- 1 URLs
- 2 "what you can do" ordering...
- 3 Other languages
- 4 existing quality mechanisms
- 5 Home languages template
- 6 Translation of "Mailing list" in the navigation
- 7 Format of the portal
- 8 portal graphic design
- 9 Beta timetable
- 10 Wikipedia
- 11 Make it more Debian like...?
- 12 WikiQA demo
- 13 Yeah, Right
- 14 "About Wikipedia"
- 15 About?
- 16 Plainlinks
- 17 Activation of portals
Are the 'minimal' and 'advanced' setup pages/links meant to work? The URLs in this Portal page (eg. http://quality.wikimedia.org/qa-simple ) go nowhere - even with the "/wiki" inserted... Cormaggio 09:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, not yet.--Eloquence 11:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
"what you can do" ordering...
Actually editing the articles to make them better is only considered the fourth most important idea? That says a lot, you know – 22.214.171.124 20:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fourth most important idea in what context ? GerardM 20:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- See section header. You would have us give you money, test out your fancy new software ideas that would actually result in *less* improvement owing to the reduction in anonymous editing, before you would have us improve the projects – 126.96.36.199 20:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Haha, I thought exactly the same thing. 188.8.131.52 21:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The ordering does not strictly reflect what's important, rather, it's a combination of
- Is it something that requires special knowledge?
- Is it something that is new?
- Is it an area we especially need help in?
Donating is something many people can do, and something we really need (for example, we currently have two full-time software developers, which is barely enough to coordinate mission-critical projects).
Testing new functions, and thinking about it, is something that needs to be done, and can now be done for the first time, by anyone with some technical interest.
Editing wiki articles is something that could always be done, by anyone who manages to learn wiki syntax, and (at least for the English Wikipedia) an area we've got pretty well-covered (of course we can always use more, hence its appearance on this page).--Eloquence 21:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in starting the Portuguese version of the Main page/Portal. Should different languages be in pages named Portal/xx? PatríciaR 09:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes :-) --:Bdk: 16:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
And can anybody translate 'Mailing list' in Russian interface as 'Список рассылки' and 'wiki' as 'вики'. --Flrn 13:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I have made a portalpage Portal/sv were translation to swedish slowly will be done. Not ready yet! /Johan Jönsson 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Ok, I added the translation to Template:HomeLang, all but the general text about wikipedia is translated. /Johan Jönsson 18:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Done today, hoping for further development. Wpedzich 21:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
existing quality mechanisms
Probably many people don't know about GA and FA. Would it be useful to highlight those? commons:User:pfctdayelise 13:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Home languages template
It does :
Could someone adapt MediaWiki:Sidebar so that it uses MediaWiki:Mailinglist (for English interface, content: "Mailing list") further on? Also, please create MediaWiki:Mailinglist/ru with "Список рассылки", MediaWiki:Mailinglist/de with "Mailing-Liste" accordingly.
Further requests for translations can be noted below. Many thanks --:Bdk: 16:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Format of the portal
The "portal" page looks great today, but how will it look next month and next year? Is there any point in translating it into more languages? Does a translation now indicate a commitment to keep it translated also in the future? The "trust coloring demo" is perhaps more limited in time than the other points on the portal page. Perhaps such entries should be kept in a blog style, i.e. in strict chronology with a publishing date, header, short intro, and link to an article that gives more detail? --LA2 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- A more dynamic Main Page might be nice, within the limits of what MediaWiki can reasonably handle. If nobody else has any design suggestions right now I'll try a bit next time I have a major update.--Eloquence 17:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
portal graphic design
This looks pretty bad, in my opinion -- not enough padding. Tlogmer 00:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- sofixit... or at least make a draft replacement in your user space. (I think it looks awesome, but that's beside the point.) Cbrown1023 01:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Personally I don't like the Pedia logo standing out, because this needs to be less Wikipedia-centric IMHO. Thunderhead 01:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, feel free to make alternative designs. I've tested the page only under open source browsers, so if anything is odd on IE, Safari or Opera, I'd appreciate a screenshot. As for it being Wikipedia-centric, that's very much by design. This is a page that should inform the general public as much as individuals from our communities. Since the Wikimedia brand itself is not yet very well-known, I am relying strongly on the Wikipedia brand for the purposes of visual orientation. But do note that the intro paragraph links prominently to our list of projects.--Eloquence 17:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm told that Brion will be able to look into a beta setup mid to late next week. I may install the extension on an outside server in the intended configurations as a stopgap measure for those who are interested.--Eloquence 17:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've decided to wait because I'm seeing a potentially major scalability issue in the fr_text column of the flaggedrevs table, which stores a full copy of every flagged revision, with expanded templates. I'm waiting for Brion's opinion on this before proceeding further.--Eloquence 10:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I am astounded at the shear focus on wikipedia here. yes i know its the biggest but come on. this is about wikiMedia not just pedia. change the pedia to media and you might get help and support from the sister projects!! --184.108.40.206 14:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Make it more Debian like...?
Debian has a pretty solid setup and would not take all that much to implement. For instance, you wouldn't have to write and test extensions, nor would you have to implement a color coding scheme that most people wouldn't care to make heads or tails of anyway.
Basically, the idea is this:
To those who don't understand the three-tiered Debian system, those tiers are stable, testing and unstable. I'll explain what this would look like on Wikipedia.
- Unstable would be Wikipedia as it is presently, with few strictures on editing. There's absolutely little or no means of verifying the quality and accuracy of the article at any one time, even under "semi-protection".
- Testing, where articles would be considered for entry into "stable". This is similar to purgatory, where articles would be vetted through as they undergo revisions and any inaccuracies, POV, and other undesirable attributes would be removed.
- Stable would be the supreme tier of Wikipedia with articles checked for accuracy, verifiability and completeness by peer review, and maybe even some hired hands who do this thing for a living. Articles included in stable would be the articles at their best, as of that time. Something like Citizendium is trying to do.
Obviously, it's only a basic idea, but I believe it's something definitely worth pursuing. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 16:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
"Edits by users who have permission to sight changes for vandalism are automatically sighted, unless there are previous unreviewed changes."
So... when I revert vandalism, my revert of it is not sighted because the vandalism itself is not sighted, so for every single revert I make someone has to come along and say that the page is OK again...
Oh god. Sorry, I know you're doing your best, and really want to see the good in this feature, but on large wikis all this extra "sighting" work is going to be a bloody bureaucratic nightmare.
And please move the "this revision is sighted/unsighted/whatever" template out of the page content area. Completely. I will settle for nothing less – 220.127.116.11 00:01, 5 October 2007 (CEST)
"We want to make Wikipedia more useful, and we need your help!"
I tried to help. But my facts didn't reinforce the belief system of your left-wing liberal Administrators and Moderators, and I was booted.
You should say "We want to make Wikipedia LESS BIASED, and we need your help!" then ban David G. for abuse of power. He deleted parts of my discussion (not archives, deletes!) that made me look like a lunatic, then banned me.
Great job. Yeah, right.
I think the "About Wikipedia" header should be placed "below" (and not above) the Wikipedia logo. The text related to this header is separated and the connection is not made well. Also, the header appears alone there above, and doesn't look fine at least in the monitor sizes I work with at the moment (some 1024*768 regular and some 12xx*xxxx widescreen laptop).
I cannot edit it on this page, because it is protected. If there is agrement about it, I think it should also be applied to the translations. Huji 21:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hello?! Huji 19:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I re-added Eloquence's original description of qualitywiki. It seems to have been lost during some pagemove cleanup. --Az1568 10:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, could someone add <span class="plainlinks"> to the Portal? It makes it all a lot more streamlined, or at least use proper interlanguage links (German Wikipedia as supposed to German Wikipedia)? Thanks. Microchip08 16:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Done. --Az1568 02:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Activation of portals
Hi. I'm an admin af af.wikipedia. Do we somehow need to activate a function somewhere to be able to create portals? At the moment a page called "Portal:Afrika", for instance, would simply create an article called "Portal:Afrika". Anrie 19:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)