Template talk:Browsebar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2006 April 11. The result of the discussion was keep.
Archive
Archives
1

Contents


[edit] This Browse Bar is All Wrong

First of all, the links in this browse bar should take you to nine (9) separate portal lists or portal menus rather than portals, themselves.

This bar is supposed to be a navigational aid. What it currently is saying is that if your portal is not a top level portal, fat chance the public will ever see it.

Second? There is no second. This bar as it now is being implemented is a navigational aid that totally breaks down at the the second level. -- John Gohde (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. good point. Sushant gupta (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like you would prefer something more like this {{Contents pages (header bar)}} as the default portal header.

Contents · Overviews · Topics · Basic topics · Glossaries · Portals · Categories · A–Z Index

It certainly would be more comprehensive. Some of the comments in the War topic above are relevant here as well. I would support replacing it with some form of a more general "contents" header. I expect there are a few templates available, so I don't necessarily think it has to be the example I mentioned. I just wouldn't go out and create another one just for portals. RichardF (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
My concern is with what appears on the top of the Main Page, as follows:
Of course, the browsebar on portals is also a problem. If we can first change the browsebar on the portals the next step will be to change the Main Page. The problem with the above alternative is that it does not stress portals, whereas the current main page does. Also, if the public does not know what a Wikipedia portal is, they are very unlikely to click on the portal option. -- John Gohde (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I can improve this template which might be satisfactory to you both. if you let me do what i want, i can show it right now. Sushant gupta (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and post your proposal. :-) RichardF (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The browsebar should direct to 9 separate lists (Arts · Biography · Geography · History · Mathematics · Philosophy · Science · Society · Technology), each one of which would start off with an introduction to the primary portal for each topic which would be followed by a nested listing of all the portals that would logically fall under the primary topic. -- John Gohde (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't support creatings new, separate lists. We already have the complete list and directory pages. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind just linking to the applicable sections of the list. Something like this.
Arts · Geography · Health · History · Science & Math · Philosophy · Society · Technology
Sure, there's lot's of room for debate on what makes the list and what you call it. So what's new? ;-) This is just to make the point we don't need to create any new pages just to make the portals navigation bar more inclusive. RichardF (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC) If folks go for it, the introductions to the main portals could be added to each section too. RichardF (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Does that piece of wisdom apply as well to tomorrow as it did yesterday? Time will tell, I guess?
I do believe that the 3rd class passengers on the Titanic ocean liner were in the process of reaching a consensus as to who should sit in the lifeboats, first. When the stupid boat sunk on them. They never had a chance to reach a consensus as to the best way of lowering the lifeboats.
As for me, I prefer to get the job done, as soon as possible. Nor, do I appreciate dealing with editors that try to threaten you publicly over this consensus nonsense. If your lifeboat is sinking, I without reservation recommend the immediate plugging of the leak. -- John Gohde (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I link to sub-sections all the time. So, that approach would do. As long as the redirections are not destroyed by somebody editing the section headings (which does happen over time). Just as long as the public is directed to a master list of ALL portals rather than to a portal, which may or may not provide an easily accessible list of all portals under its topic. -- John Gohde (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikis be wikis. Wrangling changes is part of the game. Enough folks watch these pages that I don't think any links would stay broken for long. RichardF (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been watching this thread, and waiting for the drafts of alternatives to appear. RichardF's proposal of linking to the main portal's subsections is head-smackingly elegant. Wish I'd thought of. Full support. Same changes at Main Page list too please. I've left a note at the portals wikiproject. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I made the switch to Portal:Portals section links. Let the wrangling begin! ;-) RichardF (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems a very sensible change, especially considering that the browsebar was losing favour overall.--cj | talk 22:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying it out a bit, and it certainly makes it a lot more convenient to browse portals in the different sections...and find little things that need fixing! :-) RichardF (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice job. I especially like that it supports and relies upon the current portal directory's sections. The Transhumanist    06:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, I tried to fit the sections to the main page. This is what it looks like so far: Wikipedia:Main page alternative (portals). The Transhumanist    08:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Version #1 intended above is here. RichardF (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I would stick with one word descriptions, namely: Arts · Geography · Health · History · Science · Mathematics · Philosophy · Society · Technology. I would have hoped that these categories were at one point selected by some type of process. Of course, if you simply added another row that would give you room for 3 more major category descriptions. -- John Gohde (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Version #2 that looks more like the browsebar labels is here. RichardF (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks better to me, or good enough. -- John Gohde (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Suggested at Talk:Main Page#Portals on the main page. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Cool. RichardF (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Browsebar Problem has been fixed Permanently

Personally, I do not see why one editor who apparently can not make up his mind about anything is allowed to mess up the look of the portal that I have worked so hard to create. My portal is not under construction. It is being viewed by the public. No problem. I have changed the portal so that it will stick to the browsebar that I had selected and worked so hard to get. -- John Gohde (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are referring to my edits. If you look at the history of the browsebar, and any other page, they change routinely. I see your claim to personal ownership of Portal:Complementary and Alternative Medicine is moving along nicely. RichardF (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This portal has opted out of your total nonsense. -- John Gohde (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Since portals don't have free will, nor do you own it, your confrontational statement has no bearing on whether or not the browsebar applies to it. RichardF (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither does RichardF own the browsebar. Please bring back the browsebar as it was intended to be. -- 67.62.69.162 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I make no such claims. If you don't like it change it. :-) RichardF (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You!

Thanks to Quiddity for bringing back the browsebar as it was intended to be. I saw no consensus reached for making any major changes to this bar. -- John Gohde (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the test you complained about. Quiddity reverted a link to a specific portal. There is no "intended to be" design that can't be changed. The navigation system is not perfect and it will continue to evolve. RichardF (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
And, I have just opted out completely due to the never-ending nonsense that is still going on. -- John Gohde (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "Portals:"

Removed the word/link "portals" from the beginning of the browsebar, since all the links on the browsebar already lead to that very same page. The whole page is covered, by links to all of its subsections. The Transhumanist (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] well formated browser

don't you guys think that the given below format would give a nice look. Sushant gupta (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Bar-style templates basically are a minimalist style. The less included, the less to clash with specific pages. I prefer it without the box. Sorry. RichardF (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
well, nothing to be sorry about. i thought that it would be better to have a box because we have this box on the main page where the portals are mentioned. it would look a bit standardized. anyway thanks a lot for your comments. Sushant gupta (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)