Template talk:PortalPage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've noticed that this template creates other templates when making a PortalPage. The current way the box portal skeleton works is to create subpages that are used to make the boxes. Could this way be used here as well. There would not be so many templates made that are only used on one page. Template:Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Culture/Wikiprojects could be moves to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Culture/Wikiprojects and the page will still look the same. Trevor macinnis 19:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Use template:Categorybrowsebar at the top of page

After about a month of editing articles at Wikipedia, I’m finally getting a general understanding of how the articles are related to each other and how to navigate to them. And that’s only because I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time trying to figure it out. Now, you might say that I’m just particularly slow in such things as finding my own aspects of the situation, but I dare say the navigation structure of this web site deserves at least half the credit. It’s not that a very impressive amount of thought and effort hasn’t gone into addressing the issue, but I believe most visitors would agree it still needs a little work.

The categorization schemes at Wikipedia:Category schemes focus on Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that happens to be on a web site, while navigation schemes focus on Wikipedia as a web site that happens to hold an encyclopedia. Categorization schemes focus mainly on the logic, while navigation schemes focus mainly on the usability of a web site. As a web site, I would expect Wikipedia to have a top-level navigation scheme, based on the primary categorization scheme, that would help me move about logically and quickly.

I'd like to propose the use of template:Categorybrowsebar at the top of every main category and portal page. The amount of useful information crammed into these two lines is invaluable and should be available from any page. If it’s placed at the top of every page, and possibly reduced in size a bit, it would be much more widely accessible and take up a minimum of page space. Most importantly, novices and experts alike would have the full range of Wikipedia’s category schemes at their fingertips on key introductory and summary pages. In my opinion, the cost of adding one more line is well worth it compared to the cost of the steep learning curve for how to get around Wikipedia with an inadequate content navigation structure. - RDF 06:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I've received no replies regarding the revert of adding template:Categorybrowsebar to the top of category pages in which the only objections were it took up too many lines and it wasn't discussed by me first. Now, I've discussed it and I created a one-line version of it. Consequently, I'm replacing template:eight portals links with template:Categorybrowsebaroneline. — RDF talk 14:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, this one is even worse, as it still spans two lines on 1024x768. I personally never use the second line of the navigation bar and some people complain that the entire portal page is too large, so I really want to keep it as small as possible. --R.Koot 17:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why, but my monitor is set at 1024x768 and it displays on one line. That was my objective. How many items are on the second line for your display? I like the idea of portal pages as being more than some type of list, otherwise, why bother? My ideal solution would be to have a one-line browse bar at the top of each page (see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Add topical navigation menu to every Wikipedia page). Then it could be removed from all the templates. Here's the script pile0nadestalk | contribs developed for such a purpose. It includes my edits to make a one-line version.


/* Add Template:Categorybrowsebar to top of page */ setTimeout("categorybrowsebar()", 0); function categorybrowsebar() { var div = document.createElement("div"); div.innerHTML = '

<a href="/wiki/Category:Culture" title="Category:Culture">Culture</a> | <a href="/wiki/Category:Geography" title="Category:Geography">Geography</a> | <a href="/wiki/Category:History" title="Category:History">History</a> | <a href="/wiki/Category:Personal_life" title="Category:Personal life">Life</a> | <a href="/wiki/Category:Mathematics" title="Category:Mathematics">Mathematics</a> | <a href="/wiki/Category:Science" title="Category:Science">Science</a> | <a href="/wiki/Category:Human_societies" title="Category:Human societies">Society</a> | <a href="/wiki/Category:Technology" title="Category:Technology">Technology</a> | <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Browse" title="Wikipedia:Browse">Subjects</a> | <a href="/wiki/Portal:Browse" title="Portal:Browse">Portals</a> | <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Browse_by_overview" title="Wikipedia:Browse by overview">Articles</a> | <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Quick_index" title="Wikipedia:Quick index">Alpha</a> | <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Category_schemes" title="Wikipedia:Category schemes">Other</a>

'

document.getElementById("content").insertBefore(div, document.getElementsByTagName("h1")[0]);

}


In the meantime, are you okay with some expanded one-line version that includes browse pages? — RDF talk 18:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't those links belong in the navigation box on the side? Vertical should be used sparingly. The 'Other' link is on the second line. I also don't like the small caps/italic. And I think the abbreviations are not very clear. --R.Koot 18:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I removed the smallcaps/italics. I must be missing something, because the second line doesn't look like "Other" to me. Top or side doesn't matter much to me, as long as they're available. Two lines or terse abbreviations is the tradeoff. There would be slightly more room on the sidebar, but I don't have access to that. Here's a revised version. Does it still take up two lines on your screen? — RDF talk 19:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Culture | Geography | History | Life | Mathematics | Science | Society | Technology | Categories | Portals | Articles | Alpha | More

It's on one line now. --R.Koot 21:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Overloading the "featured" terminology

I very, very strongly object to the use of "featured article" and "featured picture" in this template. The stuff being used on the portals are, in almost all cases, *not* featured articles or pictures -- and this gives the impression they are. Raul654 02:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's start with the definition of "featured". What does that word mean to you? Go for it! 01:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The definition of "featured article" is quite clearly defined at wikipedia:Featured articles, and the featured pictures are at wikipedia:featured pictures Raul654 01:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Rather silly question, but do you have any objection to the term being used in cases where the material is actually featured articles and pictures? —Kirill Lokshin 19:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
No - I have no objection to using the term "featured" to label featured articles and pictures as such; I object to using it as a generic term (.e,g, to describe articles which are not featured articles or pictures which are not featured pictures). Raul654 19:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Which navigation bars are necessary?

This template is here to help, but the user has to make concessions in customization and variety. Please do not remove the Navigation or Portals links. If you want to make them more tightly spaced, go ahead. I like density. Make sure any changes you make match the triumverate of Category, Portal, Overview (or "main page", we are still hammering that on that one). -- Fplay 19:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Good points. I perfectly agree with the portal links:

Art | Culture | Geography | History | Mathematics | People | Philosophy | Science | Society | Technology

However, I don't see the point in having the offtopic links

Almanac · Categories · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Questions · Site news · Index

The show up at the very top of every portal and are not so relevant. I would argue that there is no need for them, or at least put them at the bottom of the page or something. In my view, they just clutter the display. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Anything not pertaining to the subject of the page you are on is "off topic". That includes other portals, categories, etc. But having a general navigation tool readily available is very useful, which is especially important for beginners, and for users who like to browse and study across many subject areas. In addition, each of the items in the browse bar include something about each of the portal's subject areas, and are therefore generally relevant.
...but this talk page is a rather out of the way corner of Wikipedia to be discussing a topic with such widespread scope as this. Go for it! 01:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
You are incorrect. If you read my post above you will see that I have no problem with links to other portals. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sub Pages

Could somebody please format this metatemplate to use sub-pages of the portals themselve rather than templates. Portals should not be using templates. Instead of Template:Wikipedia:Wikiportal..., boxes should be universally located at Portal:Whatever/Featured article etc. I don't have time to examine the code.--cj | talk 09:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/r/Template_talk%7EPortalPage_ea78.html"