Wikipedia talk:Community portal/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Updating obsolete links

Many Wikipedia sites offer links to the excellent websites about economic issues of the „The New School” N.Y. But this institution changed something in its website, so that many Wikipedia links lead now to nothing.

Example: Before, the biography of economists had the address: http://homepage.newschool.edu/het/alphabet.htm which now lead to: http://www.newschool.edu/404.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/nssr/economics/alphabet.htm

2. example: The Wiki-site of the economist Wassily Leontief has at the end the information:

„Information from cepa.newschool.edu“ With the link: http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/leontief.htm you get: http://www.newschool.edu/404.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/nssr/economics/profiles/leontief.htm

The actual and correct correct link is: http://homepage.newschool.edu/~het/profiles/leontief.htm

Could the many old obsolete links be changed and updated ? Cuauti (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course, please feel free to edit the page and update the links yourself. -- œ ^™ 21:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Policies, duplicate shortcuts

In a small attempt to clean up this page, can we remove some of the duplicate shortcuts in the policy section (WP:BB and WP:BOLD, for example. How about just picking the more common one. It'd be a little less info on a very overwhelming page. Ocaasi ^c 21:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a good idea. Speaking of being bold, I've removed what I have deemed to be less common shortcuts. They are: WP:BB (be bold), WP:NEU (neutral point of view), WP:WWIN (what Wikipedia is not), and WP:FAITH (assuming good faith). Anything you disagree on? Guoguo12 (Talk) 02:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what I had in mind. Thanks for doing it! Ocaasi^{t | c} 02:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad I made the right choices. Guoguo12 (Talk) 03:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Housebreaking a Puppy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliemaria (talk • contribs) 09:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Translation

The article calls for people to translate articles into English, would it not also be useful to ask people to translate articles into other languages? Or to ask that first? English Wikipedia has much more articles than any other language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hewhoamareismyself (talk • contribs) 02:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

ltr ns-3 ns-talk page-User_talk_Teles skin-vector">  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.108.206.108 (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

ANG ALAMAT NG PARU-PARO

Noong unang panahon ay may magkapatid na ulila na naninirahan sa isang ilang na baryo sa Laguna. Ito ay sina Amparo na ang palayaw ay Paro, samantalang ang nakababata naman ay si Perla na pawang sumisibol na dalagita. Pagtitinda ng bulaklak ang kanilang ikinabubuhay.

Magkaiba ang ugali nila, si Amparo ay tamad at walang kinagigiliwang gawin kundi ang lumapit sa mga bulaklak at amuyin ito. Samantalang si Perla naman ay masipag at masinop sa kabuhayan. Likas na mabait si Perla, pasensiya na lamang ang kaniyang ibinibigay sa kapatid na si Amparo na ubod ng tamad.

Ngunit isang araw ay naubos na ang pasensiya ni Perla at nagalit kay Amparo na laging nagrereklamo sa kanilang ulam. Galit din na sumagot si Amparo “Anong gusto mo alilain ako at busabusin? Ako ang masusunod dahil ako ang nakakatanda.” Sabay nanaog at pumitas ng halaman sa hardin at nagtuloy sa ilog upang pagmasdan ang bulaklak sa kanyang buhok. Pagdukwang niya ay tuloy-tuloy siyang nahulog sa ilog. Sa pag-aalala para sa kapatid ay sumunod si Perla at kitang-kita niya nang mahulog si Paro sa ilog. Sumigaw ng malakas si Perla “Paro! Paro!", marami ang nakarinig at tinulungan siya ngunit walang Amparo silang nakita.

Habang balisang nagmamasid ang mga tao sa ilog, ay may isang bulaklak ang lumutang sa kinahulugan ni Amparo at unti-unti itong gumalaw, dahan-dahang nawala ang hugis bulaklak nito at unti-unting umusbong ang pakpak na may iba’t-ibang kulay. Walang ano-ano ay lumipad at nakita ni Perla na pumunta ito sa halamanan at nagpalipat lipat sa mga bulaklak. Kinutuban si Perla at nasambit niya ang katagang “Paro! Paro!". Simula noon, ang maganda at makulay na munting nilikha ay tinawag ng mga tao na PARU-PARO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janicemahinay (talk • contribs) 03:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: merge "Guidelines, help and resources" section with Help:Contents

I'm concerned the final section of this page is inappropriate for the community portal, when we already have multiple help listings. Indeed, the very top of the page reads "If you were looking for help with an aspect of Wikipedia: see the help documentation, or ask a question for assistance." but then, an entire section is devoted to help below!

I think it would be beneficial to merge this section with Help:Contents or similar, and refocus the Community Portal on news, discussions, tasks and collaborations. Some sections under "Resources" are relevant to the Community Portal and should be kept.

What do you think? — Pretzels^Hii! 00:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh Does it do any harm to have an additional place for people to find help? Is the Community Portal more useful if the help links are removed? A certain amount of redundancy is desirable when dealing with instructional matters, like how to use Wikipedia... --Jayron32 01:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it does. The lack of focus dilutes the purpose of the Community portal, which I think is sorely underutilised and effective for something in the global navigation. We have an entire Help: namespace, there is no reason to not just link there and make that clear as the place to find all help content. — Pretzels^Hii! 09:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I just rolled back your change. Please get consensus before making that large of a change. For the record, I will voluntarily observe 1 RR on that change, meaning I will not roll it back a second time.

@-Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 22:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Pretzels,

You rolled your change back and I have not reverted this change, but I will state that I am against this change. Your changed removed [| an entire section of the menu] including several links to admin boards, links to helpful guidelines and several acronyms. For those of us who know Wikipedia quite well, it's not an issue, we know where to go, but for those not as familiar, it would seem to be confusing.

Further, this was not a small change, and per the talk page in community portal:

This page is for the discussion/improvement of the community portal only. The community portal is semi-protected for vandalism reasons. Large changes to it should be discussed here first.

I recognize you've made good faith efforts to get consensus, just , three people in total have responded :

1: Yes (That's up to you ) 1: I don't care 1: No (that's up to me ).

I'll open up an RFDC to get more random voices over here and see if we can get a consensus. I won't touch the page itself. You did the B in BRD, I did the R, now it's time for the F and D. Thanks @-Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons►Narn (Loyal Bat Squad Member)-@ 11:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion Request: I've removed it because it cannot provide you with the help you are seeking. You're looking for more editors to become involved so as to try to reach consensus, but 3O will only provide you with one additional voice (3O requests are answered by just one editor) and their opinion cannot, under the 3O rules, be "counted" towards consensus (see here for why that is). Feel free to relist the dispute at 3O if you want what a 3O has to offer, but it would appear that you had the right idea when you mentioned an RFC. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep – The section has been here for years to help newbies, and it certainly helped me when I started editing Wikipedia. It's a quick summary of the help available, and is complementary to the help system. The section's development was the result of much deliberation and collaboration by the community. That sort of decision shouldn't be able to be reversed by a single editor, unless nobody objects to the change (see WP:BRD). There was an objection posted above, and I also object to the removal of the section, as I believe some extra help located at the end of this page can't hurt and is likely to help new editors. Since it is at the end of the page, it doesn't water down the contents located above it. The section is very useful, presenting key areas of help, and includes the variable feature "tip of the day" to keep the content fresh. Remember, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and therefore space is not an issue. I've restored the section, and have improved its formatting, matching the section above it, and to make the tip of the day easier to spot and read. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 11:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from TLee53, 29 July 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can't find the original <<Announcements/Community bulletin board>> page, where changes are to be made. But, on this interpolated page, the notice for "Portal:Trees" has

    "... some contributors for it's maintenance ..."

which should, of course, be changed to

    "... some contributors from its maintenance ..."

(the possessive requiring no apostrophe and from instead of for).

TLee53 (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Psychiatry - new portal under construction

Just posting here that I've started a new portal, Portal:Psychiatry as directed in Wikipedia:Portal/Instructions. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Mistake on wikipedia.org!

Here - http://www.wikipedia.org/ was 中文自由的百科全書 373 000+ 條目 But... It's joke or new look of wiki? Where Nederlands?! ;-0 --Nickispeaki (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your question; could you rephrase it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Mistake in wikipedia

In the theme "Great depression in United States" there are information who was vandalized and the original info was substituted by a lot of bad words. Please some of the volunteers who write in English properly must correct it. I don´t finf the right place to denunciate it, but I wish that this info could help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.148.69.213 (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. I have undone the last few edits and will keep an eye on it. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing AfD link?

Does anybody know what happened to the link to WP:AfD from this page? RJH (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Community portal proposed change

On this page, an editor and I are in disagreement over changing the Community portal layout. We need more voices in this issue to establish a consensus for this change. The original layout of the community portal is [| this ] the changed layout now looks [| like this]. Please respond. @-Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons►Narn (Loyal Bat Squad Member)-@ 12:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the original layout. The information is useful and there should be lots of links at the portal. And don't forget WP:Paper Eomund (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

We should not be duplicating Help: content on the Community portal. There is an entire namespace devoted to help, and it should be contained there. Supporting this, the very top of the Community portal reads "If you were looking for help with an aspect of Wikipedia: see the help documentation" with a link to Help:Contents. The description of the community portal in the header makes it clear that this page is for coordinations and collaborations, news and discussions. — Pretzels^Hii! 19:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the original layout.

@-Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons►Narn (Loyal Bat Squad Member)-@ 11:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't address any of the arguments I put forward. The layout hasn't even changed, hence is not the topic of discussion. — Pretzels^Hii! 11:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pretzels. We don't want "lots of links". That's overwhelming, utterly unhelpful, and makes the page tl;dr. /ƒETCH COMMS / 22:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Pretzels, the layout of the page was indeed changed. You hacked out a huge section at the bottom. You stated your reason for change, I've stated my reasons for it not to change. @-Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons►Narn (Loyal Bat Squad Member)-@ 11:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The layout has not changed, the content has changed. You have not given any reasons; "preferring" the original layout is not enough. — Pretzels^Hii! 12:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

reporting abuse of adm power

How do I report if an administrator is abusing his or her powers? Norum 17:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI, but I'd just not say anything because of WP:BOOMERANG. /ƒETCH COMMS / 22:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Tungaw

ang tungaw ay isang maliit na insekto na makikita sa gubat... ito ay kulay pula na naninipsip ng dugo sa mga kasingit-singitan ng balat.

marami din ito sa mga manok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexissevilla (talk • contribs) 14:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

New Supercentenarian Portal

I created a Supercentenarian portal, please help with building it! --Leoj83 (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

G+3

G+3 was a small band that started in small town in the middle of nowhere. They didnt have much but what they did had was talent and a great passion for music. Most people laughed when G+3 told them that were going to be famous. they said that it takes more than a passsion for music to be famous, talent even isnt that much required to be famous. What they had to have to be famous was money. After G+3 heard that they practiced every day, hoping that those people were wrong. That with enough practice and passion they could succed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledlegegiver1220 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Do you have a question we can answer for you? --Jayron32 17:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Italian Wikipedia blocked

Yesterday i tried to access it.Wikipedia and found that someone (administrator ?) has blocked it and redirecting every access to:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011

The reason purported is a politically one, about a proposed law, that to me looks like it is following the Wikipedia US guidelines, so I don't understand why the disagreement.

I am also upset because I think that such a heavy decision, like blocking Wikipedia, should be taken after a discussion and a vote.

Who has the power to do that without consultation ? Are the reasons and the procedures correct, following the international Wikipedia policy rules ?

I don't know where to take the issue, so I am trying here. If I am wrong, please be patient.

--Robertiki (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the access has been restored. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But I am growing a bit desperate, after reading this interview: http://www.journalismfestival.com/news/exclusive-ijf-interview-of-jimmy-wales-co-founder-of-wikipedia/

>> CP: Why on Twitter did you define this proposed law as idiotic?

>> JW: Because it is! Italy already has perfectly fine laws against defamation, and this proposed law overreaches

>> dramatically. I have never heard of any law like it anywhere else in the world.

I am afraid Wales has incorrect information. First: the proposed law is not about defamation, but about False light tort: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light. So you see it is a law already present in the United States. Second: the law is in force from 1948, one of the first laws of the Italian Repubblic. The new proposals are modifications to extend its scope to electronic newspapers, that today are everymore important. Third: Wikipedia is directly accessible, the interested parties can write all the corrections they want, and I am sure that this fact has high legal relevance. Fourth: the fines are applied by Judges, not automatic, and anyway, no money goes to the one who had feel damaged. Fifth: all the mess has been around a proposed text, I am sure that, if instead of an outright opposition, there would had been specific requests about reduced fines for small entities and more time to comply, they would have been accepted. Sixth: nothing was proposed about a site that is directly accessible, like Wikipedia, that could had, from the first moment, spelled a exemption. I haven't found how to contact Wales, so I am writing here :-)

--Robertiki (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing edits to the Community Portal and its layout. You may find the following locations more useful:

User talk:Jimbo Wales
village pump – Wikipedia's main discussion forum. A place to discuss things with other users. The Transhumanist 18:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Request

I don't know where this is supposed to go because the WMF makes it impossible to find where people are supposed to discuss this issue.

If you guys are willing to beg us constantly for money, the least you could do is honor my request to add this IP to the "no advert" list, because I'm not ever giving a single damned penny to the WMF, not today, not in another six months when you run the ad again. I'm tired of seeing this ad every time I open the page, even after I've closed the ad. A gigantic box with some jerk's face on it and a pleading request to go to another page with a payment form. If you think that is appropriate in a place like this, well I'm disappointed. No matter how many times I click the X, every half year that smug jerk's face comes back, or this new guy from Metallica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.24.18 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Community disability issues?

Could anyone point me to any wikipedia forum or page that's about helping people with disability issues to edit Wikipedia? Bit surprised to find the word not used anywhere on the community portal page or editor assistance page that I noticed. Eversense (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility and Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility - but I hope that by now you've found those some other way. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Sam Leighton

Sam Alistair Leighton is a Scottish session drummer and musician. He is known mostly for his work with legendary singer-songwriter Kevin McGuire and also with sibling, Ross Leighton, in the band, Archimedes Principle. Leighton is particularly noteworthy for his piercing rim-shot snare style, the embrace of irregular time signatures and his ample application of rhythm inversion. In 2011 he hit the airwaves on Ally McCrae's Radio 1 show 'BBC Introducing in Scotland'. His famous 'Sam Leighton Challenge' has become somewhat of an urban legend, which involves Leighton drinking a pint of cider in under 2.7 seconds whilst playing a para-diddle groove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euan121 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC) who gave 100 jumps top in the car in his plae — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.18.235 (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A game of Wikipedia on the game cloud :)

I have made a game for the Wikipedians (I hope you will recognize the big image it represents). Good luck :) Ftiercel (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson Liable action if not removed

Moving the Indian rebels west is not ethnic cleansing; correct that now. Ethnic cleansing is what Israelis are doing to the Palestinians. Another example is on ethnic cleansing is how the White populas that built up South Africa, is being murdered out ion a mass genocide by the Negroid savages of South Africa. The despicable wiki description of "Old Hickory" is as follows: "as president... initiated ethnic cleansing". Remove this NOW! 24.0.89.191 (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC) (Edward Allen)

This belongs at Talk:Andrew Jackson, not here. The wording is discussed further down the page at Andrew Jackson#Indian removal where it appears to be sourced. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

how to ask questions

I am new to the use of wikipedia. Any information I have seems to make it appear as if it is easy to come here and get an answer to any question!! I can not for the life of me figure out how do ask my question and get an answer. My question is. How or can a jet fly past a crowd wirhout making any sound? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.145.10 (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you'd do better to ask this question at the Science reference desk. Some of the volunteers there enjoy physics questions and may be able to help you. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Bronze badges

I found (8) badges while I was in Afghanistan from 2007 to 2008 in the ghazni district, several of the badges have honi-soit-mal-y-pense the other badges have infantry mounted officer written on the front around the garter. All of the badges are bronze. My question is when and what era are these items come from. and my name is Stan hope you can shed some light on the items I have located. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.168.198 (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You're more likely to get an answer to this by asking at Wikipedia's Reference Desk. the wub "?!" 18:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wimbledon winners; wiki are future tellers?

Hi, this is my first time here. I've not written anything, but I came across an error when looking up all Wimbledon Winners [1].

Says there that Federer beat Murray in 2012. Bit odd, cos that match is scheduled to be played in two days time.......

???

Regards and kudos for everybody's good work here on wiki, despite the odd mistake it's still a fab site.

Mirjam

Mirjam1205 (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the error was fixed just a few minutes after you posted here. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction in the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready_(2011_film)

The page shows that the total gross of the bollywood movie ready is 298 crores which is incorrect, it could be around 180-190 crores. I would like the moderators to consider my suggestion and look upon it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.156.140 (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Try bringing this up at Talk:Ready (2011 film) instead of here. --69.158.118.187 (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of this page?

Kind of a meta question, but I'm genuinely curious: what purpose is WP:Community portal currently serving? Is it a space for experienced Wikipedians to watch (for updates on various proposals, drives, etc.), a space meant to teach/guide new editors, or a space meant to educate readers and provide a transparent look into the inner workings of the community? Could all you lovely people who watch this page speak up and let me know what you get out of it, or what you think others should get out of it?

(For the record, I remember being a newbie and looking here for task suggestions, and the wall of text and links drove me away after about a second. Judging from the anon comments sprinkled on this talk page, I'm probably not the only one who was confused about what this place was for.) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't use the page myself, but whenever someone asks "what can I do?" at the help desks I point them to the "Help out" section here. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That was my line of thinking about it, as well – that it could be a great new user task suggestion page (if it didn't also have a million links to every other random part of Wikipedia thrown in...). Unfortunately, it looks like the bot that used to update the open tasks template stopped running in February of this year, and since then it's being sporadically updated by one volunteer by hand (who definitely deserves a barnstar for the valiant effort!). That seems kind of... bad. This page is viewed 10,000 times a day! I think it deserves a little more love than it's currently being given. I'll try to hunt down a few of the people who have made any edits here and see what they think. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

At present I primarily use it as an organized links directory for the Wikipedia space, although I also check the Signpost pages when they look interesting. The Collaboration section was useful once, but that has waned. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting... ok, so that's two use-cases so far: newish editor seeking things to do and established editor seeking handy directory of links. RJHall, do you find it more useful than the official Directory page that's linked to at the top of the Community portal? Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't even aware of that official directory page. I likely would have to use it for a bit to see which one is preferable. It seems a bit unwieldy though, so perhaps a tabbed page would work better. Maybe a scrolling announcement feed? Shrug. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I remember some past discussions concerning the CP. (I think the last one was an offshoot of a main page redesign discussion.)

But yes, like most portal pages, it's probably not updated as often as we might like. - jc37 21:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Back in the good old days (i.e. 2006-2008), it was very lively. Editors used it to recruit drive participants, new barnstars/awards, snippets of information that are not included in Signpost, policy updates, etc. Think of it as a SiteNotice-lite or WatchlistAnnounce-lite because everyone visits it and you don't need to be an admin to post there. It's kind of like a public bulletin board that you can post anything (other than spam or nonsense) on it. The good thing is that there's no rules regulating what can and what cannot be posted, no standard formatting, and the only rule is that you need to take the notice down after 7 days. Back then, the number of active editors were very high and you're almost guaranteed to see new listings every week. Nowadays, I only visit this page to read the Signpost and stop looking/caring about announcements. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That's really interesting – why did all the good stuff have to happen (and then end) in 2006? :-P

But seriously, if the zeal for updating this page has been lost and it's been abandoned to the cobwebs of link/template creep, then it's definitely a good time to hold a redesign discussion. We can make it live again! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot of the community activity may now be centered around the WikiProjects; at least that'd be my guess. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of the things done by the Community Portal in the old days have gradually moved elsewhere. Community-wide announcements became better covered by the growing Signpost and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, plus the increased functionality and acceptability of Watchlist notices. Collaborations used to be really popular and a big part of the Portal, but slowly went out of fashion and many became inactive. Plus WikiProjects got a lot of new developments (article rating templates and bots, fancy homepages, newsletter delivery) which meant they didn't have to rely on the CP so much for getting people's attention.

That said I think it definitely still has a role to play. At the Teahouse some of the most common questions are not asking for help, but asking how to help: what WikiProjects to join or tasks to do (see also my coding of questions). This is exactly what the Community Portal can do well, we just need to clean it up, re-energise it, and surface it better. Tackling this was on my long-term to-do list anyway, so I'm happy to help out wherever I can.

As for the Help/index aspect, personally I'd prefer to see most of that removed from the CP as it's very cluttered and duplicates a lot of other places. Part of my fellowship work is going to be totally revamping Help:Contents, and trying to make that the one-stop shop for help resources. At the very least the help section here needs to be seriously pruned; are links to "Motto of the day" and the "Birthday Committee" really a good use of space? the wub "?!" 21:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I consider the Community Portal as the Main Page for editors, as opposed to readers. When you look at it that way... it's not doing a very good job. It should be useful and fresh; made up of (at the very least) news, discussions, tasks, and WikiProjects. The help and reference content is completely superfluous and irrelevant - there's an entire namespace for that stuff. As the wub said, most of the current content has moved elsewhere / become inactive. I've attempted to propose changes here in the past, and strongly support this proposal to redesign the page. — Pretzels^Hii! 17:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal - Thanks for your responses, everyone. I'm also interested in getting feedback from people who might not check this talk page or the VP, but who still look at the main Community portal page. How would you all feel about putting up a notice at the top of the page for a week that asks what people were looking for when they came here? I imagine it as something like this, but feel free to tinker with the design/wording if you like. I'm trying to make it as newbie-friendly as possible, because I think there are a lot of IPs and new users who account for those 10k pageviews a day, but they might not know how to get to this talk page or use it in order to make their voices heard. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I think Template:Under discussion is more recognisable as a standard message box, but yes, this is a very good idea. "Under construction" would make more sense once we've actually made some changes :) — Pretzels^Hii! 17:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, of course there's a template for that :) I have to say, though, having just wrapped up a big research project on the language we use in templates, that the passive/institutional voice of that notice isn't really doing it for me. I don't think anybody who started editing later than 2006 is going to see that message and decipher that it's asking for their feedback on something. Not to say that feedback from veteran editors isn't important... but if we're addressing a wide mixed-experience audience here, let's use something like this. (I just cleaned out the conditional expressions gunk from {{Under discussion}} and made the message a little more human and inviting.) Is that a good compromise? Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
No objections for a notice at the top of the page for a month even asking for indications of what people are looking for here. I rather like the idea of turning the page, and talk page, into some sort of "community noticeboard." I might particularly like the development of some sort of semi-regular "contests" to develop weak or key articles, maybe something like an article-specific "WikiCup", giving points for creation or improvements of certain somehow specifically chosen articles for a given period, for instance. Similar individual drives for assessment, peer review, categorization, etc., might be useful too. Maybe, for instance, an "Olympic improvement drive" to work on the articles on Olympic sports around the time of an Olympics, for instance. Also, providing a bit clearer and more detailed single page indicating "go to [this page] to [get help or assistance on a specific point]" might be really useful for newer editors. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the support! And for the record, I think what you're describing would be amazing. I'm happy to devote myself to the cause of more/better collaboration :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That looks super - I wasn't so keen on the original text either, but I think it's important to stay consistent with the message box style. Just for reference, it looks like this Community Portal format has been in use since April 2006 - centuries in internet time! — Pretzels^Hii! 18:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeeesh, 6 years old! Well, as you and the wub pointed out, it totally made sense for this to be an "everything but the kitchen sink" page back then, but we have dedicated spaces for most of this stuff elsewhere now, so it's definitely time to reevaluate. I'll toss that notice up for a week, since no one seems to object, and hopefully we'll get some good input from others on what would be the most effective use of this page. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Two weeks on, and the evidence from this talk page is that if you add a "click here to leave a message" link anywhere at Wikipedia, people will use it to leave off-topic comments! But we knew that already - see Category:Wikipedia feedback pages. Is it time to remove the "click here" link? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It could be insightful if we saw some high-level usage metrics about what links people click when they come to this page. Does anybody know if we have that type of logging data available? Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Funny that you bring this up! So, I'm working on the Editor engagement experiments team right now, and we're in the process of acquiring the tools that will allow us to do precisely that for our experiments. ETA on that is about two weeks, so we have some time to get qualitative feedback first, but you're right that the best way to see which of these links are useful is to see what's actually being used. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Medical question in Portuguese

informações sobre doenças autoimunes , tipos e seus sintomas e tratamentos , e medicamentos hoje usados , os avanços da medicina nesta area , enfim tudo q possa ser discutido e aprender como essas doenças atingem a sociedade e as pessoas , q as possuem ou q possam vir a dscobrirem , sempre pesquisando o porque ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.35.219.247 (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You could try searching the Portuguese Wikipedia. But remember that no one here can give you medical advice; see the Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer (pt:Wikipédia:Aviso médico). -- John of Reading (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

My feedback

I just happened to stumble upon this discussion by accident: I was on a certain user's talk page, and a newcomer was asking whether adding phone numbers and address details to articles was appropriate. So I thought, "How would I, as a new user, try to find out this kind of information?" One possibility would be via a welcome message. But this user had a ton of CSD notices on their user talk page below their welcome (by the way, Maryana, that needs to be your absolute top priority in E3! Those CSD notifications are obscenely long). So they probably didn't notice the welcome, or perhaps they didn't see how it would help them. "The five pillars of Wikipedia"? What? This user, who may not have been a native English speaker, might not have understood the metaphorical reference, or perhaps they had never even seen the word "pillar" before.

So I thought (in the shoes of a newcomer), "Hmm, what's over here on the sidebar that might help me? 'About Wikipedia'... no, I know what Wikipedia is. 'Community portal'... ah yes, maybe." However, the "gateway" into the list of policies, etc. is right down the bottom of the page, below all sorts of other irrelevant stuff. The newcomer is unlikely to find it.

I think maybe we need a sixth link in the "Interaction" section of the sidebar, beneath "Community portal", which goes to a new page linking to important policies, guidelines and all the rest. The trouble is, thinking of a suitably short sidebar entry: "Policies and guidelines"? Too dry... "Writing for Wikipedia"? Too narrow... "How to contribute"? Maybe.

That's one thought; the other is to strip away a lot of the fat on the Community Portal, as suggested above. I think the CP should have at the very least (a) a fresh list of tasks to be done, and (b) links to important policies, guidelines and particularly "tutorial" pages like WP:FIRST, WP:HOW, etc. Ideally in a two-column format - left column "getting started with editing" and right column "things you can do right now to help". Then other stuff underneath, if it is thought necessary.

I hope this is useful! — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Where's the overview?

Where is the overview?
State the existence of wikipedia.org and wikimedia. Mention who pays for the servers and datacenter charges.
What are "chapters"? How do they relate to the different languages?
Mention "village pump" and your hopes for it. Is there more than one, for different groups or topics?
Tell me of the existence of personal talk pages and any search mechanisms for finding important ones.
Generally speaking, what are the available automatic notice mechanisms, how can I sign up for them?
What control do I have over where the notices from my subscriptions will appear?
An everyday "subscription" (good teaching example) is "Watch this page". What happens if I check it? Where does it happen?
What are the mechanisms for polling the membership on central decisions of policy and resource allocation?
In your answer on democratic consultative mechanisms, please consider both slow improvements (e.g., tools and infrastructure) and fast mechanisms for responding in only a day or two to existential threats from hostile government actors.
Don't give me a list of links, give me the structure of the organization.
Don't flood me with the latest announcements of countless sub-organizations and projects,
give me a map to the world, the Wikipedia world.
Write an essay with authority.

I contribute regularly to annual fundraisers, I have created a couple minor pages, edited some others, one of my own papers is cited as a source, this has been going on for 6 years or so, and I have little idea how this $30M organization is structured or works.

I am writing this note after a day's attendance at an annual Wikimania meeting. I see a sprawling, dynamic organization which does not know itself or recognize its own power as it becomes a global player in a dangerous world.
Kind regards from an older contributor and a faithful friend for life,
Jerry-va (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Four million pages

Err, do we still get excited about these things? I don't see a link about it anywhere yet? Stevage 14:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

WACQ

Note: moved to Talk:WACQ. Please continue any discussion on that page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Results from the feedback request: newbies want to talk to you, but you're not here to talk to them

Here's what resulted from a two-week notice on this page requesting feedback about how the Community portal is currently used and how to make better use of it in the future (was supposed to be only a week, but then Wikimania happened and, erm, oops... thanks, Kaldari, for taking down the notice!):

Attempts by readers/new editors to add information to the encyclopedia directly

Requests from readers/new editors directed toward the community

Questions/comments from other editors directed toward the community

[14]

Suggestions for improving the page

[15]
[16]

Random questions

[17]

... and, of course, a smattering of test edits, vandalism, and spam. To me, three things seem really, really obvious from this:

The current community of active editors rarely or never looks at the Community portal anymore, except to revert vandalism on it or redirect new people somewhere else.
There are lots of readers and brand-new editors who are curious about something they see in the encyclopedia and want to contact a real person to talk about/act on it...
... but this page is not serving the above purpose because active editors (apart from one or two awesome dedicated newbie helpers) don't watch it.

Thoughts on this? Can we make this a space where people who are new to Wikipedia can actually get in touch with the community, see that it's a living, breathing entity, and maybe even join it? If so, how? I would start by removing everything that is obviously not newbie-oriented, like links to dispute resolution, centralized discussions/RfCs, etc., and also all the policy/guideline cruft, because throwing the entire rulebook at people who haven't even considered making an article edit is just plain crazy... but then what? Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this page should really be moved to the Portal: namespace and perhaps removed from the sidebar (and replaced there with the Help Desk and the Reference Desk). This is just a page for presenting some basic information, not for asking questions. In fact, that's what the notice on the top of the page says - discussion only of the portal itself. Many of the questions presented above belong at the Wikipedia:Help desk, the Wikipedia:Reference desk or the Wikipedia:Village Pump. All of which are quite prominently linked to, I might add. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I realize that what I say doesn't necessarily reflect the original purpose of the Community portal. But I think it does reflect what it has become. And quite a lot of users actively monitor the Help Desk, Reference Desk, and Village Pump already, so it makes sense to send users there instead. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(Note: I've moved 1 link in your list above, down into the "Suggestions for improving the page" section.)

This page and all the other directories, are definitely due for an overhaul, and a radical reexamination.

It would be good to use these as a starting point:

the 5 links in the sidebar's Interaction section
the 2 templates Template:Help pages header (10 links) and Template:WP nav pages (header bar) (9 links).

Merging and redirecting redundant pages should be a priority. (The last redesign here, and at Help:Contents, and subsequent efforts, resulted in: a reorganisation of all the existing links, and a number of new link-directories. I believe the new link-directories (eg Wikipedia:Department directory) are good for people who edit them, and terrible for everyone else.)

There are always going to be compromises, and it's helpful to keep them in mind for each design decision (eg Help:Contents versus Help:Contents/Site map (which is just the 12 pages that Help:Contents links to, all embedded in one place) versus the gigantic (275kb) Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia.)

(I've been away from WP for almost 2 years, but I'll be trying to get back into the flow over the next few months. Hopefully I can help with pointers and ideas, going forward.) I'm going to try throwing some notes on 3x5 index cards, and shuffling them around. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Definitely in favor of radical reexamination, but I think we can go even more radical than that :)

I took a peek into how often some of those links on the top of the page actually get viewed: it's a hundred or less views a day for WP:Quick directory, WP:Directory, WP:Maintenance, WP:Requests, WP:Shortcuts, WP:Tips, WP:Tools, and WP:Index. A hundred views a day might sound like a lot, but compared to something like Help:Contents, which gets over 8,000 views a day, it's trivial. This demonstrates a very basic principle in user experience design – the more links you try to cram into one space, the less chance someone will click on any one of them. Moreover, many of the links in these commonly-used navbars are really redundant (how many directories to we really need, anyway? we have like 5..) and outdated (it looks like the last time WP:Tips was updated by anything other than vandalism/reverting or minor/bot edits was 2007). As it stands, it looks like this page is only confusing and frustrating the few people who find and try to use it.

So, I'm with Philosopher on this – there's no reason to duplicate any of the information here if it exists in a more used and useful format elsewhere. I think we should either figure out an entirely new concept for this page or get rid of it. If you're interested in what I mean by "radical redesign," take a look at Wikipedia:Editor engagement (especially the "Who we are" section – wouldn't it be cool to have a randomly chosen Wikipedian or WikiProject appear on the Community portal with every page load?) or even the Teahouse. Instead of yet another collection of confusing links, this could actually be a nice-looking glimpse into our people and projects! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Get rid of it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

We could perhaps remove (merge) the "Guidelines, help & resources" section, (into Help:Contents/The Wikipedia community) easily enough, thereby removing the dual-focus here.

Once that's done, all the remaining content would be suitable for reformatting into chunkable "Who we are" style content. Which could perhaps be randomly displayed. But that's not enough.

My main fears, are A) The existing design being spun-off into a new directory, which just adds to the problem (help-page proliferation). Hence I'm poking at any possibility of merge&redirecting the existing plethora, *as well as* overhauling this page. B) The new design turning into something over-simplistic (eg. 2 columns of Template:Wikipedia ads#Current ads) that turns off anyone looking for more substantial suggestions. C) Things like the Signpost need a home that is accessible from the sidebar. Not sure where else they'd go, and we realllly don't want to add more links to the sidebar. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I definitely don't want this to be yet another directory or some fluffy ad space. That's why I'm proposing experimental testing and data collection first, before any serious redesign effort – so we can actually have some concrete numbers on link impressions and clickrate. After a few experimental redesigns run for a short period of time and we have the numbers to compare them against each other, it will be much more obvious which elements are unnecessary here and which are essential. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've split the "Guidelines, Help & Resources" section out (merging it into the Help pages, where the elements weren't already included). Everything remaining is fair game, for whatever you have in mind. Have at it! -- Quiddity (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) I wrote up a big serious research page on Meta for the project. Comments/suggestions very welcome, especially w/r/t the second and third iterations I suggested! I'm interested in looking at tasking, definitely, but am open to focusing on other stuff in later iterations. Also, I snagged Munaf (our UX/UI designer guru) to help out with this, so he'll be making some mockups of experimental redesigns and sharing them onwiki soon. I'll keep you posted. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

SAME ARTICLE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE DIFFERENT CONTENTS.

WHY THERE ARE SOME PAGE SAME ARTICLE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE DIFFERENT CONTENTS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.222.21 (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It really would help if you didn't use all capitals. But we do have a lot of articles in multiple languages. One factor which is involved is, unfortunately, some material is published in one language, but not another, which makes it easier for inclusion in the wikipedia of the language it is published in. There is a bit of an effort to try to translate some of the best articles in one language into other languages, so that the information from the better article is included in some of the other articles which might not be as good, but, like with everything else around here, there is a limited number of editors to begin with, and an even smaller number of editors who are capable of doing such translation work, which often involves technical language which might not be in the regular vocabularly of multilingual editors. John Carter (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

INCOMPLETE & INCOMPREHENSIVE ARTICLE

WIKIPEDIA HAVE A LOT OF INCOMPREHENSIVE ARTICLE, CONTROL BY DICTATORSHIP USER. ONLY WHAT THEY INSERT IS CORRECT. NO MATTER WHAT YOU INSERT WILL DEFINITELY BEEN REVERT. IF YOU INSIST TO USE PROPER GRAMMAR TO EDIT, OH! SORRY YOU WILL BEEN BLOCK, HUH! ALREADY GIVE UP EDIT. LET TIME TO PROVE EVERYTHING. NO MATTER WHAT YOU EDIT OR INSERT AFTER ALL BEEN REVERT OR LATER THEN BEEN BLOCK SO WHY CONTRIBUTE FOR EDIT. [SAD][DESPAIR] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.222.21 (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Presumably this user is talking about me, and the edits being made to Mark Lui, which consist of multiple manual of style and grammatical errors, with the same text being repeatedly restored. If you were to look you would see I have tried to keep as many of the changes you have made as possible while still removing the parts and the formatting that don't belong here--Jac16888 ^Talk 10:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Why user:Jac16888 you think i'm talking about you. Does you admit you are dictatorship user. It's not you its others users, too many can't specific, as you know you did retention or keep some trustworthy contents. Please always remember to insert trustworthy contents. Moreover, the article must be complete and comprehensive. If the article is about a Chinese artist, make sure you refer to Chinese Language version. For what you edit in Mark Lui, it's not complete and comprehensive. As refer to Chinese language version its stated about his background, works, films, etc. i apologize if what say have offended you in any way. Always be confident in what you edit. Wikipedia is a free, collaboratively edited, and multilingual Internet encyclopedia. What is article? an article always include headline, lead, body and conclusion. Have headline no lead, body and conclusion is not well-written articles. Please always bear in mind write an articles must complete and comprehensive, if not it will be an article with a beginning but no end. Anyway still despair that article is not written by a pro. author.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.222.21 (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Jac1688 thinks you were talking about him based on the fact that the Mark Lui article is one of the few, if not the only, article your IP has recently edited. And, I believe that the IP editor should perhaps better acquaint himself with wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Specifically, in this wikipedia, not only must content be "trustworthy", it must be verifiable as per WP:V. I would also point out to the editor that wikipedia articles, in general, do not include a "conclusion". And there is in fact absolutely no requirement that an article must be complete and comprehensive, particularly if the only way to do so were to involve violating such policies as WP:V. If one wants only articles written by professionals, they are free to use Citizendium, which is almost entirely written by academics and professionals, but has only about 16 thousand articles as per our article on it. John Carter (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A complete article is important when editor want to write an article. If an article without a conclusion it seen like the article is not complete. If there is no requirement that an article must complete and comprehenseive, then why this two points is included in Article Feedback Tool. As you can see in every article below will have Article Feedback Tool of "rate this page". There are four points on the rate form it's trustworthy, objective, complete & well-written. If it's not the requirements, why wikipedia have Article Feedback Tool? If there is no requirements it doesn't need to have a feedback. No one is perfect that's why pencils have erasers. Maybe, if editor or user found there is an error on what people edits just point out where or what is the error, tell them the correct or proper contents they should input to the article. Therefore, can also have a discussion so that people can learns from mistakes or learns from other capable editors. No mistakes no progress. In my point of view, if i decide to write an article i will write complete and comprehensive, if not i will totally won't write. Anyway, Practise always make perfect. When some editors revert or undid the article, they certainly have determine themselves is right. If you think they were wrong, point out and prove they were wrong. Arguments make no sense. Make more friends rather than enemy. Cheer up! editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.85.76 (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And, eventually every article will be complete. But policy takes priority, and that includes WP:V. We do not sacrific policy simply for the purposes of being "complete" in the subjective opinions of editors. Also, please read WP:MOS. I honestly have no clear idea what it is you mean by a "conclusion". In English, a conclusion is a summation of sorts, and that is the purpose of the lead section. That being the case, there is no need for a separate "conclusion". Also, honestly, many articles, like for instance Nairobi, don't lend themselves to a conclusion.

You are also clearly perfectly welcome to edit according to your own point of view, as you say above, so long as you do so in accord with policies and guidelines. If as you are indicating you intend to violate policies and guidelines in the pursuit of your own opinions of "completeness," or will not write at all, it would be unfortunate to lose an editor, but editors who do not follow policies and guidelines, honestly, tend to create a lot more work for others who would generally prefer doing something other than cleaning up the violations of policies and guidelines of others. Honestly, I have to say that I cannot see how your own position is in accord with policies and guidelines, and I would definitely urge you to read them starting at WP:PG. I am not aware of what the similar policies and guidelines are in other languages, because I myself really only edit the English wikipedia, but I get a very strong impression from your comments above that you have some misunderstandings regarding them. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: test improvements to Community portal

There seems to be an agreement to move forward with Maryana's proposal. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:Community portal is linked from the sidebar of every Wikipedia page and gets about 10,000 pageviews a day, but it's not serving any particular purpose except duplicating existing material from more highly-trafficked, popular pages. Based on feedback from readers and experienced editors about the CP, most Wikipedians don't know or care about it, and most readers/new editors who find it use it to ask questions about articles or Wikipedia itself – unfortunately, as previously mentioned, most experienced editors have abandoned it, so either those questions go unanswered or the new people are redirected to a more lively help/reference/questions space.

I'm proposing that we temporarily use the CP as a testing ground for improvements, measuring high-level data about clicks and impressions, to figure out what information would be most useful here. Specifically, I'd like to remove the clutter and try to focus on one specific theme for the page each week: one week of featuring task suggestions/recommendations, one week of featuring a couple of WikiProjects and collaborations, one week of featuring some members of the community (sort of like the hosts page on the Teahouse) to highlight the human aspect of Wikipedia, one week of featuring mentors who are looking to adopt new users, etc. I can write out a more detailed plan of action if people are generally okay with the testing idea, but I don't want to get too far ahead of myself if not :)

As I said, I'm okay with this being a temporary change – if none of the experiments seem to do anything for upping pageviews, increasing the quality of collaborations, or matching new users to open tasks or help spaces, we can always revert the CP back to what it is now (or get rid of it altogether, as a couple of people have suggested).

Please indicate whether you support testing or maintaining the page as is. Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Testing - let's find a good use for the page. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Testing - but more details and concerns above. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Testing - but the first step has to be redefining the purpose and role of the page. — Pretzels^Hii! 08:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the purpose will emerge from the testing. If we try a few different things that fall within the broad scope of a community portal, we'll see which ones attract a ton of clicks and which don't. The important thing is to come up with several discrete iterations that are very clearly defined (e.g., just task recommendations, just help links, just mentorship program callout), so we're not mushing together different variables. With that data, it'll be easier to have a discussion about purpose that doesn't get bogged down by conflicting subjective opinions – not that that ever happens on Wikipedia, of course :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Testing - if it's broke, fix it, and this page seems to be basically broken or less than useful as it is currently designed. John Carter (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Testing - go ahead Marayana - this page is kinda useless as it is...any changes can only make it better. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 03:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks for the feedback, everyone who's weighed in so far – I just want to give you a heads up that there's going to be some collection of aggregate click data on this page today to see which links (if any) are currently being used. I'll put the results up on the Meta page once I have them. Hopefully, this will allow us to make more informed decisions about what to test, since it looks like the testing option is emerging as a strong contender :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

On Philosopher's suggestion, I've made a new redesign subpage to document the findings of the experiment. Please take a look at the initial clickrate results and watchlist the page to get updates – I'll continue to analyze the data as it comes in! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.