Wikipedia talk:Community portal: Difference between revisions

; Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	2006 redesign

Community Portal sections
	Community Bulletin Board; Tip of the day; Open tasks; New featured content; Collaboration of the week; Current collaborations; Article Improvement Drive; Good Article Collaboration of the week;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:07, 18 April 2006

This page is for the discussion/improvement of the Community Portal.

For general questions about Wikipedia, please consult the Wikipedia FAQ first.

For other questions regarding factual topics, please use the Wikipedia:Reference Desk.

For discussion unrelated to the Community Portal, please visit the Village pump discussion area.

Proposed new design

After a cooperative overhaul, Quiddity, Kmf164, and I are proud to present Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft2a to the communnity for consideration. This proposed draft of the Community Portal incorperates colors from the Main Page and commons:Main Page. It uses much more white and pastel colors and is less "in-your-face" than the current design. Links have been organized into three major sections and two smaller ones rather than the seven currently used.

Rather than a vote, I just want a rough feel of the attitude for this design. Polls are evil; I want to see what the response is beyond the binary "aye" or "nay".--Here T oHelp 21:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Far better than the current version. Seems like a lot of blank space at the bottom of the Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board box, though -- can that be reduced? bcasterline t 16:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was to even it out with the three main sections which have to have that amount of space there or it looks worse. Between the CBB and the To do list, and the Editorial departments and Related communities...it depends. It's pretty trivial; hopefully we can unlock the page and, if no one reverts you back, you can change that later.--Here T oHelp 17:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bcasterline meant the space (at the bottom) within the CBB itself. I agree that the CBB page bottom still needs cleanup/rethinking. (but that's a different topic than the CP redesign). --Quiddity 19:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Yeah, the CBB will probably get a big overhaul by the end of the year, and maybe much sooner.--Here T oHelp 19:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it is very nice, but to be honest I do not think that the current Community Portal is anywhere near as bad as the old Main Page was. Batmanand | Talk 17:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but since we have this better design made, why not use it?--Here T oHelp 17:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah totally. I was just saying that there was less of a problem than last time. Batmanand | Talk 17:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then.--Here T oHelp 17:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's shocking me how people are ignoring our need for continuity of style between pages. Although this design is very nice, we do need to keep a standard. Davidpk212 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure whether you mean: 1) continuity with the old CP design (either colour-wise or layout-wise), or 2) continuity with the rest of wikipedia overall?

We were trying to take it towards wikipedia-overall page style, by using simple clean boxes of ordered information, with matching colours to the Main Page scheme. We tried it with seperated columns and seperate boxes, but it quickly became overwhelmingly boxy/cluttered, with undifferentiable content. --Quiddity 21:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the colors used in this draft. However, the page feels very long and cumbersome. Is it possible to shorten the content in the page? — J3ff 09:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blame the bloated CBB. Also, someone proposed having hide and show boxes for each of the sections, but Quiddity didn't like the idea, saying that everyone needs to see everything. I tend to agree. It won't make much of a difference, but maybe we would do away with the "Related communities" section?--Here T oHelp 11:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with removing that (purple box at bottom). make it a shortlist

I've tightened up the number of edit links, and the bottom of the TOTD, so it should be a bit cleaner than a few hours ago. --Quiddity 11:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why the article drives have been pushed so far down. I'm all for redesign, but it's a simple matter of cognitive functions here: people are most likely to read and consider the tidbits on the top. It was perfect before, because the featured article candidates and drives were right at the top, putting them on your mind. Having to scroll to find them kind of ruins the purpose. Donno *shrug* Lockeownzj00 23:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going live

Seeing as how the design has many supporters and has been thoroughly thought out, I'm going to put it up. I'll keep the page protected for a few days so nobody goes and completely messes it up or reverts it (unless there is a problem we've missed that comes out of left field). After that, I or another admin will have the page unlocked. This could mean semi-protecting against vandalism, or leaving it open again. Keep the move on for sysop only, no reason not to. Here T oHelp 12:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here comes your problem: that's a clear bug in the design. Renata 15:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here comes solution:

Please replace width=100% to width=90% in these places:

===Article standards===
<center>
 {| width="100%" style="padding-left:1.5em; padding-right:1em; background-color:transparent;"
 | [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|Be '''bold'''!]]

and

===Working with others===
<center>
 {| width="'''100%'''" style="padding-left:1.5em; padding-right:1em; background-color:transparent;"
 | [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|Assume good faith]]

Thank you. Renata 15:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quiddity, how could you miss that!Here T oHelp 18:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But! It, the!~ ummm.

Neat! What browser was that in? I tested it in firefox, ie5.5, opera6, and opera8. (must be mac ;P ) Besides, what's a launch without bugs ;) --Quiddity 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IE 6.0 Renata 19:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Figures. It looked fine in Firefox on the Mac, and Safari. Here T oHelp 11:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-summation-. We resolved this bug elsewhere, by removing the <center> tags and changing subtable widths to 92%

I dont really understand what was causing this bug. A table/code-guru looking through our work here would be appreciated. ("table cleanup, aisle nine!") --Quiddity 12:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to give the people working on this design a big thumbs up here. I think that once again we have shown that collaborative work can result in good results, even though there was a bit of a struggle at the start. One thing. this sentence: "The Village pumps are our discussion forums for Wikipedians about Wikipedia." it doesn't feel as clean as it should. I think if you are not a native speaker, it could be confusing. I would leave out the "for Wikipedians" part. Or rewrite the entire line. --The DJ 11:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, true. Village pump is not plural. What about: "The village pump is our discussion forums about Wikipedia. It is divided by topic: list of topics here."? Here T oHelp 11:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, i mangled that sentence whilst attempting to shorten it and linkify it. A writer is welcome to rework it. Here is what it said for the last few weeks:

For technical discussions, assistance, policy, proposals and other news see the Village pump - Wikipedia's discussion forum.

but as short as possible is preferable. without a single linewrap (at 1024) is optimal.

and Thanks for the thumbs up :) --Quiddity 12:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect?

Good job in getting the new design up. Do you think we can unprotect the community portal page now? -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 13:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to wait a few days to make sure everything gets ironed out, but sure, I'll unprotect it. We may need to keep it semi-ed, though, but we'll try completely open. (I'll keep the move on sysop only, no reason not to). Here T oHelp 13:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 ::I've tightened up the number of edit links, and the bottom of the TOTD, so it should be a bit cleaner than a few hours ago. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 11:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
+I still don't understand why the article drives have been pushed so far down. I'm all for redesign, but it's a simple matter of cognitive functions here: people are most likely to read and consider the tidbits on the top. It was perfect before, because the featured article candidates and drives were right at the top, putting them on your mind. Having to scroll to ''find'' them kind of ruins the purpose. Donno *shrug* [[User:Lockeownzj00|Lockeownzj00]] 23:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 ===Going live===