Wikipedia talk:Portal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 • Archive 4

Contents

[edit] Template:Browsebar graphic

{{Browsebar graphic}} was recently inserted into many portals, replacing the text-only browsebar. Per WP:DISCUSS, I feel this needs discussion and consensus here. My own opinion is that the icons are too big and distract from the portals, themselves. They compete for attention with the subportal icons (e.g. Portal:Geography). The text-only links are more subtle and fit more compactly at the top. However, it is common practice to repeat navigation links at the bottom of web pages. The browsebar graphic (with slightly smaller icons) could possibly serve this purpose at the bottom of portals. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with its insertion also. I would disagree with having a smaller graphic bar at the bottom of portals also. Templates are easy to insert and for that reason they proliferate like mad and end up being very distracting on pages. I would suggest that the graphic browsebar be removed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The top-level portals are generally not useful/relevant enough to merit such a large quantity of space. Unless a good reason for using this template can be given, its use should be discouraged, in favour of the normal browsebar template.--Nema Fakei 19:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The icons can be minimized. Many readers may not pay attention to the non-graphical links. I agree about the idea of placing the template at the bottom. Cheers -- Szvest 19:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
I took a look through a few of the portals that have the icon bar on them now, and I prefer the browsebar without the icons. I think those icons are better used on a general page about and linking to all portals rather than on each individual portal. The non-graphic browsebar can get the reader back to one of the main topics. Slambo (Speak) 19:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I also prefer the plain text {{browsebar}}. The {{browsebar graphic}} is far too obtrusive for a minor feature. Perhaps it should be removed altogether, and {{browsebar}} be made the standard? I see no reason for inconsistency.--cj | talk 03:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Such icons were suggested (and rejected) during the Main Page redesign process. They detract significantly from the portal itself. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it has been removed from every portal. WP:TFD?--cj | talk 04:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Just one thing; the template that most people want to delete fits on one line, while the proposed standard is jarring on aesthetics, spilling onto a second line when viewed in Firefox @ 800 X 600. Until this issue is resolved, the Template:browsebar_graphic should not be removed. After it fits on one line, then go ahead and replace it with Template:browsebar. Brisvegas 10:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Unlike other portals, Template:browsebar_graphic appeared in Portal:Christianity since its earliest inception, as it was taken from Portal:Constructed Languages. No one had previously raised any issues about the graphical browsebar affecting the portal's aesthetics. However, if community consensus is to get rid of it, then this is fine provided that the issue mentioned above (the categories spilling onto a second line) is resolved. Otherwise, we can get rid of browsebars altogether and replace them with something more user-friendly such as Template:Selected portals. Brisvegas 10:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Much of Wikipedia looks awful at 600x800, though. This is one way to avoid the above consequence without making the text too small. Are there any other options? --cj | talk 10:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I edited it so it looks fine on pages like Portal:Islam at 800x600. I'm pretty sure this is the only way. If you make it any bigger than it is right now, it'll become two lines on certain pages. BhaiSaab talk 20:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I created Template:browsebar_graphic originally. I think it looks pretty good, and it saddens me that it is being removed. Possibly it could be tweaked? Maybe with smaller icons? JonMoore 18:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I like your idea, and would support the addition of the Template:Browsebar graphic to the portals, either to all of them or to only the 10 ones in this bar... -- Jokes Free4Me 21:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
One has to keep in mind not only if things are pretty, but if they are useful. The browsebar by itself is not of much use, seeing a link to the mathematics portal from the top of the beatles portal ain't that terribly helpful. Seing in addition distracting pretty pictures not relevant at all to most portals does not help much. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I concur; the text-only version is better, because it isn't distracting. Is there anyway that we can set the browserbar to scale with screen resolution? I appreciate that this new smaller version fits in one line for 800x600, but for larger resolutions the previous version was much better.--ragesoss 23:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Please, a minimum of 90%, anything smaller is inadvisable. I also am opposed to any icons for all the reasons given above. -Quiddity 02:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
90% makes it two lines. See Portal:Islam or Portal:Christianity. BhaiSaab talk 04:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
For this reason, Template:browsebar should probably be abandoned as well in favour of a different solution. With that template we have a conundrum; make the text readable but have it spill onto two lines, or fit it onto one line and make it difficult to read. This dilemna makes it a rather poor choice for portal browsing. As an alternative, we could remove one of the categories and reduce them to just 9. This was why the Template:browsebar_graphic was successful - despite having 10 top-level categories as well, it fits onto one line. Brisvegas 04:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The browsebar should be removed indeed, or otherwise put to the bottom, as it is not as important to show up at the top. But no, the perty image browsebar is not the answer. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
What if we made it two lines on purpose? We could the first half of the categories on top, and the second half on the bottom. This way the text could be larger as well. BhaiSaab talk 05:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I tried this approach several months ago, but was later reverted. Perhaps now the community consensus has changed. Personally, I wouldn't mind an intentional double-line bar, with five on one line and five on the other. Brisvegas 05:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
That would waste space and look particularly silly at anything over 1024x768. 2 lines, when some people dont even like having the one line, is not a likely option ;)
I don't get wordwrap at 800x600 at 90%, even at the Islam portal (in firefox, windows). I can barely read it at 84% though, it looks very unprofessional that small, in my browser with default settings... And it is on too many pages for it to be tweaked just for one instance. Maybe fix the portal, instead of the template. -Quiddity 05:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't have anything to do with the portal itself, because at 800x600 it's two lines for me on all portals. BhaiSaab talk 19:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
This browsebar should die. A link to Portal:Browse where all the portals are grouped nicely (with cute icons) should be enough. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. -Quiddity 21:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
It's somewhat useful as an aesthetic addition to a page (having a line of links above a large-font portal name seems more balanced than just having the title at the top), but not really needed from a navigational standpoint. Kirill Lokshin 22:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's useful and should be kept if at all possible. I like flitting from portal to portal with it. For me, it wraps to two lines in IE at 800x600, but not in Firefox. But probably most people operating at 800x600 are using IE. I think removing the culture portal is the best solution; it's not a great poral, and it overlaps with the Society portal in its scope anyway. As a reminder, the Main Page has neither the philosophy portal nor the culture portal linked at the top. I could see the a case for the philosophy portal being significant enough to remain in this bar (or not), but the culture portal just doesn't belong.--ragesoss 22:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I'm proceeding with the removal of the culture portal.--ragesoss 17:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I support that (just in case ;) -Quiddity 18:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
If culture is removed, so too should philosophy be. The browsebar may as well be consistent with the Main Page. Logically though, I see both arts and philosophy as subsets of culture.--cj | talk 07:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Logically, I see science, technology, history, arts, philosophy, and society as subsets of culture. But the culture portal is just plain bad. If we removed philosophy, there would be almost no way to reach the philosophy portal or any of the religion portals from the browsebar portals, just based on the prominently linked subportals and related portals. (History or Science -> History of science -> Philosophy is the only way I can see, but that's not likely to be anticipated by users looking for philosophy or religion portals.) I brought this up at Talk:Main_Page#Adding_Philosophy_to_the_main_portals_list, but no one has responded yet.--ragesoss 00:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Papua New Guinea

This is a reasonably well-formed portal that has been unmaintained for about three months. The creator has not edited Wikipedia at all since March. I helped set up the portal but I am not willing to take over maintenance. Before I nominate it for deletion, does anyone want to take it over? I would be happy to help someone learn the ropes.-gadfium 00:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any WikiProject for Papua New Guinea, so I suggest letting people know on Talk:Papua New Guinea. I also suggest putting an announcement on the community portal. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I've taken your advice.-gadfium 02:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of portals accurate?

I'm fairly sure (but not sure enough to change the main article) that wiki Portals started with the Wikinews project and the bureaucrats working there, then found its way into the German Wikipedia. Davodd 07:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In the context of the encyclopædia, portals were imported from the German Wikipedia. Where the Germans got the idea for a portal from, I'm not sure, though, from my experience with Wikinews, I didn't notice portals there until towards the middle of last year.--cj | talk 08:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know

I think there should be a question mark after Did you know, or at least an ellipsis (…) like on the Main Page. (I couldn't find where can I add it to the template and I didn't really want to mess with templates anyway, since it would affect lots of portals, I guess…) – Alensha 寫 词 23:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You're working on Portal:Hungary, right? Click the "edit" tab on the Portal:Hungary page. You should see the following lines in the wikicode:
{{/box-header|Did you know|Portal:Hungary/Did you know|}}

{{Portal:Hungary/Did you know}}

{{/box-footer|}}
  • On line 1, "/box-header" calls the box-header template. After the "|" is the title that goes in the "Did you know" box. This is where you can add a question mark or "...". After the second "|" is "Portal:Hungary/Did you know" which is the "edit" link.
  • On line 2 is {{Portal:Hungary/Did you know}} which transcludes the subpage into the portal.
  • On line 3, is "/box-footer" which just transcludes some more code that formats the bottom of the box.
In sum, just change the "Did you know" on the first line between the two pipes. I hope this explanation is helpful. -Aude (talk contribs) 23:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I thought this was some kind of common template for all portals, haven't noticed that it can be modified locally :) (I'm a newbie to portals :) – Alensha 寫 词 00:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Glad that helps. You can also change the colors in the portal (though I think the portal looks fine). These are set in Portal:Hungary/box-header. Anyway, thanks for working on the portal. We can always use help and portal maintainers. -Aude (talk contribs) 00:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The colors look good, I think (I thought of changing it to the same green that's in the flag, but that would be too bright.) I hope the other Hungarians will join me now that there are several of us :) it'd be nice to have a well maintained portal. – Alensha 寫 词 00:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Box skeleton - new markup

I'm proposing new box-skeleton markup that uses wiki table markup rather than div boxes. The div boxes were causing usability problems for older browsers, such as Internet Explorer 5 (as discussed on Portal_talk:Science#Box_skeleton_-_new_markup). With the new proposed box-header, it looks basically the same except maybe slight changes in spacing of the boxes. Before I go in and modify Portal:Box-header, I would like others to take a look at Portal:Sandbox and get feedback. Can you find any bugs? Thanks. -Aude (talk contribs) 01:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Great work; I actually like the new placement of edit links better, even if it's by accident. It requires the new Box-footer2 as well, does it not? I tried just the box header on Portal:History of science and it screwed everything up.--ragesoss 01:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Portal:Box-footer2 is needed. I also found a bug in IE6. The right-border of the "Selected picture" box is not showing up. I think it has to do with tables/div boxes used for that box, but not the others? I'll keep looking into it. As for the edit links, they can either be in the same spot or something like this version. Both look okay to me. -Aude (talk contribs) 02:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
At least some of the portals probably use a mix of the box-footer template and a substituted box-header; we should fix those portals ahead of time to avoid massive disruption when the changeover happens (once all the bugs are ironed out, of course).--ragesoss 03:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Like I'm doing on Portal:Trains. I got tired of watching the corners switch between rounded and square and watching the section edit link move around, so I substed the header template there. The footer template has been stable enough, so I'm still using the default footer. Slambo (Speak) 16:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The round corners were an experiment by User:Go for it!, which I don't think will happen again. I think WP:DISCUSS applies to box-header, since it's pervasive across so many portals. If people disregard that, I can foresee box-header being protected (as a last resort). Nonetheless, I suggest keeping box-header2 named as such. As a start, it could be applied to Portal:Science (once the bug with IE6 is fixed). -Aude (talk contribs) 20:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guideline

I've added the guideline tag. Any comments and/or objections?--TBCTaLk?!? 21:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There's one bit on the page that I think we might be better off removing (the comment about the proposal page being used to propose "the renaming, merging or splitting of existing portals"—this was only tried once, and didn't go over too well), but other than that, I can't see anything that would be controversial. Kirill Lokshin 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal approval process

It appears that editors are now selecting portals for possible deletion on the grounds that a portal has not been given prior approval: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Thinking. There is a link on this portal page which directs users to the approval process. Concern has been raised that this portal approval process does not have the wide consensus it appears to claim, and that it runs counter to the principles of Wikipedia - the essence of which is that this is a wiki which enables users to get involved immediately without registration or prior review. Tiresome though it is to tidy up vandalism and to correct mistakes, that is the price we have to pay for having a wiki. This portal approval process appears to be an example of creeping bureaucratic authority. If people feel that editors who are unsure if their portal is a good idea need somewhere to for for advice, perhaps the page could be renamed Wikipedia:Portal/Advice, and it made explicit and clear that there is no need to wait a week for approval. SilkTork 08:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Portal approval process counter to Wikipedia's aims? Discussion opened. SilkTork 08:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Portal/Instructions drastically need to be updated, per approval-process being marked historical. Much of the useful advice from points #1 and #2 of the procedure section should probably be merged there. --Quiddity 01:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved some of the info to Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines instead. diff. --Quiddity 19:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add random article within portal functionality

It would be nice to have the ability to jump to a random article within the topic covered by a portal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.217.188.20 (talk • contribs) .

Building on that thought, is there a script that will jump to a random link from a page full of links? A few projects maintain lists of articles that are included in the project (such as the Trains or Wisconsin article lists, for example). Since there's a list of applicable articles, it would seem rather simple for a script to randomly pick one of the articles in the list and go there. Slambo (Speak) 10:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Bugzilla Bug 2170 requests the code that would be necessary, i.e. random search within a category. If that becomes available then I guess it would be reasonably straightforward to add a link within the portal boxes. --The Sage of Brouhaha 16:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Orkney

Portal:Orkney has been started up by a disruptive User making a WP:POINT. Are we going to have portals for every local authority area in the UK? --Mais oui! 10:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. Please bring it to WP:MFD.--cj | talk 22:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I have followed your advice, please see:
--Mais oui! 08:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Errors on Singapore portal

Hello! I need help here. There seem to be errors on the Singapore portal. When I click on the edit section of each sub-box, the links point me to an empty page. Moreover, the pages in question are Template pages. Shouldn't this be Portal pages? I tried to correct this, but it ended up in total disaster. So I had to revert back my own edits. This is also the case for some of the other portals out there. Interestingly, none of the featured portals show this anomaly. They all link to the correct sub-pages which are portal ones. Please help or if someone who is expereinced in HTML codes could teach me to correct this, I would be most grateful! I believe, most of the portal here needs major improvement and I want to be part of the team as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone used the {{ed}} template in Portal:Singapore, which is only for use with templates. I've changed it to {{edit}} which can be used with Portal pages. If you see other portals with the same problem, please fix them yourself.-gadfium 02:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank You for informing me about this! There are a lot more portals out there with the same problem and I intend to fix them. If I encounter any problems with this, I would ask you for help. Thanks once again for the information. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portals under development

I went ahead and made a statement at Portal:Kentucky linking "under development" to here and provided links to the Portal's construction area. Please scold me politly or give me some modest praise for what I've done. • CQ 17:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Without discussing the merits of what you've done, could you tell why you did it? What use is that page?--cj | talk 17:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought it might be a reasonable precedent for other states and WikiProjects that are planning portals. I've had some favorable comments about building a Portal draft in the Project space rather than in the Portal space. Maybe we can make an attractive "Portal under construction" template? I dunno. I'm just trying to be creative. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals. CQ 18:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I think a redirect would have been more purposeful. It's just a self-reference as is.--cj | talk 16:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navigational template

I've created a template to help users navigate through portal related articles:

Any comments and/or objections?--TBCTaLk?!? 09:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I object. It is blindingly obtrusive, not particularly useful (its purpose is otherwise met by categories and wikilinks), and has no place at page beginnings. I might be less opposed if it were reformated and placed as a footer template.--cj | talk 09:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. It is oversized and graphic-laden. The icons and colour scheme are far too bold. --Quiddity 11:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
What is a "portal-related article?"   The Transhumanist   18:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New template

Portals
Featured
Criteria
Candidates
List
Directory
WikiProject
Guidelines
Instructions
Peer review
Pending

What about this new one? I've modeled it after the one used by WP:DYK.--TBCTaLk?!? 19:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's still designed to take prominence at the top of page. It would only work if it were designed as a footer template (ie, one that sits at the bottom).--cj | talk 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with it being on the top of the page? It could make it easier for readers to navigate, as they wouldn't have to scroll to the bottom of the page.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Because placement needs to be consistent, and this template wouldnt fit (physically or aesthetically) at the top of Wikipedia:Featured portals or Wikipedia:Portal. Contextually, this navbox is a 'See also' section, as not all the pages are related to each other audience-wise. --Quiddity 06:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Note that since the new template is a side box and not a header, it doesn't have to be at the top of a page. --TBCΦtalk? 06:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I made a bunch of changes, what do you think? Possibly it could be added now? The only place it might have to be left out of is Wikipedia:Featured portals, as it still doesnt fit physically/aesthetically ontu that page.
If either you or Cyberjunkie don't like my edited version, you can always try it in the style of Template:List resources footer. --Quiddity 22:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I narrowed it to make it less intrusive as a side box. Rfrisbietalk 23:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Even narrowed down, I don't think it's particularly attractive for any of the "formatted" pages, including Wikipedia:Featured portals, Portal:list and Wikipedia:Portal/Directory. It might work better as a footer in the style of Template:Contents pages (footer box) Rfrisbietalk 23:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I tried one out at Template:Portal nav footer. Rfrisbietalk 23:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's a test of the footer at Portal:List. [1] Rfrisbietalk 01:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Portals:  Featured (Criteria, Candidates) | List | Directory | WikiProject | Guidelines | Instructions | Peer review | Category

Although I'm still not convinced of the need for such a template, I've stated all along that I'd accept a footer template. Rfrisbie's proposed version is the most amenable option produced so far.--cj | talk 08:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I reduced the width a bit so it doesn't wrap on 800X600 displays. Rfrisbietalk 15:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if it's not placed elsewhere, I added the footer to Portal:List because it works well with the Contents project. Rfrisbietalk 15:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the footer currently used at the bottom of actual portals (on some portals it is placed inside a box, on others it isn't):

What are portals? | List of portals | Featured portals

Perhaps you would want to make a corresponding version of this one, so they match?   The Transhumanist   18:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

(Your signature is excessive) I don't think {{portals}} should correspond. That is meant to lay outside the boxes at the end of a page. Its presence in boxes on some portals is a relic of when {{portals}} was a list of portals. --cj | talk 22:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
(Signature reduced). Okay, outside of boxes. But it could still contain the same content and lay outside the boxes. I.e., update it to be a non-boxed version.   The Transhumanist   02:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
My impression was that {{portals}} was more of a minimalist approach, so I left it alone. This text-only version also could be expanded to include some or all of the other links. I'll leave that up to others to decide. {{Portal nav footer}} uses color parameters, so it could be matched to different portal palettes, if someone wanted to do that. Rfrisbietalk 00:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I really like {{Portal nav footer}}. I'd support merging {{portals}} and {{browsebar}} into this, and putting it at the foot of all the portal and portal-related pages. -- Quiddity 01:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that a bit like mixing apples and applesauce?... Uh, anyway, {{browsebar}} seems to play a different role ("main topic" portal navigation) than the others (everything you would ever want to know about portals). Higher up you said, "Contextually, this navbox is a 'See also' section, as not all the pages are related to each other audience-wise. --Quiddity 06:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)" Doesn't mixing metaphors go to the max this way? Or are you just happier getting rid of one more template? :-) Rfrisbietalk 02:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm just happier/suggesting getting rid of one more template. Innate tendency to tidy :) --Quiddity 02:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought so! Why don't you try out what you have in mind on a {{Portal nav footer}} diff or sandbox so we can see what it looks like? Rfrisbietalk 02:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Something along the lines of this diff. It bugs me having the very top thing at every portal, {{browsebar}}, be a distraction to go somewhere else. --Quiddity 03:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Or, along the lines of {{Hinduism}}, this. [2] I prefer as little "white space" as possible. Rfrisbietalk 03:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
{{Browsebar}} was meant to function as an hierarchical aid; however, as the hierarchy is increasingly diluted, it's now of only limited use. I wouldn't oppose getting rid of it, and its derivatives {{browsebarcountry}} and {{browsebarcity}} (which both should have been deprecated long ago). Conversely, with {{portals}} I'd prefer to continue the status quo; it's the most elegant solution to any navigational requirements on portals (and is similar to the implementation on the German Wikipedia). --cj | talk 03:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The "Contents" project is getting some consistency around Main topic classifications, so I can see some value in a "Main portals" line on a footer navbar. Rfrisbietalk 03:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, how the Germans do it isn't particularly compelling to me. Unless, of course, Jimbo endorses it! :-) Rfrisbietalk 03:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portals and WikiProjects

WikiProject — Portal dynamics are tricky and require extensive collaboration and could benefit from some central guidance. Please have a look. | 0^#o 21:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Box Skeleton the only portal type?

In the instructions for creating a portal, it says that the Box Skeleton is 'the most widely used layout is the "box portal".' But are there other layout types? Is there some other layout than the box layout? Hires an editor 19:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The design used on Portal:Cricket is one alternate present on some portals. There were at least two other templated designs, but these have both been phased out.--cj | talk 23:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I would object to merging Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines back into Wikipedia:Portal at this stage. The sub-page is still in development and it would be irresponsible to insert an underformed guideline in a page which is generally uncontroversial. Even upon Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines becoming complete, I would be against the proposed merger for the sake of keeping the principal page succinct.--cj | talk 23:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. This page is nice and short/comprehensible, acting as a summary and signpost. --Quiddity 04:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
There's always "tabs" <ducks from flying portholes & icons>. :-) Rfrisbietalk 01:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay to have "external resources"?

I wanted to add a section to Portal:Nontheism that would have a multitude of links to legitimate secular blogs and website. I don't see anything like this on other sites, though -- is this against any guidelines? --Wolf530 (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There a section of external links (under "reference links") at Portal:Philosophy. I don't know whether they're allowed or not though ;) --Quiddity 04:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Some portals have Web resources sections. I think we should be careful in our use of these, keeping in mind that portals are intended to promote Wikipedia content, not external content, and that Wikipedia is not a directory of links. Also, in the sense that portals may be misused for advocacy of a topic (or disparagement, for that matter), it might be best to just avoid them. However, as you say, they can serve a legitimate function.--cj | talk 04:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/r/Wikipedia_talk%7EPortal_a0f9.html"