User talk:Go for it!/archive04

Almanac · Cats · Gloss · Lists · News · Portals · ?'s · Roots · Index

Tomorrow's featured picture:

Wikipedia:POTD column/December 22, 2024

Wikipedia:POTD column -- this is the format used for the Main Page alternates. Please help keep this stocked up in advance for that project.

Life Extension

Mental skills, and related topics

Browsebars

Instead of reverting your re-additions at community portal and help:contents, i'm replying to the comment raised at Template_talk:Browsebar#Is_this_bar_useful?, and invite you there to do same. --Quiddity 21:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

Hi GFI! Thank you for supporting my RfA and the kind words. The RfA passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. I hope I keep impressing you. Cheers! ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 21:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POTD

Where is this Wikiproject? Given that there is an official scheduling rule, it should probably be mentioned in the instructions on WP:FPC since I just followed those. Thanks. howch e ng {chat} 07:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

	Thank you! Thank you for supporting / ~~opposing~~ / ~~vandalising~~ my RFA! The result was 71/3/0 and so I am now ~~still a normal user~~ / an administrator / ~~indefinitely banned~~. Your ~~constructive criticism~~ / support / ~~foulmouthed abuse~~ has ~~given me something to think about~~ / helped me immensely / ~~turned me into a nervous wreck~~. If there's any way I can help you in return, please ~~ask someone else~~ / ~~suffer and die~~ / drop me a line! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON!

Template

Sorry, but I disagree with you :( Renata 23:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: POTD pictures

I apologize; I didn't realize that the upkeeper of the POTD was not an administrator and protected all of them (yes, I realized some of them were blank) in line with what happens at featured article of the day, where all the templates are protected as soon as they are created. I will unprotect all the April ones per your request; they will be protected again, though, immediately before they appear on the main page. (I'm one of the few admins responsible for protecting all the images and templates that appear on the main page.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Temporary2

Do Portal:Temporary2, Portal:Temporary/Did you know and Portal:Temporary/Branches serve any purpose? Steve block talk 22:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPA category

catagory rename, could use your support. possibly others? thanks ;) --Quiddity 01:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makemi RfA

Thank you for voting on my RfA. It passed with a consensus to promote of 45/7/1. To those of you concerned about the fact that I am a relative newcomer, I encourage you to poke me with a sharp stick if I make a mistake. Or better yet, let me know on my talk page, and I'll do my best to fix it. Mak emi 05:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These RFA gags get worse all the time...enjoy your new mop.--Here T oHelp 00:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your support on my request for adminship. It did not succeed, however, with votes of 10/19/11, so I have not yet become an administrator. I appreciate your support vote, though, and I look forward to see you vote for me next time! Should you have any questions, comments, or complaints at any point in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know on my talk page or via e-mail.

—JP06035

Barnstar

You're welcome, you absoutely deserve it! -- Nataly a 17:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Sweeping' Wikipedia

I spotted a comment you made at the Help Desk discussion page: "I'm in the process of sweeping Wikipedia of links to all its question answering departments, and replacing them with a single link in each location to route all questions traffic through an upgraded Wikipedia:Questions page." Do you mind me asking how you "sweep" Wikipedia of all those links? How do you find them all? Carcharoth 21:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing particular in mind, but I like what you are proposing and wanted to be able to propose it myself if it would help in similar cases. Carcharoth 23:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I thought you meant something more advanced than using "What links here"! I've used that quite a few times myself, so I know the sort of thing you mean now. I was just thinking you meant some sort of bot or something. Anyway, good luck with the 'sweeping', and bringing more order and ease of use to the help pages. Carcharoth 22:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POTD

I'm already busy but I'll help out. The last thing we want is to have a red link n the Main Page. Now, where to I get the list of images from? Wikipedia:Tommorow's featured picture?--Here T oHelp 23:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are posted in the order they achieved featured picture status as displayed on Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 05, reading from the bottom right corner to the left. The picture for April 18th is "Crepuscular ray sunset", the 19th's is "Remembrance poppy", the 20th's is "The Three Sisters", etc. (There was another schedule formula before the 18th, in which Thumbs 02 was used on M/W/F, which is what to fall back on if new featured pics run out, which will happen eventually if they don't keep up to promoting 7 pics to featured status each week). April 15th's picture is "Monarch butterflies. --Go for it! 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to alternate between the two above pages, but it's confusing. I'll try my best but you should look at it to make sure I got it right.--Here T oHelp 00:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new formula is not to switch between the thumbs, but go with Thumbs 5 all the way. --Go for it! 00:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but it's already done for awhile, and then it get's confusing towards mid April.--Here T oHelp 00:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just found something: {{day+1)}}. That allows you to have an auto-updating version of tommorow's Picture or Tip of the Day, allowing us to make sure everything works. See my sandbox for this in action. The POTD works especially well for me because my userpage allows me to use the actual template (POTD row), when the one at the top of this page is POTD column, and they may be different (though they shouldn't be besides the coloring). See if you can use this—it has potential.--Here T oHelp 04:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The browse links on the tips of the day are cool. I'll add them to the rest when I get the time.

BTW, I was looking at the code for that template to see if there was an easy way to adapt it to a 20 day or even a one-month warning system for Picture of the day (which we have stocked one month in advance). But the last 20 days/month of the year becomes problematic. --Go for it! 15:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can help with the browse links if people feel they are warranted. The 'warning system' is something which hadn't occurred to me. It could theoretically be done with something like, {{day+1|{{day+1|{{day+1|{{day+1|{{day+1}}}}}}}}}} = December 26 (effectively 'day+5'), but that would be ridiculously calculation intensive. However, a separate 'day+20' or 'month+1' template could be made for a 'warning system'. --CBDunkerson 15:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but how would you program it so that the last 20 days (or month) of the year do not produce errors? --Go for it! 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See {{datewarn}}. For instance [[Wikipedia:POTD column/{{datewarn}}]] produces Wikipedia:POTD column/January 21, 2025. --CBDunkerson 17:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you caught the 31sts, and the leap year's extra day -- I hadn't even thought of those. But I couldn't see in the code where December 15, 2006 is turned to January 15, 2007 rather than January 15, 2006. --Go for it! 21:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Were some glitches to work out, but should be all set now. --CBDunkerson 22:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am out

For this whole week. I don't think I will be able to catch an hour of sleep this week... :( So I cannot do the motto thingie. If you want to take over - be my guest. Gosh, I cannot wait to graduate :) Renata 23:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Picture of the day/April 21, 2006

I've put a basic layout up for this image. I havn't come across the column versions etc much before - where are they normally used? Cheers, Mike1024 (t/c) 00:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are four versions, which can all be accessed from the archive pages Archive. POTD row is the version used on the Main Page. POTD column is the version used on most of the Main Page alternatives, including the classic Main Page. Picture of the day is the boxed version with caption, and is used on many user pages. POTD is the boxed picture without the caption, and is also used mostly on user pages.

Take a look at this

Just thought this might be interesting: Help talk:Contents#Tip of the day - remove.--Here T oHelp 01:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Go for it!/archive04, thank you you so much for supporting my RfA, which passed successfully 49/6/3. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken people's suggestions to heart. I will do my best to live up to people's expectations. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please feel free to let me know! Thanks again for your much appreciated support.

¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help page redesign?

I was just thinking: we redesigned the Main Page and now a redesign of the Community Portal has already sprung up (apparently yours didn't go over too well...I like it but the redesign looks promising). SO: should we redo the help system in the same style? My observations:

Is there a reason for things not to be on one page, other than size? It's annoying and the two pages (help:contents and /site map) seem to be growing apart. What about reversing them, so you see everything until you go to a subpage for slow machines?
We'd have to get rid of the icons. Many people objected to them in the Main Page redesign. Plus, there's no way to regulate their use so everything is consistent (like spacing and breaks). Or, we could put them in the body of the text rather than the header.
~~The Main Page uses some sort of weird header system; there goes table of contents unless we can get headers that look the part.~~ My mistake: those headers are "TOC-able"!
Most of the templates are used only there, and can be altered for our needs. The exception is TOTD, which we've already split off for the help page. One less trouble.

So, comments? Also: what about getting 366 tips to cycle for every day of the year (including Feb 29)?--Here T oHelp 21:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for approaching me with these issues. I appreciate being included on key developments. I'll respond in three new sections below:

Community Portal draft

The community portal draft you mentioned looks way too much like the Main Page. Homogenous page design like this can make the user feel lost. The community portal needs its own identity. We tried converting the community portal to be more like the Main Page and it got us the Wikipedia talk:Community Portal#Good lord. response on the talk page and the changes were immediately forced to a draft page.
It's much better to develop pages directly rather than with drafts, as the draft approach is a departure from the wiki-model. The wiki-model is the reason Wikipedia has grown so rapidly, and it is the reason it adapts so quickly to its changing environment (the world). Under the wiki-model of direct development, changes are subject to immediate feedback by the Wikipedia community.
The discussions on the community portal are about as stable now as they've ever been. There are always a few people who complain. But there are far more people using the page than complaining about it. The people posting notices on the CBB seem content enough to post notices rather than complaints, and they outnumber by far the number complaining on the talk page. We've gotten complaints about almost every permutation of the Community Portal. The Main Page got over 200 oppose votes. Complaints are totally normal, and a handful of them does not indicate that "the design didn't go over too well".
My main concern is not the formatting but the content. Removing the Community Bulletin Board for instance would not go over well. That feature is popular because it has the perfect placement. It's got one-click access from anywhere on Wikipedia, and it is being heavily used. Its the best thing to come out of the redesign, and you are trying to remove it from the page?

--Go for it! 23:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help page

The help page was unwieldy. In its subpage format, it is being better maintained. Gareth Aus, for instance is spending a lot of time on it.
The icons help differentiate the page and give it its own identity. They also make it look more like a menu.

--Go for it! 23:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To both this and the Community Portal: "Homogenous page design like this can make the user feel lost. The community portal needs its own identity." I agree. But also, we need consistency, or at least three good designs for each page. Maybe we could use bright, friendly colors for the Community Portal if we're going to use the Main Page boxes at all? I'll start working making the current help system better. On the same note as "unwieldy", maybe we should trim the Community Portal a little?--Here T oHelp 23:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the menu at the top of the page is for. If it grows to 16 sections like the help page, then it's definitely time to split it up too. --Go for it! 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at it; it's huge! I say let's do something about it.--Here T oHelp 23:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions? --Go for it! 00:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Define the scope of the page. I think it has become "how you can help" rather than "what's going on". Should it be all static? All dynamic? Something in between? Let's break it down:

CBB (keep per above)
New featured content (useful, but repetitive to Signpost article. Long, maybe reduce length that something stays on there.)
Things to do (The first part is static and the second just lists articles that need improvent. I say throw, or at least trim.)
Collaborations (A nice bridge between people and articles. Keep, but maybe tweak a little.)
A hodgepodge of different policies, guidelines, help pages, and other info. (Trim some, keep some others. Wikiprojects, like Collaborations, are nice links between people and articles. Those basic 12 policies are nice, but keep that number around a dozen. Keep things like dispute resolution, support groups and programs, etc. Kill most of the stuff on help, featured content, deletion, the Main Page, MoS, fix-up projects, and other things that don't have anything to do with the community but rather writing articles. Throw in links to a page linking to all of them—maybe.)
Related communities (Throw unless linking to their equivalent of the Community Portal; maybe reduce size.)

Does that help?--Here T oHelp 01:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my answer, in the next section. --Go for it! 16:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community Portal design

Yes, you've brought up some key issues. Here's an analysis...

Scope/theme: this is obvious: Community. And since this is an encyclopedia, the building of the encyclopedia is the absolute main focus of the community. Users want to know how things are progressing and in what direction. And they want to know where everything is happening so they can choose where to fit in. So, "what's going on?", and "how can I help?" are two sides of the same coin. Remove either side, and you ruin the coin. In other words, the Community Portal is the clearing ground of information on Wikipedia's operation; not as a software program, but as an organization responsible for building an encyclopedia.
Static/dynamic: this is irrelevant. Note that the vast majority of the links lead to highly dynamic pages, so even if a section of the Community Portal is "static", it is extremely dynamic just below the surface. The single most important criterion for inclusion on the Community Portal (or its subpages) should be how well it portrays the ongoing operations of Wikipedia, either by supplying the information directly, or by providing a link to it. While the Main Page's focus is access to content, and the Help menu's focus is how to use Wikipedia, the focus of the Community Portal is "what is happening where". Actions. What just took place, and what needs to take place next.
Trimming: all of the information presented is vital. So rather than delete, we should be figuring out how to organize it (i.e., where to put it, and on what page). If the Community Portal itself is too large, we can always chop it up, and provide links.
New featured content: this feature doesn't repeat the Signpost, it's the other way around. The Signpost gets updated once a week, while this template is updated on an ongoing basis. Keep in mind that this template is also used on Wikipedia:Featured content, so any trimming will also affect that page's layout.
Things to do: its task list is the oldest feature of the page! Who knows how many people rely upon it. See the first 10 entries in the Community Portal's history. They are very interesting.
Tweaking templates: we would first need to see how they are used elsewhere, so we didn't adversely affect that.
Policies: personally, I think these belong in the help menu. But Kmf164 bears a torch for emphasizing them. So as long as this section has a champion, I'd be loathe to oppose. Policy making departments though, are operations, and should be included.
Guidelines: also help menu material. Toss. Check links from help menu for prominence.
Help sections: have all been removed. Help menu material.
Help departments: since these need volunteers to answer questions, this falls into the "where can I help" category. It's a keeper.
WikiProjects = operations. Keep.
Departments = operations. Keep.
1. Featured content departments = operations. Keep.
2. Deletion departments = operations. Keep.
3. Main Page departments = operations. Keep.
4. Fix up projects = operations. Keep.
MoS: Help menu material. Toss.
Related communities: providing links to the community portals of the sister projects is a damn good idea.

--Go for it! 16:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tips archive

Rather than aiming for an arbitrary number of tips, we should collect a body of tips which make up all of the essential things for a user to know in order to use Wikipedia well. If that's 366, then so be it. If its more, we should include them. But I expect that it'll be between 100 and 200. After that, the tips will likely be very obscure, and not useful to the typical Wikipedian. The more not-so-important tips we include, the more the important tips will be obscured by them. Figure out what Wikipedia needs the most, and what Wikipedians need the most, and provide them. --Go for it! 23:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once we've cycled through all the tips, a program can be written to either redisplay them in the same order, or a random order. Or we could just reschedule them by hand. --Go for it! 23:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, true. Some are getting pretty obscure already. Maybe we could do something where the more important ones appear more often?--Here T oHelp 23:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I see you haven't slowed down. Therefore...

Thank you! Almost two years without any, then I get two in as many days! Happy editing, --cj | talk 02:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condensed POTD syntax

It has come to my attention that there is a typo (an extra ")") in the prepared syntax of the condensed version of the POTD:

<font size="+1">[[]]</font><br>
<small>Photo credit: [[]])</small><br>
 <small>[[Wikipedia:Picture_of_the_day/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}|Archive]] - [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates|Nominate new image]]</small>
|}

You see it? There in the after the photo credit? Can you just do a quick scan of all the condesned versions and delete that if it's there? Thanks. (And of course, don't magnify the typo by putting up for next month if you haven't done so). --Here T oHelp 02:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just finished all of April. That gives us a buffer of about 35 days.--Here T oHelp 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still scanning - found a couple errors so far, but no ")". --Go for it! 03:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day +/- 1

Thank you for the barnstar. I like what you did with the 'includeonly' set of links on the 'tip of the day' pages so the user can get into browse mode directly from the tips. --CBDunkerson 11:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say...you don't think this could be used for the TOTD as well as the POTD? The same logic applies. Why don't you do that for your userpage?--Here T oHelp 22:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be used for the POTD, but that implies installing it on all 500+ pics, in all of its versions. Instead, CBD and I are discussing a warning template, which will show the pic a month in advance, to better keep track of the buffer you and I set up. It's a trickier program, and I don't have time to encode it today. --Go for it! 22:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No: Just subst: in {{totd}} on your yourpage and calibrate it to display tommorow's tip. It's already used to display the POTD.--Here T oHelp 22:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are apparently talking about 2 different things. When you said "this" above, I thought you were referring to the application of day +/- 1 as used on the tips on the TOTD project page, which is what CBD and I were talking about. It displays "previous tip" and "next tip" on each day's tip. I'll probably display both the tip and the pic a month in advance, once I get that template set up. --Go for it! 23:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry. I just thought this was a good place to tack on this idea.--Here T oHelp 23:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why did you remove all of that stuff from the community portal? I Lov E Plankton 18:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page was getting a bit long, which makes page download time for users with phone-line access to the internet long too. By creating subpages, it reduces the download time to get to specifically what the user is looking for. It also reduces "scrolling anxiety" for those who are intimidated by "too much on a page". --Go for it! 18:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the subpages? I Lov E Plankton 18:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A subpage is a page with the same name as its parent, followed by a slash, followed by the subpage name. For instance, User:Go for it!/Teleportation chamber is a subpage of User:Go for it!. The links to the subpages of the Community Portal are the items in the menu bars at the top and bottom of the page:

Wikipedia:Community Portal/Menu

Just click on the subject you want, and that will lead you to the corresponding subpage. --Go for it! 22:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop creating your own user-interface experiments for us to follow. Spend a few hundred hours learning Information Architecture and Graphic Design (and their related sub/supra-disciplines) before proselytizing your methods over numerous objections. I'm trying to stay as polite as I can. --Quiddity 21:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out the "numerous objections". --Go for it! 21:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to list all the objections to

the browsebar/catbar additions,
or the search bar/icons/colours on the main page redesign,
or the tip of the day,
or the icons and subpages of the help pages

because that would take me hours. I'd hoped you were reading them... --Quiddity 21:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And each objection was responded to with a subsequent modification of design: usually the removal of the very thing that was objected to. This feedback loop has resulted in steady improvement in the page designs that I have worked on. The icons were reduced in size. The size of the page was reduced by splitting it up. The criss-cross colors were removed. Etc. As to your overall objection, this is an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Go for it! 22:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the pages keep getting uglier and more confusing for new users and old users alike. It's only people that follow along on the talk pages that can navigate these changes easily.

If i had another 8 hours a day, I would be working to revert and re-argue the same repetitive points with you over and over again. (although i wouldnt, because that would be even more frustrating than the input i'm resorting to here.) --Quiddity 22:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is so bad, then why aren't hundreds, or even dozens, of people complaining? In the current debate on the Community Portal, for instance, it's about equal, yet, in all of your posts above, you make it sound like it's all objections. Once an objection is handled and the corresponding problem is fixed, that objector generally doesn't continue complaining. Yet, you keep gathering up the historical objections and presenting them as if they are a general consensus. They are not. They are individual cases individually handled. The same logic can be applied to text edits. Every time one of your words is changed, it is essentially an objection. So everybody is getting objected to often. That's the nature of a wiki. --Go for it! 22:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is hard to keep up with someone who makes almost 3000 edits a month; we dont all have that much free time. Many assume that "someone probably knows what is going on" or "someone else will fix it eventually". --Quiddity 22:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of your input is valuable and helpful, It's principally the aesthetics and usability changes that I disagree with. Sorry about changing your table, i should have mirrored it below my own comment and made changes to that, but i assumed the change was simple/agreeable enough that it wouldnt be required, and i had explained my change below so anyone reading the thread would have realized 10 seconds later. I didnt account for the hostility between our viewpoints. sorry. --Quiddity 22:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you changed the menu, you also changed the context of my message. I thought I was being civil and non-hostile. I don't consider our viewpoints hostile, nor mutually exclusive. But "ugly" is subjective, but more than that it's too vague. I can deal with specifics. Fixing vague complaints is like throwing darts blindfolded. But chopping up the community portal is probably the best way to go in the long run, because it's only going to get bigger. The CBB for instance has more than doubled in size as its popularity has grown (I think we found Wikipedia's pulse). And I expect it will keep on growing. The department section isn't even complete yet, so it has some growing to do as well. Wikipedia as a whole is growing extremely fast, so there will be more and more that needs to go on the Community Portal. It makes perfect sense to chop it up. --Go for it! 22:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your adding a "Community Portal Site Map": Couldnt your subpage method be the "Community Portal alternative"? Why do your suggestions always have to supplant the regular/traditional layout/UI that thousands of editors are used to?

You proposed icons, got positive feedback on the talk page, implemented them, and now those of us that werent reading the help talk pages are here and voicing concern, to find out what the heck is going on. See: all the stated aesthetic concerns throughout those links. --Quiddity 00:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, to phrase it from a different perspective: Your freetime in comparison to numerous other editors enables you to (unintentionally) usurp control of many situations. My suggestion: Slow down! Or only do a little bit in way more subareas (spread yourself out more, do some article wikifying or similar). Or, it has been suggested a few times that when you do sweeping changes to such Important Pages, you do them in a "/draft" subpage, so that the page history isnt a spaghetti of your aesthetic tweaking. That make sense? (good word, i love etymologies :) another good one i found recently). --Quiddity 00:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes perfect sense from the viewpoint of someone who wants to maintain the status quo, or who is conservative, or who is pushing another agenda (or draft design). It's natural to want your opponents to stop. But this is a wiki. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. And you keep telling me not to. Meanwhile, I keep seeing Wikipedia's main policy all over the place: Be bold. So I do my best to improve those areas that need it most. But your views on usability intrigue me. Have you timed access to given pieces of information on the help system and community portal? The click through method is a lot faster than the scrolling method at arriving at desired destinations. So I am left wondering how you came to your conclusions. --Go for it! 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions make sense from the viewpoint of a youth, who wants to help the world and maybe make their mark a little too. It's natural to be defensive of your projects. But this is a wiki, with people of differing and conflicting perspectives. And as numerous co-editors have complained that working with you is very difficult, i'm suggesting other strategies for you to follow that don't push people's buttons.

My views on usability and design come from a strong interest in the fields of webdesign, webstandards, illustration, and graphicdesign over the last 9 years. I'm not a professional, but I know enough to know you're just beginning.

The click through method is how they use the page on the site map too. Thats what that giant purple menu does on both pages. but there is no wait for an additional page to load from the sitemap's menu... --Quiddity 06:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection

There is one thing you've been doing that I do object to. It's your use of rhetoric rather than logic in your arguments. For instance, you've been presenting objections out of context, such as those to "Tip of the day". You failed to mention that there have been far more contributors to TOTD than there are detractors (of which you seem to be the primary one). Each contribution can be rightfully interpretted as an endorsement of the project, as can each instance in which a user has placed one of the TOTD templates on their user pages. The project hasn't even launched yet, and already nearly 100 users have put the template on their user pagees. You didn't mention that in your analysis of the project's support. After the project launches, I wouldn't be surprised if the use of the templates increased to many hundreds.

I understand that others like the totd, and i probably will too once it stops looking to me like "an unchanging banner-ad invading wikipedia" on the help page. ("I wouldn't be surpised if the microsoft paperclip appeared inside it instead of the lightbulb" is the gut reaction it gives me.) --Quiddity

You've made such a big issue of "plowing forward" in the face of opposition, when the primary opposition is you. In most cases, the sides have been about equal, and in some instances the sides were off by a single "vote". That does not make consensus.

And in the main page redesign, David Levy had the most time, and ended up battling you over every little issue. As you wrote in the barnstar, in the last major edit of the talk:Main Page redesign "Yep, that was a tedious project. Good job. --Go for it!". Only tedious for me because we had to argue with you the whole time. Now I'm the one who has some extra spare time, so i'm arguing as the primary opposition of your changes at the CP and Help and elsewhere. --Quiddity

Meanwhile, your approach of making the Community Portal look like the Main Page has its detractors as well, but you seem to ignore that as much as you accuse me of the same. You even used the opposition to the MP design applied to the CP as an argument against me. Note that I backed off from that direction of development very quickly, while you continue to storm on in that direction.

Completely untrue. I had no code input in the actual draft until last night. I made those changes last night after 2 days of inactivity in the draft. --Quiddity

I do my best to accomodate critiques, and implement fixes to each and every problem that is pointed out. Though after much contemplation concerning design, I am diametrically opposed to homogenizing Wikipedia's major triumvirate (Main Page, Help page, Community Portal). Each needs its own identity.

Strongly Agreed. That is why i changed the draft's colour scheme last night (and to a lesser variation (just flipped) on what it was this morning, after it was reverted). I also don't like the top header/banner, way too similar/confusing, but I have yet to get around to mentioning that on the talk, or conceiving a solution. They should have similar aesthetics to the rest of (un-re-designed) wikipedia, as well as the new Main Page aesthetic, but with a different identity, that would be easiest and most coherently applied through colour schemes.

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Color (which should be expanded with suggested schemes that all work together, picked by someone with a design/art/usability comprehension of colour theory), and
the table at the bottom of this thread.

I would add that not only does "Each needs its own identity.", but Each needs its own single page. Breaking these pages up is a very drastic move that should be carefully considered over weeks before implementing, and by someone with professional web-usability qualifications/knowledge/background. --Quiddity

That's a process bias. It's much better to learn by experience than by second guessing what might work. Let's find out if it does work. The CP stuff is much easier to navigate as subpages, and each section is easier to digest. As for finding what you are looking for, each section is pretty self-explanatory. Once you know what a "department is" -- I still need to write up a description for that. --Go for it! 03:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I'm more interested in the organization of content than the color of the pages, but nobody else has come forward to improve on the color scheme. I even tried to base the CP's design on an award-winning user page, and that got just as many complaints. My conclusion is that there will always be those who aren't happy. I'm left wondering if we are swimming upstream against a process bias inherent in WP's design. It seems that users are much more likely to post their complaints on talk pages than they are to post compliments, praise, and encouragement. Most users seem to want to use the encyclopedia (or work on their favorite areas), rather than stop and comment (on anything else). It forces one to look for other clues of user appreciation, such as the volume of contributions to the CBB, and interpret that as support. We also know that about 30,000 users frequent Wikipedia every day. I would guess a fair portion of those (hundreds if not thousands) visit Help and the CP. And if only a handful of them are complaining, we must be doing something right. --Go for it! 00:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Your work in philosophy is great! and the organization of headings and content in the community portal was very very useful. But it was/is completely un-useable visually (it's easy for you, you designed it! you know where everything goes from memory...). --Quiddity 01:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useful tip?

Don't have time to write it up as a tip, but is this useful? Wikipedia:Help_Desk#Toolbar. Carcharoth 11:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking twice

Goforit, I have followed the community portal discussion only in part, but from the discussions above it seems that you don't exactly understand why people object to your rapid-fire experimentation on the community portal. There are several points to be mentioned:

You experiment with page design right away, while the majority of other users consider it a good idea to discuss changes first. You are correct that this is a wiki; however, it is also a community, and most of its members do not prefer such a hasty approach, at least not on such a page.
The result of your changes often looks messy to others. Please don't expect everybody to understand your preferences of how a page should be organized (hint: compare your user page with mine). There is a whole science and industry devoted to the organization of visual information, and I can only repeat Quiddity's comment that you should get acquainted with things like Information Architecture and Graphic Design before changing relevant pages so agressively.
Many users don't have the time to follow each and every discussion or page history just to understand what the design of the day is intended to mean. Visual consistency over time helps avoid confusion.
Visual consistency over space is also a good thing, for the same reason. You often argue that the community portal needs a visual identity of its own, but I have not seen any sound reasoning or community consensus why that should be so. I am worried about the experiences of newbies. When you jump from the main page to a page prominently linked from there and have to reorient completely, that will confuse you rather than assist your with getting oriented.

It is my impression that several people are talking to you over these matters with great patience, and that a gesture of goodwill on your part would probably be greatly appreciated. Respectfully, Kosebamse 08:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at your user page. The layout of that page isn't relevant, because there is barely anything on it. You are comparing the layout for one type of content with the layout for an entirely different type of content. But layout must pertain to content, and the content for which the layout is at issue is that of the Community Portal. The layout design on your user page couldn't be applied to the Community Portal's information -- if the info were spread out that thin it would take up hundreds of screens. Please show me a design of yours which presents a multitude of information and links, so that I can see how your layout/design philosophy applies to large bodies of information. Sincerely, --Go for it! 08:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not suggesting to use my page design as a model. I was talking about the feel and spirit of a page. Your user pages is large, colorful, crammed, and distracting. Mine is small, concentrated and to the point. And anyway, that's only a minor point that I mentioned in parentheses. Would you please give my other and more relevant points give a thought? Kosebamse 08:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my reply, point for point:

You are making claims for which I see no verification. It is impossible for you to know what most members prefer in this situation. Just like me, you are guessing. That is the main trouble we are having: there is no way to monitor or track link usage, for instance. If there were, we could see what features of a page people were actually making use of. It appears that many members prefer the community bulletin board, and that was simply placed on the community portal one day. But can we say that most prefer it? Maybe they do. But how can we know?
You are critiquing a house that is only partially built. The page is open for editing. And it is a work in progress. There is no restriction on editing the page.
Have you looked over the history for the page? It hasn't been consistent since the day it was created. That's the trade-off for keeping it up-to-date and relevant, and ever growing. If development was restricted to a draft, I wouldn't have touched the thing and the project would be stagnant. So rather than process, you should be discussing specific design points. Not general platitudes. What should go where, and why.
We are all concerned about newcomers. That's why I got involved with the help page and community portal in the first place. The page designs are fairly rudimentary. And I think you are blowing this "reorientation" issue way out of proportion. The average newcomer probably surfs the internet, and therefore is familiar with a large variation in page designs. Do they have to "reorient" every time they go to a new web-site? I sincerely doubt it. There are basic features you get used to after awhile, and there isn't anything on Wikipedia from a design point of view that they haven't seen out there on the web.

The main issue at hand seems to be to protect the page from editing. I absolutely do not agree. And as long as it is open for editing, I encourage any and all who would like to try their hand at it. --Go for it! 09:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give some detailed answers below. Note that much of my arguments result from 3yrs+ experience with Wikipedia as an editor, admin, and most of all, reader. My editcount is lower than yours; I dare speculate that my read count is multiple times higher than yours, particularly in community matters, so it's probably safe to assume that I have a good grasp of community attitudes, even where I don't prove my opinions with diffs or links.

High-speed experimentation with an important community page is not a good idea, even if such behavior is not expressly forbidden (the reason for this might be a lack of precedence). It is however implicitly discouraged in policies such as WP:SR ("When in doubt, take it to the talk page" and "Be liberal in what you accept, be conservative in what you do"), although these do not strictly apply to community pages, and by a near-universal consensus that cooperative work requires discussion. You sem to assume that people have the time and goodwill to follow you around to understand your changes to community pages. Apart from the fact that many editors will have difficulties understanding changes in wikicode related to page layout, styles, HTML code, templates, transclusion etc., it is rather bold to assume that people will want to look into histories and discussions only to understand why a once-stable and useful page is being changed on a daily base. The idea behind community pages is usefulness, not stylishness or sandboxiness.

And here are some replies to the points listed above:

Indeed, we don' know much about user behavior. You seem to conclude that this gives you a liberty to experiment at will. I would conclude that one should be conservative with design changes. What we had worked at least to some degree. Instead of confusing people with radical changes I would strongly suggest to talk to them and find out about their views. To illustrate this, when I initiated a complete overhaul of one of our most important community pages, I made a draft page and asked for several weeks of discussion before implementing the redesign. See here and links therefrom. There has not been a single voice of criticism afterward IIRC, and I think that endorses this way of going about things.
There is probably no formal restriction, but common sense and respect for community views tells us that it is not a good idea to go about changing it day by day. It is a work in progress, but that is no reason to show so little respect for the work of those who contributed so much to it in the years before. While there's always room for improvement, it is strongly preferrred to proceed in a way and in a pace that others can follow.
I have given a few general observations on Wikipedia_talk:Community_Portal#Usability_hell and elsewhere. Instead of dismissing them as platitudes, you might wish to consider their meaning, and instead of asking for detailed instructions, you might wish to discuss the opinions of others before meddling with the design of a highly visible community page. Wikipedia has never been stagnant, and the changes that stick are those that are well-considered and discussed, not those that are done unilaterally and hastily.
I don't know what an average newbie knows or does not know, but instead of making assumptions about their qualifications I would try to err on the side of coution and implement simple designs that even my grandmother could follow.

Respectfully, Kosebamse 12:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if I may add a piece of advice, revert warring over a community page is always an extremely bad idea. Please calm down and think things over, preferably twice. Kosebamse 12:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My (HereToHelp’s) RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) --Here T oHelp 12:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip of the day

That was such a nice tip of the day... I'm afraid it made me wheel war for the first time in my life as an admin. Thanks for bringing some humour to Wikipedia. — mark ✎ 17:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —David Levy 17:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He must be joking, right? To quote Canderson7 from Talk:Main Page: "Jokes belong in the userspace and nowhere else. Period." That must be it. Anyway, I'm logging out, this is too silly for words. — mark ✎ 17:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:totd appears primarily on user pages. You don't mind if I restore this April's Fools announcement of the Tip of the day project, do you? --Go for it! 18:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. It's one thing to add a joke (within reason) to one's own page, and quite another to add a joke to an official project template that appears on other user's pages. The latter is a form of vandalism. —David Levy 18:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't agree with your definition of vandalism. The joke explains itself in the link provided, along with the project's real announcement. And it was posted on the one day that such jokes are deemed acceptable. But I'll leave it at that. --Go for it! 18:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no day on which Wikipedia vandalism has been "deemed acceptable." This is a worldwide website, and April Fool's Day is not a worldwide custom. Even if it were, this would not be an appropriate venue for such a prank. —David Levy 18:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I dropped it. You should too. --Go for it! 18:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Goforit, I´ don't know why you don't accept the criticism or advice that is apparently directed at you wherever you go these days, but let me make it clear: your unilateral approach to editing has no acceptance here. Stop it. This is not your sandbox. It is my personal opinion that you have stepped on too many toes now, and that there is very little patience left. If you continue that way, you will likely face serious consequences soon. Don't let it come to that. And don't blame others for not warning you. Kosebamse 20:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]