Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Template talk:Browsebar

There's discussion on the usefulness of the above template on the talk page there. Steve block talk 11:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Listing portals and their subpages

I suggest we trawl through Portal space and list all portals and their related sub-pages here. Sub pages which have no incoming links should be so noted. Pages should be categorised in the appropriate portal category, for example pages related to Portal:Comics should be placed in Category:Comics portal. Where a category doesn't exist, I'd say create it and we can always list it for deletion later if so decided. Steve block talk 11:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather than manually maintain a list, it seems easier to use Special:Allpages. For example, to list all subpages of Portal:Trains, put "Trains" in the "Display pages starting at" field and "Portal" in the "Namespace" field. Slambo (Speak) 11:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and I have been doing so. But if we list what we've found it saves repeating work and allows us to share resources. Not only that, you get subpages which aren't related to portals, for example I discovered Portal:Ancient Rome/Featured article, Portal:Ancient Rome/Featured picture, Portal:Ancient Rome/Categories, Portal:Ancient Rome/Featured article, Portal:Ancient Rome/Featured picture, Portal:Ancient Rome/Intro but no Portal:Ancient Rome. Steve block talk 08:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that any portal with, say, a "Selected anniversaries" section is likely to have hundreds of subpages. Are all of them going to need category tags? Kirill Lokshin 14:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of the project?

In my experience, the stub sorting project maintains fairly rigid guidelines for stub templates/categories/creation/etc., and tends to remove anything they don't like in short order. Is it the intent of this project to enforce a particular structure on portals themselves? Or merely to keep them organized, with the traditional wide latitude given to individual portal maintainers? Kirill Lokshin 13:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

To my mind mainly to make sure we don't get half created portals hanging about the portal space, for example Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Family Guy and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:South Park. I would rather see it used as a talking shop for portal maintainers, for sharing what does and doesn't work, and for generating consensus on contentious issues regarding portals such as the recent discussion over using the term "Featured" in portals. Your question just seems so broad that it is impossible to answer, to be honest. Do you have any specific examples in mind? I mean, to my eye there seems to be a standard look for a portal, namely the boxes. I'd also, from my point of view, like to see better linking between related portals, for example I maintain Portal:Comics and had been relatively unaware of Portal:Anime and manga; it makes sense we both link to each other. So I'm not looking to impose top down rigid guidelines over every single aspect of a portal, but areas such as linking up related portals, shared templates such as {{Portals}}, discussing unmaintained portals and keeping the portal space maintained are things it would make sense discussing in one area. Does that help? I'm not typically one for advocating the removal of something in no short order, I'd rather this were a discussion forum. Steve block talk 09:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Portals under construction

There are quite a few portals in Category:Portals and some of the subcategories that are not ready for general viewing. It's hard to sort them out other than by using Portal:Browse. I suggest adding a Category:Portals under construction subcategory to Category:Portals and recategorizing the incomplete portals there. Also, Template:box portal skeleton should categorize templates to Category:Portals under construction instead of Category:Portals and instructions should be added at Wikipedia:Portal#How to create a new portal for recategorizing a portal once it is ready. Also, these instructions should be expanded to discuss adding completed and polished portals to Portal:Browse.

I'm willing to do this, but would like some consensus first. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 11:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. Steve block talk 12:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Any estimate of how many existing portals would get moved there, incidentally? Kirill Lokshin 14:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, a rough guess after having just gone through almost all the portals fixing a formatting problem caused by a bug in {{box portal skeleton}}, I would say at least 20%, perhaps more. That's out of roughly 200 portals, so at least 40 are incomplete. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
After recategorizing all except the Category:Portal:Geography, there are 43 portals in the Portals under construction category out of 168 total, so more like 25%. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of being bold I'm going to take these two encouraging replies with no cautionary replies as consensus. Basically, I think it's needed, so I was mostly looking to see if there were objections. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mostly done, some portals were borderline

I finished the above recommendations and recategorized all of the portals except those in the Category:Portal:Geography subcategory (I'll do that tomorrow).

My criteria for recatergorizing a portal was:

  • Any redlinks for content sections (but not simply for a red link within the content)
  • A portal in user space

Some portals had empty section content, but since they didn't meet the above criteria, I left them in Category:Portals. These portals should perhaps also be moved to Category:Portals under construction:

Other portals simply had very minimal content, but were well-formed:

And finally, Portal:Classical Civilisation seemed to have all the content, but the formatting was so corrupted that it was unusable, so I moved it to Portals under construction. (If I have time, which isn't looking good the next few days, I will try to fix it.)

—Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, with some help, the Category:Portal:Geography portals are done also. This also completes a pass through all of the portals to fix formatting problems—I think I fixed problems on over 100 portals. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project notice

I've refactored {{portaltalk}} to direct users here rather than Wikipedia talk:Portal.--cj | talk 04:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Portals needing attention

Just discovered Category:Portals needing attention. What do people think, make this a sub-cat of Category:Portals under construction or merge it into that and delete. Steve block talk 21:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a separate category? A portal can be fully constructed and still need cleanup or other work. Kirill Lokshin 21:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I see it as separate. Portals under construction is intended to be instead of Category:Portals. I think Portals needing attention could be used in addition to Portals. In fact, it would be a great place to put those portals I listed above that are missing content, or just lacking enough content. I would make it a subcategory to Portals instead of a subcategory to Portals under construction. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I just went through the portal space and categorised all the main portal pages in either portals or portals under constructions. There were quite a few uncategorised. My next thought is, should each portal have its own category into which its subpages are categorised? On top of that, there's a lot of redirects in portal space, I might make a list of them somewhere to keep an eye on them. Steve block talk 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
should each portal have its own category into which its subpages are categorised?
A couple (like three or four) portals have done this. I don't know if it's really necessary because the "what links here" will reveal them all, but I don't have a strong opinion. However, I do have a strong opinion that if a portal has such a category, that the category is not a subcategory in the Category:Portals hierarchy. You can locate the subpage category easily enough at the bottom of the associated portal page. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
We disagree somewhat there then. Steve block talk 18:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you elaborate? Do you disagree about having the categories, or about including them in the Category:Portals hierarchy? As far as the Portals hierarchy, I don't see the point in "polluting" it with a huge number of categories that basically contain the pieces used to make the main portal page. These pieces are better located from the main page than through the category hierarchy, which, at least to me, has the purpose of finding the portals. But maybe that wasn't where you disagree... —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree with not folding them into Category:Portals. Unless you are arguing to remove all subcats of Category:Portals apart from under construction and needing attention? At the minute, the way the geopgraphy portals are categorised it makes it hard not to put the Portal categories into cat:portals. And if geography portals are categorised like so, it makes sense to categorise all the other portals likewise. Although, a way around it would be to categorise subpages in Category:Portal Comics sub-pages. Thoughts? My end goal here is just to keep an eye on all these subpages and make sure we haven't got unneeded pages kicking about. Steve block talk 13:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    The naming convention I've seen used is Category:Comics portal (wow, I expected this to be a red link). I would create a category for each portal. The reason I don't want to include these portal categories themselves in the Category:Portal hierarchy is because these categories will drawf in number the categories that are organizing the hierarchy. Also, these categories are not useful for browsing, they are useful for editing the page. Because of this, I find it adequate to just locate the category off, in this case, the Portal:Comics page. We could have a category like Category:Portal page categories or Category:Portal sub-pages or whatever is best, but I'm not sway that this would be all that useful. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why individual portals need categories. All subpages should be accessible from the portal, and if not, from What links here.--cj | talk 06:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Listing for deletion?

I'm working up a list of pages in the portal namespace which I think might warrant a listing at MfD. So far I have:

  • Portal:Climate
  • Portal:Climate/box-header
  • Portal:Democracy/Did you know
  • Portal:Democracy/News
  • Portal:Democracy/Featured article
  • Portal:Democracy/Intro
  • Portal:Democracy/Featured picture
  • Portal:Democracy/box-footer
  • Portal:GMA Network
  • Portal:Kolkata/Featured article
  • Portal:Kolkata/Intro

Thoughts? Steve block talk 13:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Portal:GMA Network would actually need to be listed on RfD. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 08:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
No need to even bother with that. I've deleted it. Taking the common sense approach, I see no reason why every else in that list can't be deleted right now. Agreed?--cj | talk 10:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I can see a case for WP:IAR, yes. Steve block talk 12:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Just delete them all, then ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. Actually, we could plausibly establish a Wikipedia:Portals for deletion process - although it's probably not necessary.--cj | talk 00:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Malaysian expressway system

I've listed the above for deletion, just dropping a note here. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Malaysian expressway system for my reasoning. Steve block talk 09:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:University of Texas at Austin

This is an extremely bad precedent. Should this go direct to MFD?--cj | talk 05:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably too small of a subject matter. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be fairly well constructed, actually. While I'm surprised that there are enough UT-related articles to make this possible, we shouldn't judge portals solely on their scope. Kirill Lokshin 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
But doesn't Wikipedia:Portal#How to propose a portal says create portals only on broad topics. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It hasn't been accepted as a guideline yet, though; and even if it is, it wouldn't really qualify as a sufficient reason to delete things. Kirill Lokshin 02:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I just don't see a reason why a subject matter and can be completed fully in one article needs its own portal. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, there's obviously more than one article on this topic (otherwise, it wouldn't really be possible to create even a rudimentary portal). If your complaint is that there are too many articles on the University of Texas, that's a rather different issue, and one quite beyond the scope of this discussion ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The only exception to judging a portal by its scope would be importance of the topic it covers. This portal, to me at least, clearly fails on both counts - it is seriously limited in scope and it isn't important. I mean, this isn't even a university portal - its a portal for a branch of a university! In my opinion Portal:University is where the buck should stop. That schools are allowed articles is already a point of resentment; this portal sets a precedent to allow portals for schools! What happened to broad subject areas?--cj | talk 05:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I have personal reasons for wanting this portal deleted, but if I wasn't an OU alumnus, I wouldn't see much of a problem with it. It looks fairly useful and well-stocked, even if it's color scheme is hideous; it looks like a single university can be a broad enough topic to fill out a portal.--ragesoss 05:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see why we should be judging scope at all, except insofar as portals with a narrow scope usually have trouble in other areas as well. Let's not drag portal-space into the eternal "notability" debate if we can help it. Kirill Lokshin 14:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid they've alway been a part of it - like it or not. The reason we consider scope is because portals are unique: just because an article or series of articles might be justified for a topic, it doesn't mean a portal is. Why? Because portals are like the Main Page, encompassing wide areas and serving as entry-points to them - that is, redirecting users to a multitude of articles. Portals are drawpoints in themselves - they are a fronts for Wikipedia. Just like Portal:Architecture which was recently reviewed by a prominent web network as one of the top 10 best planning, design, and development websites.--cj | talk 14:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
But what does "justified" mean here? I could see your point if all portals were listed on the main page and there was competition for screen real estate; but most portals will only be found by people actively searching for them. They may not be useful to very many readers, but some will find them useful; and I really can't see what the harm is in the existence of well-maintained portals—even if they are narrower in scope than one might expect. Kirill Lokshin 15:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to portals from articles

[edit] Placement and style of portal link

I started discussing this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, but someone suggested it had wider implications, so I've moved the discussion over here. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking at the links from cricket articles to the cricket portal. It seems we have no consistency about how to do this. I count several different styles:

  1. Link at the top of the article, like a dab link. This is the most common style. The links can be:
    1. Italic and indented1
    2. Bold italic and indented2
    3. Bold italic and not indented3 (this is the most common of all, but I think if it's a dab-type link then it should be indented)
  2. Using that little jigsaw thingy:
    1. At the top of the article4
    2. Near the top of the article5
    3. In the References6
    4. In the External Links7
    5. In the See Also8
  3. As a text link in See Also:
    1. Piped9
    2. Unpiped10
  4. From the History of cricket template.11

Some articles have more than one of these.12

Is there a standard for this? Myself, I don't like the dab link. I may be influenced by the fact that I'm not a big fan of portals (dare I admit such heresy here? I accept I'm probably in the minority on that), but it feels a bit spammy to me. Do we really need to trumpet the portal at the top of the article? I also don't like "overloading" the space used for dab links: it's confusing to use the space for different purposes, and it causes problems when we need a dab link as well.13,14. So that's my least favourite way.

Any other views? Or any citations of a standard?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I never realised how many methods there are to link to the portal! Like Stephen, I think the dab link is a bit distracting. Yet it won't serve as much purpose when it is very low down in the article, like in the See also section. I prefer the box in the top right corner where it catches the eye but doesn't make the reader offguard. GizzaChat © 11:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The box in the top-right hand corner still feels spammy to me, I'm afraid. It's as if portals are somehow being regarded as superior to other methods of browsing Wikipedia, so deserve special treatment. I'd be happier to have more links to the portal if it was less prominent. And also that space is often in use with a photo, or in the case of cricket articles with a biographical infobox15, so what do you do then? Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, anything in the top of pages is spammy. Isn't meta information supposed to be only on the talk page? But portals are only semi-meta? I believe the "see also"-section is the best place to put it. --Boivie 12:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The dab link option is thoroughly inappropriate. That was an option undertaken only by Portal:Cricket (principally by jguk) prior to the creation of the portalpar templates, and has unfortunately stuck and recently extended. I have been removing them where I come across it. Text links in see also are also a bad option (and one I had not encountered). Both {{portalpar}} and {{portal}} are the standard format, but they are inconsistently implemented. A discussion earlier this year at Wikipedia talk:Portal established a consensus that they should be located at article ends, preferably in the See also section. Linking from navigational templates and infoboxes seems okay so long as it is done discreetly; in fact, someone has suggested that country portals be linked to from the Infobox Country.

I think that a better way to integrate portals with articles needs to be found. Also, which articles should link to particular portals needs to be addressed. I am open to the idea of an icon in the title bar, similar to {{featured article}}, as a way to access portals. The only problem with this is that the title bar is increasingly occupied by other things including co-ordinates. --cj | talk 12:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • FWIW, I'm quite happy with {{portal}} in the =See also= section. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't work too well when the article doesn't have a "See also" section, though ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Well somewhere near the end of the article (where =See also= would otherwise be) but above ext links and refs (assuming they're there), cause it really is a see also type of thing we're talking about. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to use {{portal}}/{{portalpar}} near the top of the portal's main topic article (and not on other articles that are related to the portal's main topic) and a See also type text link on appropriate WikiProject pages. The portals are already linked from the main page and through Portal:Browse; I don't see as much of a need to advertise them around on all related articles. Slambo (Speak) 13:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In the case of almost all (and presumably eventually all) cricketer articles, putting {{portal}}/{{portalpar}} near the top of the article will interfere with the infobox which is also in the top right hand corner. -- Ian ≡ talk 05:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I confess to being a top right linker, although I've only linked one article to Portal:Comics. Steve block talk 08:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Choosing which articles to have a portal link

I've refactored this discussion slightly as two separate issues have developed. I hope that's OK -- Ian ≡ talk 05:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

...(copied from above) The portals are already linked from the main page and through Portal:Browse; I don't see as much of a need to advertise them around on all related articles. Slambo (Speak) 13:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, where to stop is another issue. We have something over 3000 cricket biographies, before you've even thought about other articles. Should they all link to the portal? If not, which ones should? At the moment, it's all rather haphazard. Many of the most prominent articles do, but many non-prominent articles do too, depending presumably what the original author copied. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked Ianbrown about why some articles have this or not, and he said ([1]) that showcase articles on the portal should link to this portal - I was wondering whether I should spam articles with the portal links to two that I had created, (Portal:Eurovision and Portal:Swimming) because it could possibly considered bad form wrt vanispamcruftadvertising portals which I had created. So I proceeeded to advertise the portal on the showcase articles. I'm fine with whatever is decided - formatting, obtrusiveness, etc. ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Showcased article linking is a good suggestion. Outside that, I figure the main article, for example, Cricket for Portal:Cricket and so on, should link to the portal, and maybe top level categories in the related category should link to it, so all the cats in Category:Cricket. That seems like a fairly good list of places which should link. To sum up:
  • Foo should link to Portal:Foo.
  • Category:Foo and top level categories in Category:Foo.
  • Showcased articles on Portal:Foo.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo should link to Portal:Foo.

Thoughts, additions or subtractions? Steve block talk 08:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Foo, Category:Foo and Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo should link to Portal:Foo. But for other articles I prefer if the link is from the talk page. For example like in the Portal:Cars-selected-article-template at Talk:Lincoln Town Car. --Boivie 09:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't thinking about talk page links, just links in the main article space. For items that I put in the Portal:Trains#Did you know section, I put {{Trains portal/DYK date|(the date it appeared there)}} on the talk page, so I guess putting a link on the talk page for portal features is appropriate. However, I think putting such a link on the article itself isn't appropriate, especially when you consider that many of the Did you know features are stubs. Slambo (Speak) 15:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that all related articles related to a portal are eleigible to be linked. It improves the functionality of wikipedia. If you have an interest in a topic, you will naturally want to look at thta portal. --evrik 19:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, selected articles for a portal should not link to the portal. Only one significant article in the article namespace should link to any given portal (there are probably exceptions where two or three articles might link). I think it's also acceptable for "Current events in xxx" to link to a related portal, and maybe some redirects. All links from the article namespace are only valid if the portal will contain relevant material to the original article indefinitely. As an example, Portal:Oceania covers more than two dozen countries, but Oceania is the only mainspace article other than current events articles, "Oceania portal", and "P:O" to link to it, and I think the archives of Current events in Oceania might benefit from having the link removed.-gadfium 05:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use Images

There doesn't seem to be a policy on this and the official policy doesn't even mention portals. I've seen some editors not allow any fair use images while otheres let any image go on the portal. Thats why I propose that this project make a policy on it. Aren't portals the same thing as the main Wikipedia page. If so shouldn't portals follow that policy of allowing fair use images only in news articles/selected images only if their is corresponding text and an article and only if their is no other image to be used. Jedi6-(need help?) 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Portals are not the same thing as the Main page. Policies differ from portal to portal, but most have selected articles that are not Featured articles and selected pictures that are not Featured pictures. To demand that they adhere to the same standards as the main page would be to demand that they recycle the very small number of featured articles and pictures that are relevant to each over and over, or that they not have such selections. It was rightly objected to that portals initially called their selections "featured", as that devalues the word.
For a portal's "In The News" or "Did You Know" sections, I feel a fair use picture is okay, because it is illustrating an item directly relevant to that picture. For a selected picture, I feel it is not okay, since the picture is the focus rather than the writeup that goes with it. Also, perhaps more importantly, a selected picture should show off Wikipedia's content for the given area, and fair use pictures are not our content.
I'm agreeing with Jedi6 here about fair use images being allowed in suitable context on portal pages, but I think I'm approaching this from a different direction.-gadfium 02:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
So does anyone object if we make this the project's policy. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of subpages of Portal:Trains were edited today by Ed g2s (talk • contribs) to remove all the company logos reasoning that fair use is strictly forbidden outside of the main article space. I don't entirely agree with this but I'm not going to start reverting things yet. Slambo (Speak) 13:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I do think it is ridiculous to straight-out prohibit fair use images in portalspace. Should we make it an aim of this project to ammend the fair use policy to allow fair use images in portalspace where appropriate; the convention the Main Page goes by seems valid.--cj | talk 04:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Portal space should be treated like article space in this regard. Certainly, the case for that being standard fair use is clearcut; it's no different than in an article.--ragesoss 05:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be a flat-out campaign to prohibit them yet; if it was, I would have seen quite a few more edits pop up on my watchlist last week. It was my understanding that portals were basically special types of articles, and as long as the text next to an image directly discusses the subject of the image (like a news or anniversary item about a specific company with an image of that company's logo when no other images are available), it would qualify as a fair use of the image. I hate to fall back on the flag images for all of the news items. Slambo (Speak) 10:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Ed g2s has been removing them from a few pages on my watchlist.--cj | talk 11:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think a straw poll at a centralised area is probably the best idea to determine the consensus on this issue; it's a contentious one for sure. Steve block Talk 11:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting Help

There are some image formatting issues that I just discovered on Portal:History of science as well a number the main portals. In Internet Explorer, many images don't show up, while other appear at the bottom of the page or misplaced in some other way. Any help sorting this out would be appreciated.--ragesoss 21:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines

It would be good if we can use Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines to articulate best-practice for portals. Please add your thoughts.--cj | talk 07:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, but do we even have any portal-specific best-practices other than the featured portal criteria? Kirill Lokshin 11:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it could serve as an opportunity to make clear general standards for portals. This would allow as to determine what is "sub-standard".--cj | talk 05:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References on portals?

In working through some updates to the anniversaries section of Portal:Trains, the thought struck me that there really isn't any reason that I can think of to hide the references on the portal page. Using the <ref> structure and including such tags within the transcluded pages, it's trivial to create a section at the bottom of the page with <references /> where they are displayed. What are other editors' thoughts on including a References section at the bottom of a portal to list all the refs for facts currently on the portal? Slambo (Speak) 13:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just tried it with the current portal setup and it didn't quite work as easily as I had hoped. I think the problem is that the <ref> tags are all on transcluded pages. It seems that the parser goes through searching for references at a different point than I thought it would. Slambo (Speak) 15:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's a good idea from a design standpoint, in any case. We don't have footnotes directly on the main page, for example; all of the references are supposed to be in the linked articles. Is there any reason for portals to be fundamentally different in this regard? Kirill Lokshin 15:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page segments.

The talk page for Portal:Music does not allow for editing specific sections. Is there a way to fix this issue, so that there is an alternative method of responding to a given section without using the 'edit this page' feature? --Folajimi 23:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. The example box of anniversaries transcluded the box-header template, which has no-edit and no-table-of-contents markup embedded in it. Though for some reason, substituting in the content broke the anniversaries box boarder.--ragesoss 00:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medicine portal

I'm the maintainer of that portal which is a featured candidate now. I've changed to currentyear-currentweek system in featured articles, pictures. But the edit button of the box (obviously) points to the original template (portal:medicine/selected article for example). How should I solve it to point to portal:medicine/selected article/22/ 2006? Thanks. NCurse work 10:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The edit link in the template needed to use the same currentweek-currentyear syntax as the content transclusion itself. I've fixed it for you. Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 13:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Great! NCurse work 16:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin America Portal

Hi. I am trying to make the Latin America portal better, and so wanted the related portals to be a band all the way across the bottom of the page. Instead, the box seems to be stuck on the right side, causing a serious problem in formatting. Does anyone have any suggestions of how to make my idea work? Estrellador* 21:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the earlier subpages (Portal:Latin America/Things you can do) was missing a </div> tag. I've added it.-gadfium 23:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I was trying to fix that for quite a while. :) Estrellador* 08:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Books

Input on the future of Portal:Books would be appreciated at Portal talk:Books.--cj | talk 07:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Projects, Portals and People

I made a little table for coordinating WikiProjects, Portals and People for 50 U.S. states. It is here:

 Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._states/PPP.

WP:CBTF -- CQ

[edit] Reveiws and critiqes

Portal:Numismatics
 Numismatics Portal

Hey, need a few people to review and critiqe 2 portals for me, please. I would like to put Numismatics up for Wikipedia:Featured portals soon.

Portal:Texas
 Texas Portal

Texas is newer and slower going, but would like opions.

[edit] Portals status and evaluation

Related to the discussion of the proposal process, I think an effort is needed to go through what's currently in the portal namespace, evaluate the portals (similar to Wikipedia:Version 0.5), identify what portals are in need of major attention, and develop a course of action. In some cases, portals are in such bad shape ("D-Class") with the topics too narrow, that they should be put up for WP:MFD. In other cases, the topic is sufficiently broad that a call could be made to relevant WikiProjects and editors to help. I see other portals that fit "A-Class" (almost featured status), "B-Class" (regularly/periodically maintained), and "C-Class" (needs significant work). To that end, I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals/Status to begin doing this. I originally planned to visit each portal, personally, but find it's daunting and think this would work better with many people helping. The decision of assigning a particular class is quite subjective, but generally fits the characteristics I have listed at the top of the page. I also think portals should be revisited periodically and by different users. If anyone has suggestions, ideas, or thoughts about this, please weigh in. --Aude (talk contribs) 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

One outcome of this effort could be an outreach campaign to Wikipedians, to attract more people to help with the various portals. This could include writing something for Signpost. --Aude (talk contribs) 18:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Countries of Latin America

Hi again. Sorry to be a pain, but could someone tell me where I went wrong with that section's syntax? The box doesn't line up with the others properly. Portal:Latin America -Estrellador* 08:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured portal candidates

If anyone has a bit of free time, the featured portal candidates (particularly the Biography one) could really use some more reviewers. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philadelphia portal

It looks like some contributors from Philadelphia have been a bit overenthusiastic in their application of Template:Portal. The consensus of the discussion above seemed to be that the template should only be placed on a handful of articles and categories. Portal:Philadelphia, on the other hand, currently has over 350 links (including Pretzel, Hoagie, and Fat Albert) pointing to it. If you'd like to voice your opinion, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philadelphia#Portal template. - EurekaLott 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I disagree. First, the discussion above was vague, non-binding, and very exclusive. The Philadelphia wikiproject people have been active in trying to promote Philadelphia-realted articles. I think the little cabal on this page should sit on their hands and let people work on the articles.
Pretzel, Hoagie, and Fat Albert all are categorized with Phaildelphia related cat's and mention Philadelphia in their articles. EurekaLott, I always assume good faith, otherwise I would think you're being retaliatory because your edits to those three articles were reversed.
Oh, by the way, I know of four or five other portals that have tagged way many more articles. --South Philly 03:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I spent a fair amount of time looking at the guidelines this morning. There are no guidelines as to the use of {{portalpar}}. Did I miss it? When I looked at Template:Portalpar I saw the following, "Use: This template is used to link an article to its related portal." Could you please cite what policy you ar referencing? --evrik 16:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney

A Portal created recently by Mallimak (talk • contribs) - the Orkney Portal - has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion please contribute at:

Thanks. --Mais oui! 08:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do attend to the discussion. It has been sidetracked from the fact Portal:Orkney ought not to exist by a dispute between users. Please assess the portal on its merits (which I venture to suggest are non-existant) and contribute your position. Thanks, --cj | talk 14:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Civil War Portal

Portal:American Civil War
 American Civil War Portal

The American Civil War Portal is fixing to take shape whether anyone approves of it or not. E Pluribus Unum. Deal with it. • CQ 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Randomized portal component

Randomized portal component

I've seen a few "pseudo" randomized portal component at Portal:Military of the United States, Portal:Numismatics, Portal:War, and Portal:Texas. (By "component, I meant things like "Selected article" or "Selected biography"). The randomness is actually based on the current time, which IMHO is good enough for this application. The code looks like

{{/box-header|''Selected pictures''|Portal:Military of the United States/Selected picture/{{#ifexpr:({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} mod 22) >= 0 | {{#expr:({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} mod 22) + 1}} | {{#expr:-({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} mod 22) + 1}} }}|}} {{Portal:Military of the United States/Selected picture/{{#ifexpr:({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} mod 22) >= 0 | {{#expr:({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} mod 22) + 1}} | {{#expr:-({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} mod 22) + 1}} }}}} {{/box-footer|[[Portal:Military of the United States/Selected picture|More pictures...]]}}

I am thinking about turning that into a template. Something like

 {{aNewTemplate|PortalRoot|ComponentSubpage|ComponentHeader|maxNumberOfInstances}}

But before being bold, I'd like to ask you if you have seen anything like this or any talk about that. I just want to avoid duplication of effort or having two or more competing templates that do the same thing. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've not noticed any relevant discussion elsewhere. I think it would be a worthwhile contribution.--cj | talk 04:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added the type of randomization CBDunkerson has at Wikipedia:Featured content/Portals to Cats, Dogs, Psychology, and the List. The one "drawback" I've noticed is that when two or more sections are "randomized," they stay in sync, so I used combination sets for the low frequency sections to mix things up a bit more. A template with a "seed" parameter would be nice for situations like that. Rfrisbietalk 20:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I created {{Random portal component}}. Converted with Portal:Military of the United States, Portal:Numismatics, Portal:War, and Portal:Texas! It can be easily exported to Cats portal or any others. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It works great, thanks! To give it more flexibility for different portal designs, I made the footer text optional. I also added an option to change the seed value to allow different results on the same page. Rfrisbietalk 18:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I've implemented the template using the new options at Cats, Dogs, and Psychology. Rfrisbietalk 18:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amendment for Fair use images in Portal

An amendment has been suggested to the Fair Use criteria to allow fair use images in Portals. Please visit Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals and voice your opinion. Thanks! -- ReyBrujo 19:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Since enabling the use of fair use images in portalspace is one of the goals of this project, I also encourage members to consider the amendment.--cj | talk 00:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space portals

hi, there's been some discussion lately about what how the content in Portal:Space exploration and Portal:Spaceflight should be divided and organized (see their talk pages). It's been suggested that Portal:Space technology be created, but it is far from clear how do divide content between the three, and whether or not all three should exist. If anyone has ideas, your comments would be welcome (here). Mlm42 16:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that portals with broader scope are more useful than specialised portals. Thusly, I would suggest that the discussion should be ultimately geared towards converging the three existing portals.--cj | talk 03:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they should definintely be merged. One really great portal with a lot of content is much better than three average (or in the case of Space, below average) portals. "Space" sort of implies spaceflight and exploration, as opposed to astronomy, so I think Space would be a good choice for the final destination of the content from the other two.--ragesoss 13:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm.. i think one of the reasons they were created separately may have been so that they nicely fit as subportals to Portal:Transport and Portal:Technology.. a portal titled Space hardly seems appropriate as a subportal of either of those.. Mlm42 16:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
If nobody else has anything to add, it seems that a merge into a single Portal:Space is what people are suggesting. Any other input? Awolf002 00:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw Poll and Discussion

There is a straw poll and discussion under way at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals to consider whether fair use images should be allowed in Portals. Please come by if you would like to discuss, the poll is scheduled to close soon. Johntex\talk 14:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Work

Hello, I'm Dfrg.msc, and I want to make some constructive edits to Wikipedia. It's not that I am unable to, I would just like some guidance. So, if you have any specific tasks related to this topic, please inform me on my talk page, be specific and include links and I'll help out as soon as I can. Thanks, Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 07:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cats 'n Dogs living together!

If anyone can offer some tips on the respective portal talk pages about how to improve Cats 'n Dogs up to "featured" quality, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 00:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] portal tabs

Has any portal tried using Tabs at the top of the portal for easy navigation, as in de:Portal:Raumfahrt (German Spaceflight portal), or de:Portal:Bahn (German Trains portal)? it seems like a useful idea.. but would it break too much from the seemly standardized style of most portals here? Mlm42 15:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the tabs on Portal:Bahn as I look into translating items from it for Portal:Trains. I haven't tried implementing them on P:T yet mostly because I haven't seen as much of a need for information that isn't already covered on the current portal. Slambo (Speak) 19:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You can see other tabs implementations at Wikipedia:Introduction/Header and Wikipedia:Tutorial/Header. Rfrisbietalk 20:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic rotation of selected article and such

Its possible to have a system so that every week or every month a new article is selected from a pre-determined list (as it were) but is there a way so that the article will stay there for two weeks. A month seems a bit too long and week might be a bit short, it is all down to the variables like CURRENTMONTH and such but is there something like CURRENTFORTNIGHT or something along those lines. I just don't want to run out of good articles too soon. Chris_huhtalk 15:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You could use the modulo function of {{#expr:}} to see if the current week number is even and rotate based on that. For example, the code could go something like this:
{{Portal:Foo/Selected article/{{#ifexpr:{{{CURRENTWEEK}}}%2=1
   |{{#expr:({{{CURRENTWEEK}}}+1)/2}}
   |{{#expr:{{{CURRENTWEEK}}}/2}}}}, {{{CURRENTYEAR}}}}}
(note, I haven't tried this out in my sb yet...). This would transclude Portal:Foo/Selected article/1, 2006 through Portal:Foo/Selected article/26, 2006 for this year. Slambo (Speak) 16:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
And removing the CURRENTYEAR would help maintain the list if you have no more than 26ish items to work with. Rfrisbietalk 18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
More simply, for pages named Portal:Foo/Selected article/2006-0 through Portal:Foo/Selected article/2006-25 you can do:
{{Portal:Foo/Selected article/{{{CURRENTYEAR}}}-{{#expr:{{{CURRENTWEEK}}}/2 round 0}}}}

—Doug Bell talk•contrib 12:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I think that second will work well, so might implement that in a bit. Thanks again. Chris_huhtalk 13:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 05:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Chemistry

I've recently made some major changes to the above portal, and I don't think it would take much work to get it to featured status. If anyone could offer us some pointers and check if we're going in the right direction, that'd be great. I'm watching Portal talk:Chemistry. Cheers, riana_dzasta 05:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hide/Show boxes in portal sections?

Here's a question. Are hide/show boxes in portal sections "okay"? In particular, would they be okay for a "featured" portal? Rfrisbietalk 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It would depend on which sections are being hidden (ie, content should always be visible), but in general I would say it's a Bad Idea. I think there's a potential with nifty features like this to confuse visitors, some of whom may not be tech-savvy.--cj | talk 03:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Portals_b4fe.html"