheless, if others feel that it should go, I'm certainly open for that.—Eloquence 16:16, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
As I've indicated, I don't care all that much what goes as long as the community portal gets added. I do use Random page, but if not that many people do, then I'll just get to it through Special pages. I do note that the community page's incarnation as Wikipedia:Main Page rated 3959 hits, and it wasn't even "live" for a good portion of the month. If we use that as a guide, I think it clearly rates inclusion in the sidebar. In terms of design, I still think it's Current events that doesn't fit in (one of these things is not like the others...). But whatever you do, please add the community page. --Michael Snow 16:19, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why can't there be two links on some lines then?

Main Page / User Portal
...
Contact us / Donations

-- mav 05:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The sysop functions are already linked at the bottom. I don't see the need to link it at multiple places. Those can be removed. --Jiang 05:07, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes - I agree. Or at least put them at the bottom of the sidebar after an extra hr line. I'm sure most admin's screens are above 800x600. --mav

My resolution is 800x600 (but I'm not a sysop) and this sysop sidebar is already too long for me to use in floating mode - you've forgotton that my entire screen is 600 high, not the browser window I look through. Obviously any sysop with a small screen resolution currently copes with this (presumably by not floating the sidebar) so I see no reason not to add an extra link to the sidebar without removing the sysop link if this will be most conveneient. fabiform | talk 13:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If I correctly follow the discussion, the quandry seems to be between placing the community portal link on a sidebar used by the vast majoriry of readers and which currently has 15 or 16 links, or to not include it in the sidebar used by most readers because the sidebar used by 150 or so administrators has 22 links and some of those administrators might view the namespace in 800 x 600 resolution.
As an admin who uses 800 x 600 resolution the side bar is already far longer than my screen, so an extra link really won't make any difference. - SimonP 20:46, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)~
Presenting the question that way seems a bit implicit, but I don't really mean to suggest an outcome. I can note that the community portal page was difficult for me to find because the hypertext was buried in a paragraph instead of set off as a link. And it is probably axiomatic that administrators can find their way around more easily than can novice editors. Bird 18:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The sysop sidebar functions already take up too much space using tabbed browsing in mozilla with default toolbars shown. Look at this screenshot: w:mi:Image:Illustration of adminbar.png Perl 02:19, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I would like to see links for the Community Portal and the Wiki:Sandbox. I do think, however, that the appropriate place would be in the Special Pages link. I would also like to see a link to the Google Wiki Search. We can go to Google Advanced Search and put Wikipedia.org in the domain box. Why not link to that page. Davjohn 04:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

School FAQ

While developing for MetaWiki a set of use cases and a draft system architecture for a virtual atlas keyed to Wikipedia, I found a need to do some market research. I wanted to know how schools and health educators react to an open source educational document. The results of that survey I developed as an article for MetaWiki titled Wikipedia in Schools. Then I located this refurbished page and notice the FAQ section here.

It seems this list of questions and answers for schools would be an appropriate FAQ to include on that list. I will likely rework the lead slightly (if nobody else does), but if no objections appear here in the next short while, I plan to move that MetaWiki article into Wikipedia with a link from the Community Portal page. Bird 16:53, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Send PR to your local paper

I'm asking Wikipedia, please, please, every user, send off the Wikipedia:Press releases/February 2004 press release off to your local paper, a few local papers, a dozen papers in Tibet. We need to get this out to the media, and can only do it with your help! Even contacting one local paper will make a world of difference. Secretlondon once said, "If some of the people who helped write the thing had helped send it out we would have the world covered by now." Find instructions at How to send a press release -- user:Zanimum

re: Quickbar button for Community Portal

The button does not have to be on the quickbar. It could be placed along the top, between Main Page and Recent changes. No? Kingturtle 03:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All the discussion on a "button" to the Community Portal is centred around where it will appear. Some say in the quickbar. Kingturtle says in the header. I sure someone has said "Let's put it in the footer". The place for it REALLY is in the quickbar, but no one can agree on what to toss out, ot even if we have to toss anything at all.
The solution is deeper than that. GIVE THE USER THE ABILITY TO SELECT/DESELECT QUICKBAR ITEMS!!! Create a preferences page for the quickbar. Show every option available with a checkbox next to each one. Let the user choose. Simple!
YES, I know, the extra load to work it out each time will kill the server. Bollocks. If it is coded right the 20-30 combo's that we humans will eventually settle on could be cached, and we'd all get what we want. Shoot me down someone, then I can go back to whinging about something else. ;-) - Gaz 10:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Or develop a Wikieditor application that users can optionally download, putting this sort of preferences logic on the client side, saving the servers CPU to serve articles. Non-downloaders will just a browser and default sidebars. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:11, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
...and which OS's does this client-side app get developed_in/ported_to? - I'm quickly not liking the Wikieditor idea. - Gaz 14:45, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I guess I had in mind developing in wxPython (or wxWindows (or whatever its new name is)) as its strengths are very compatible with Wikipedia's requirements, and it is more or less cross-platform. Note that Magnus Manske has developed an off-line reader in wxWindows. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:08, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New sidebar poll

I submit that we have a consensus to add a quicklink to the Community Portal. Concerns about space require that we add the link to the sidebar, but it seems necessary to remove one of the existing links to do so. Since nothing has happened, and the previous poll on this subject got too convoluted and confused everyone, here is a new one.

Rules for this poll

  1. Do not add more options to the poll (all options with any hope of producing a consensus are already included; do not confuse people by changing the poll in mid-vote)
  2. In order to vote against any option, you must vote for at least one option (based on the consensus and the requirements listed above, you are expected to support at least one alternative in order to oppose others)
  3. Subject to Rule #2, you may vote for or against each option separately.
  4. Subject to Rule #2, you may vote for or against as many options as you wish.
  5. If you vote for more than one option, you may indicate whether it is your 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc.
  6. This poll officially closes at 00:27, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The poll is now officially closed

Summary: Replace 1:Random page 2:Current Events 3:Sysop functions 4:Related changes 5:Special pages


Option 1: Replace Random page

Votes for:

  1. Michael Snow 00:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) (2nd choice)
  2. Gaz 00:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) Place IN Main Page
  3. James F. (talk) 14:10, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Ke4roh 00:53, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Paddu 14:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) -- IMO random pages increase Wikipediholism

Votes against:

  1. Maximus Rex, 00:51, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) It would be a tragedy!
  2. WormRunner 01:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Niteowlneils 03:11, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) NOOOOO--I use it at least 50-100 times a day--Community Portal 1-3 times a day
  4. RickK 03:35, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Ludraman 10:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) - No! I use it all the time. Very handy. Useful if you're bored too.
  6. BCorr ¤ Брайен 13:57, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC) Sometimes it's the only way I actually find articles to edit, as opposed to these darned talk pages :-)
  7. Timwi 14:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Dan Carlson 17:30, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC) ? I love the random page feature!
  9. RoseParks 17:39, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Bkonrad 17:45, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) I use this often
  11. Jwrosenzweig 18:29, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) I use it often enough
  12. Warofdreams 20:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) Seems everyone else uses it.
  13. SimonP 21:19, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Korath 23:55, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) — By far my most-used sidebar link, and the only reason I keep the sidebar on at all; it's not linked anywhere else. Would be strongly in favor of putting it in the title or bottom links, so I could reclaim the space on the side of my browser window.
  15. Angela
  16. Random page is a great way to spend one's time copyediting. Kingturtle 01:10, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Option 2: Replace Current events

Votes for:

  1. Michael Snow 00:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) (1st choice)
  2. WormRunner 01:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Stewart Adcock 02:14, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Niteowlneils 03:11, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)I never use it, and with at least some languages, it seldom if ever gets any current content. #1
  5. Fuzheado 06:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) of course, since the Main Page is now the current events page!
  6. Support strongly. --Jiang 08:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Eclecticology 08:26, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC) Certainly the most useless one now that there is a current events section on the Main Page
  8. Support - Ludraman 10:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. BCorr ¤ Брайен 13:57, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Timwi 14:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) — 1st choice. Current Events can be linked from the portal
  11. Dan Carlson 17:30, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC) ? Replace Current events with link to Community Portal.
  12. RoseParks 17:39, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  13. Bkonrad 17:45, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) My first choice. Is already on Main Page and could be added to the Community Portal.
  14. Jwrosenzweig 18:29, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)I agree with the arguments posted above
  15. Warofdreams 20:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) provided it is added to Community Portal.
  16. Angela
  17. Gaz 00:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) - Was against, now for (agreeing with Fuzheado)

Votes against:

  1. Oppose strongly. Of anything to remove, this would be one of the worst. RickK 03:35, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 14:10, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 21:19, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC), a link that is more useful for readers than editors so this poll may be biased
  4. Korath 23:55, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) — Strongly against.
  5. Mintguy (T) 04:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) - Strongly against. Sometimes Current Events shows of how wonderful Wikipedia can be, don't hide it.
  6. Davodd 22:59, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Ke4roh 00:53, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. In my daily life here, I never use this button. However, I realize others do. Kingturtle 01:10, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. This is essential to keeping the current events up to date. we need as much traffic as possible Perl 03:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Oppose strongly Sam Spade 03:35, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. Oppose strongly ssd 06:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Option 3: Replace the sysop functions (either Delete this page or Protect this page; or just assume that all admins use greater than 800x600 resolution)

Votes for:

  1. Niteowlneils 03:11, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) #2
  2. Timwi 14:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) — They're already at the bottom
  3. Korath 23:55, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) — Clearly the least used by us normal peon Wikipedians. Hardly deserving of sidebar and bottom linking even for the ruling elite — how many times in a day do you use either?
  4. Mintguy (T) 04:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) I don't understand why people arn't voting for this it's the most obvious. Normal users are unaffected and the buttons are repeated at the bottom. Either of the two options for this choice.
  5. Ke4roh 00:53, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Holy Toledo! I never even noticed they were on the bottom. (1st choice) Kingturtle 01:10, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Very best choice Sam Spade 03:35, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Best choice--dup on bottom anyway ssd 06:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Michael Snow 17:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) (3rd choice) Changing my preferences to add this one. Of the two, I agree with Angela below that the Protect link should be the one to go.

Votes against:

  1. RickK 03:35, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. BCorr ¤ Брайен 13:57, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 14:10, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Dan Carlson 17:30, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Angela - strongly against removing the Delete link.
    But it still exists on the bottom. Kingturtle 01:10, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Option 4: Replace Related changes

Votes for:

  1. RickK 03:35, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) I never use it.
  2. SimonP 21:19, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC), Useful but not so useful that it is needed both on the sidebar and at the bottom
  1. Korath 23:55, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Angela
  3. Davodd 23:02, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Already listed on the bottom - should be removed from the side. (2nd choice) Kingturtle 01:10, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. vote for very weakly--on bottom anyway ssd 06:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Paddu 14:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Votes against:

  1. Michael Snow 00:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Gaz 00:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Maximus Rex, 00:51, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. WormRunner 01:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Stewart Adcock 02:14, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. very useful --Jiang 08:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. BCorr ¤ Брайен 13:57, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC) I use it all the time.
  8. James F. (talk) 14:10, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Timwi 14:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Dan Carlson 17:30, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC) ? I never use it, but I see its use.
  11. Bkonrad 17:45, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) A very handy feature.
  12. Jwrosenzweig 18:29, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) Very useful

Option 5: Replace Special pages

Votes for:

  1. Michael Snow 00:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) (3rd choice) (4th choice)
  2. RickK 03:35, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Bkonrad 17:45, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) My second choice.
  4. SimonP 21:19, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC), why not add the still updated Special Pages to the community portal and merge the two.
  5. Korath 23:55, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Votes against:

  1. Gaz 00:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Maximus Rex, 00:51, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. WormRunner 01:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Stewart Adcock 02:14, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Niteowlneils 03:11, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) (although the Special Pages page could be more comprehensive--like a add a complete, descriptive TOC of all the style/editing/formatting/usagestandard/boilerplate/messages, etc.--I always have trouble finding those, especially getting to the right one for my current question.
  6. Jiang 08:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Eclecticology 08:26, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC) This is an important link to other relatively less used functions.
  8. BCorr ¤ Брайен 13:57, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC) Agree with Ec
  9. James F. (talk) 14:10, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Timwi 14:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) — Necessary for new users to find the special pages
  11. Dan Carlson 17:30, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Angela - it doesn't appear anywhere else.
  13. Davodd 23:02, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Kingturtle 01:10, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  15. ssd 06:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) you can get to random page from special page, but usually not special page from random page
  16. Paddu 14:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If someone wants to render this poll unnecessary by either finding a way to combine two links on one line, or letting users set their own sidebar preferences, go right ahead. --Michael Snow 00:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is this, The 2000 US presidential election or something? I already voted and assumed that the vote had concluded. Perl 00:41, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have to say, we can't keep starting new polls on this, especially when each poll leaves out options (where are the header and footer options above? where is the option to replace _nothing at all_?). I appreciate the enthusiasm Michael is showing, but I can't support any of these polls until we get one that allows us all the possible options, and a good systematic way of narrowing them down to one. Jwrosenzweig 00:45, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There were a lot of complaints about the last vote being confusing. Since nobody has taken action on it, I considered it necessary to start over with a new design. The limitation of options is in order to promote a consensus (see Rule #1 above); options are already narrowed down based on the previous poll and discussion. The header and footer also have space limitations. If you think "nothing at all" is an option, consider Option 3 (see the parenthetical note). Please vote again if you are interested (that way we won't have to leave the issue up to the Supreme Court). --Michael Snow 00:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have registered my vote above, mainly because (if we continue this lunacy) I want my small say. Answer me this though; What happens in 6 months time when someone dreams up a new page that must be in the quickbar? Do we start this nonsense all over again? Do we chuck out the link to the Community Portal? We REALLY have to solve this in the User Preferences!! - Gaz 02:08, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Of course we would start all over again. -Ec
We should very much avoid dreaming up new pages for the sidebar. In this case, the necessity is a byproduct of the unusual situation created by the new main page design, which splits off all the community functions to a separate page. If another situation comes up in 6 months or a year, by that time we may feel safer about creating a sidebar that exceeds the 600-pixel limitation. If we can solve it in user preferences, great. But for now, we need the Community Portal link added. --Michael Snow 02:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Simplest would be to merge the "community functions" with the Main page. Eclecticology 08:48, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

I started to vote, but I changed my mind as I don't undestand how these votes ae going to be tabulated to produce anything resembling a conclusive result. There are five different yes/no votes. How is the winner picked? The most yes votes? The fewest no votes? The largest decimal produced by dividing yes by no votes? Pehaps some sort of Instant-runoff voting would work? Bkonrad 03:41, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is possible, I admit, that the result may not be conclusive, but it does lead us closer to a consensus. Fewest no votes seems a possible option (removing the link whose removal draws the least objection). Eloquence apparently now plans to implement Option 3, which currently would be the choice if you do it this way. --Michael Snow 07:03, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
How about removing the Main Page link? The globe-picture in the top-left links to the same page! (For every language, it links to that language's main page.)

Sietse 12:43, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Somebody added another option, "Ensure that the side bar is co-ordinated in all languages". This violates the rules of the poll, and the "option" is really a separate consideration anyway. Votes on this option are listed for information purposes:

Votes for:

  1. Eclecticology 08:26, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC) It is important when you need to do something in a language you don't understand that the side bar items all be in the same relative position.
  2. James F. (talk) 14:10, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Angela

Votes against:

Huh:

  1. Timwi 14:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) — No idea what is meant by this
This supports theposition outlined above by Angela: If I go to a Wikipedia in a language I don't speak, I want to be able to find the links to "special pages" or whatever by assuming they are in the same position as they are here. Adding the link to the top, next to the disclaimers one, would seem the best option as there is plenty of room for links there and it prevents anything needing to be removed. Eclecticology 18:16, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
At the top next to disclaimers has been ruled out because that's where new message notification appears. --Michael Snow 18:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Admittedly, it was the first part of that quote that I most strongly supported. The second part shows that other options are available. We already have four items at the top which are duplicated in the side bar. Eclecticology 19:14, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
Just because you unilaterally decided on a bunch of rules doesn't make it a rule. I also see that you carefully avoided the option of whether we wanted a Community Portal link there in the first place. It's understandable that someone would resist this kind of manipulation. Eclecticology 18:05, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
I decided on the rules to make the poll workable and avoid the confusion problems created by the last poll. Note the confusion your option already caused for Timwi. The problems with changing a poll after it has already started would be pretty evident, I think. I did not avoid the option of whether the link should be there at all - I stated that based on the previous poll and discussion, I believed there was already a consensus for that. Review that, and if you disagree, I would like to hear why. --Michael Snow 18:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Polls spring up like weeds around here. I do not make a habit of spending my time looking for polls to vote in. I came to this particular poll when notice was left on the mailing list that a poll was taking place, only to find that a number of key decisions had been made for which similar notification had not been put on the mailing list, and an edict declared that new people to the discussion would have no option to affect the contents of the poll. The option that I raised had previously been mentioned only in one short post; that's not a consensus. There were still a significant number who did not want Community Portal in the side bar; that's not a consensus. Some may think that the Community Portal and Main page should be combined. There is nothing above in the poll to deal with that option.Eclecticology 19:59, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
I know that not everybody goes looking for polls, that's why I put a lot more effort into publicizing this one than is usually done. The limitations on the poll are designed to restrict it to answering this question: If you had to remove a link from the sidebar to add the Community Portal, which one would you remove? This poll, like every other poll on Wikipedia, is not binding in and of itself; it's a tool to try and figure out what the community consensus is. Having learned some important lessons from the last poll, I concluded the contents of this one should be fixed in place at the beginning. This is what allows the poll to produce any useful information. Opening up the design of a poll this complex would have required 50 polls to agree on the contents of the poll (too many cooks...). And it's already based on the results of the previous 8-in-1 poll. That being said, if anyone wants to design an alternative poll, they are welcome to it. Then we can have a poll on which poll people like better.
As for options other than the sidebar, as I indicated, they're not part of the question this poll answers. Anyway, only one vote favored combining the Community Portal and Main Page; I think the consensus is running well against that option. And of the four voters for the option of putting Community Portal in a place other than the sidebar, each of them also voted for at least one option involving removing some link from the sidebar. That suggests to me that they would accept a consensus in favor of using the sidebar, even if they might prefer another option. --Michael Snow 22:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just curious why the Main Page link wasn't considered for replacement? I mean, if I want to go to the main page, I can just click on the icon at the top. Seems redundant to have two links to the main page, no? Bkonrad | Talk 21:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I ruled that option out on the grounds that 11 people voted against this option in the first poll, with only 8 supporting. With that much opposition, I didn't think it had a chance for consensus support. Personally, I agree with your logic, and that's why I was one of the eight in favor of it. --Michael Snow 22:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This is a spurious argument. Sidebar, and keep all other links was voted 15 to 8, and was not included. Sidebar, and remove current events link was voted 10 to 9, Sidebar, and remove related changes link was 5 to 5, and Sidebar, and remove Special pages was 4 to 5; all of these were included despite similar opposition to the 8 to 11 main page link option, which I find better than any of the current poll's options. Don't add Community Page to side bar. Instead, add it to the TitleLinks (top bar), which I would also find acceptable, was 4 to 6 - again showing no more or less consensus than any of the options that were included in both polls. My first choice by far on the first poll would have been replacing the Main Page link, which besides being linked in the sidebar and logo, is also linked in the header and footer.
The lack of a Don't replace anything option combined with the "Must vote in favor of one option" rule implies that anyone who votes thinks the Community Page warrants sidebar placement, which is simply untrue; I go to Community Portal much less frequently than any of the current sidebar choices except "Move this page", "Upload file", "Contact Us", and "Donations", none of which should go. The consensus claimed for this system-wide change which affects all users has not been proven to my satisfaction; I see no poll with a Keep the status quo option anywhere, and the only justification in favor of change is on the talk page of the page that's to be added. I don't doubt that any number of pages would happily vote themselves onto the sidebar with a similar margin of victory.
Like (I suspect) many others, I only discovered this process when the Current Events page was replaced, and was dismayed that this system-wide action was taken on a statistically insignificant 10 vs 9 "consensus" over the option voted 15 to 8. The only consensus reached is that there is no consensus. I think the bias of this poll and process is clear. Korath 22:34, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
Sidebar, and keep all other links was not included due to the technical limitations (trying to keep the sidebar to 600 pixels in height). It might get a solid majority because it's the easy option, but getting a consensus is harder because it completely fails to take that problem into account. The top bar was left out for similar reasons.
If you came to the first poll late, you might not know that options like removing Related changes or Special pages were added in after the fact, so a lot of people voted without considering them. The purpose of this poll is to have everyone consider options together. This is an opinion poll, but some users seem unable to grasp that to get meaningful information, a poll has to operate within certain limitations. That's the reason for the rules.
Also, if you came to the first poll late, you might not realize that when the Current events link was replaced, the poll was running much more in favor of that option. Most of the objections were added later when the Current events users discovered the change. By the way, I agree that the initial change of the link was done too hastily, without enough of a consensus.
As for the status quo, I repeat that this poll answers the question: If you had to remove a link from the sidebar to add the Community Portal, which one would you remove? We're still in the process of sorting through alternatives here, so we can settle on the best one. Maybe when we've got that down, we can have the community choose between the status quo and the best alternative. --Michael Snow 23:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One user insists on voting (see vote #9 against replacing Current events), while not following Rule #2 above, which requires voting in favor of at least one option. Other users supporting this proposition are listed below.

Don't replace anything

  1. Perl 19:04, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Korath 22:34, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 22:38, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

I've come to the conclusion that the best way to get the CP link into the sidebar is to remove the sysop links from there - they're already duplicated at the bottom. I'll put them in a nice box and that's that. I'm sure some people will appreciate no longer accidentally clicking on "Protect this page", too.

By the way: There's a new skin system being tested at http://test.wikipedia.org that will give us a lot more flexibility with regard to design. There are already two new skins which you can test in the prefs (still very very much beta). —Eloquence 03:40, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

I tried them. Is feedback welcome yet, or would I just be bugging the developers with bugs they already know about? Montparnasse looks very snazzy. Paddington has layout problems right now. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:31, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please don't remove both delete and protect. Only one link is being added, so only one needs to be removed. I'd rather both stay, but as delete is used far more often, that one should stay. When doing large numbers of deletions, having to scroll to the bottom of the page would be extremely frustrating. Angela. 02:07, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

The sysop sidebar functions already take up too much space (in 1024x768 resolution) using tabbed browsing in mozilla with default toolbars shown. Look at this screenshot: w:mi:Image:Illustration of adminbar.png Perl 02:19, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Summary of poll results

Now that the second sidebar poll has closed, here is a brief summary of the poll results for convenience. CP=Community Portal link

  1. Add CP to sidebar, keep all other links - 15 for, 8 against (1st poll)
  2. Have Wikipedia logo link to CP - 5 for, 14 against (1st poll)
  3. Replace text link to Main Page with CP - 8 for, 11 against (1st poll)
  4. Replace Random page with CP - 5 for, 16 against (2nd poll)
  5. Replace Current events with CP - 17 for, 11 against (2nd poll)
  6. Replace sysop functions with CP - 9 for, 5 against (2nd poll)
  7. Replace Related changes with CP - 8 for, 12 against (2nd poll)
  8. Replace Special pages with CP - 5 for, 16 against (2nd poll)
  9. Other options from the 1st poll - Recombine the Main and Community pages (1 for, 8 against); Add CP to TitleLinks (4 for, 6 against) - were added well after that poll already started.

Notes: During the 2nd poll, 2 additional unique users registered support for #1, an option from the 1st poll. If you combine results from the 1st and 2nd polls for #5, the total is 23 for, 15 against (unique users only). This assumes that Angela is for (she originally voted against in the 1st poll). Also, comments during the 2nd poll indicate that at least 3 additional unique users might vote for #3, an option from the 1st poll.

Replacing the sysop functions drew the least objection, and I think Eloquence is right that this is the option we should go with. Fewer people voted on this option at all - I believe many non-sysops may have been reluctant to vote on it (either for fear of offending the Wikipedia "hierarchy", or because they don't feel like they can properly evaluate the usefulness of links that aren't available to them). Some also may not have known that the sysop functions are duplicated at the bottom. Based on Angela's comment, I agree that the Protect link should go, not the Delete link. --Michael Snow 01:55, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'd prefer to put all sysop functions into a box at the bottom. Is the delete link in the sidebar really so important? Remember that you can go to the end of the page immediately by pressing the "end" key on your keyboard. Mozilla also has a nice feature called "find as you type" or something like that, where you just would have to type "dele" and you would be at the delete link no matter where it is on the page, without even touching the mouse.—Eloquence 02:10, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
Is it so important? I have no idea, you would have to ask the sysops - I was just expressing my personal opinion, having been persuaded by Angela's argument. Probably not all sysops have mastered computer shortcuts so well as to use all these tricks. But my sense is that the few objections may not be that strong, while quite a few of the people objecting to removing "Current events" obviously do feel strongly. --Michael Snow 07:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not to be combative, but why don't the 17 votes for replacing "Current events" count as the sense of the poll? If "least objection" was the criterion, that should have been stated up front. Fuzheado 02:55, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia generally operates by consensus. If we can avoid pissing lots of people off, we should do it.—Eloquence
That still does not address the fairness or understanding of the poll. Fuzheado 03:02, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
How so?—Eloquence
I agree with Eloquence here. Just saying that replacing "Current events" had the most votes for does not make it a consensus, especially given the strength of the opposition. This was a poll to find out community opinion, not a binding policy vote. See Wikipedia:Current polls - polls are not the same thing as elections. If there's a problem, it's with people's misconceptions about the polling process generally. No criterion was stated up front because that would require anticipating the nature of the results, and I didn't want to bias the poll by making assumptions about the outcome. Keep in mind that any voting system, if followed mechanically, has potential flaws. --Michael Snow 07:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Percentage wise, the first option has least opposition, though I realise in terms of actual numbers, the 'Replace sysop functions' option would seem to upset less people. However, I really can't see any reason to remove both of the links. If only one needs to be replaced, why annoy those people who delete a lot by removing that link unnecessarily? This doesn't stop you also making a box for them at the bottom, but please don't move the delete link unless it really needs to be moved, which it doesn't. If you're looking to upset less people, then leaving that one where it is would seem by far the better option.
If the textbox on the delete page had a focus, meaning I didn't need to use my mouse at all for deletions, then I may be less opposed to losing the link. Maybe something like $wgOut->setOnloadHandler( "document.deleteconfirm.wpReason.focus()" ); could be added to the confirmDelete function in Article.php? I've suggested this at SourceForge. Angela. 08:40, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Based on the results of the 2nd poll, we have the following options:

  1. Replace Current events with CP - 17 for, 11 against (2nd poll)
  2. Replace sysop functions with CP - 9 for, 5 against (2nd poll)

We've waited long enough. Until number 2 is implemented, number 1 should be done. --Jiang 06:27, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I sincerely, sincerely hope that this implies the number two option being effectuated once it's implemented, i.e. the Current events lk being reinstated -- as a p-o'd wikipedian that much more often clicks on the Current events lk than the CP lk, and who didn't quite find his way around the right places to be for picking up news of pending polls in time to vote (which perhaps shows I should click on CP more often...), I feel totally run-over, right or wrong, after the Current events lk disappeared from its good old place in the margin. Now I have to go via the main page every time I want to check the Current events page. Argh. --Wernher 21:33, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but I did even advertise the poll on Talk:Current events to try and make its devotees aware of the discussion. And I really wish Jiang could have waited the extra day or two until Eloquence has the second option ready for us. --Michael Snow 23:07, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The poll ended on March 18. Did Eloquence specifically say he would implement it on the 26th or 27th? It was already one week.

We could also temporarily keep current events and Community Portal. --Jiang 06:05, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Eloquence has been trying to negotiate with Angela over her objections, so that we can have an even stronger consensus on the second option. I don't have an exact timetable, but I understood that he was only a couple days away from implementing. Temporarily keeping both links sounds fine to me, if you can do it. --Michael Snow 06:23, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And why not a bit more funny coloured ? Arno Lagrange 14:30, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like that. — Timwi 06:18, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Community_portal/Archive_1&oldid=1137406120"