Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Organized Labour/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The portal was not promoted 13:41, 13 April 2008.

[edit] Portal:Organized Labour

This portal has just celebrated its first birthday, had a successful peer review, and is, I think, ready to be considered as a featured portal candidate. Some of its features include: 366 rotating "Article of the Day" articles, 12 heavily-populated "This Month in Labor History" features, 50 random quotes, 48 featured photos, and 105 DYK's from the front page. Thanks in advance for your input! Haus^Talk 23:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Mild oppose- for god sake replace the selected article section with brief text about the article. it is looking extremely bad. Sushant gupta (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your feedback! I took a close look at the portal with your comment in mind and came to the conclusion "There is no way an article with an infobox can look good in a half-wide column." This led to a redesign that I believe was very helpful. It may well be that "A portal that uses daily articles cannot be a featured portal" or that "A portal that transcludes selected articles cannot be a featured portal." But I hope you'll bear with me as I seek to find out. Haus^Talk 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

no dude, you must have a layout for selected articles similar to portal:economics or any other portal. portals don't need inline citations and external linking. we don't give in-depth knowledge on portals. just a brief context about topics so that one can have a quick look up about the topic. I DO THINK THIS PORTAL has a potential to be FP. just improve this thing. Sushant gupta (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that one way to approach this candidacy is to remove the 366 date-keyed articles of the day that WP:LABOUR has put together, and replace this with blurbs from 10 featured articles. That's clear. The question is if there's a viable approach that doesn't involve dismantling the article of the day functionality. If there's not, I'll take that information back to WP:LABOUR and let the group choose whether they want a featured portal or articles of the day. Cheers. Haus^Talk 17:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

pls. try to get the exact importance of portals. it is to provide the viewers with brief outs. Sushant gupta (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments. Looks very nice but not quite ready for prime time. Can WikiProjectOrgLabTasks move up? Usage in other featured portals (and even the recommended section in Wikipedia:Portal guidelines) put a menu of other portals and Wikimedia as the footer. Can the red "talk" link in the intro be removed? Can "purge server cache" be moved up to become "Show new selections"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanlesch (talk • contribs) 15:26, 7 April 2008
  • Thanks for the feedback! I implemented all your suggestions. Do you think that "Related Portals" and "Wikimedia" look better at the bottom? The reason I had them on the side was to fill up blank space when someone looks at the page with a narrow browser. I might play with making the DYK box a little bigger... If you have any other suggestions, I'm all ears. Haus^Talk 21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think not so much a question of looks as guiding readers through the portals. Some invention is wonderful but comforming to standard navigation is a basic principle that helps everyone. Thanks for the very quick fixes. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite a pleasure, and thanks again for the help! Haus^Talk 22:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. One quick thing, I would remove the date (currently 07 April) from the box heading if possible. Good luck with future maintenance. Nice work. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks again, Susan. I played with a couple of alternatives with respect to the date -- the part that bugged me was the blue wikilink on red. My current favorite is "Organized Labour Article Of The Day for April 07, 2008", but I'd be happy to lop off the date if anyone still thinks it needs to go. Cheers. Haus^Talk 22:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the blue is gone and all is well ("the" can be lowercase probably). Thank you again. -Susanlesch (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose (and abstain from closing, obviously) - Sorry Haus, but yeah, the article thing is a big issue for me. I like innovation, but I think it's a bit too innovative. If you have 10 featured articles, and put them on random, that'd be great. If each of them has a "month significance" you could even schedule them. But transcluding an article is not a good idea, IMO. Sorry. Since I'm here, some other notes that need to be addressed;
• First of all, the image is great. Kudos. (Don't need to change anything here! :)
• "edit - history" links (in top section) should be plainlinks
  • And on that note, I'd argue that they're not really necessary for readers, but it's up to you. This innovation I can handle! :)
    • Y Done Good point, removed.
• The intro section has way too much bolding, makes reading difficult
  • Y Done I removed the bolding outside the first sentence. I'd be happy to remove that as well.
• "Organized Labour Article of the Day for April 09, 2008" - if you don't remove this bit (in which case, my oppose will have to stand...) please wlink the date per WP:DATE
  • Y Done I re-wikilinked the date. Susanlesch pointed out above the the blue wikilink on the red background was kind of gross, but I can go either way.
• Ensure all images in selected quote section are free use (heck, ensure *everything* on the portal is free use)
  • Y Done Double-checked all pictures in the quote section.
  • Y Done Double-checked all pictures in the selected picture section.
• Not sure why the wlink in the quote section (eg. I'm seeing Seattle General Strike of 1919) is in plainlinks...
  • Question. I don't quite understand: do you want me to remove the wikilink from the item below?

"Nothing moves in the city, without our say-so. Let the bosses curse, let the papers cry. This morning I saw it happen with these ancient eyes of mine. Without our say-so nothing moves but the tide!"

-- Rob Rosenthal, written during the Seattle General Strike of 1919.

• • • Not exactly. In the page's code, the link is formatted as [[:w:Seattle general strike of 1919|Seattle General Strike of 1919]]. The :w: is not needed, as that links back to Wikipedia. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Each date for the "in labor history" bit (which I'm not overly fond of, if you can find something else to replace it with...) needs a keyword in bold
  • Question. Do you think a "Today in labor history" would work better? I have enough material to make something like "Today in Aviation" at Portal:Aviation.
    • Sounds fine, if you can do it for every day. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• "More DYK" --> "More Did You Know?" since readers aren't familiar with WPjargon
  • Y Done Changed.
• The Show new selections link could be bigger
  • Y Done Removed <small> tag.
• There should be a Category:Organized Labour portal which all relevant pages are in (see Category:Music of Australia portal, for instance)
  • Y Done O.K., I think everything is categorized. There turned out to be 684 pages, so it's possible I missed a few.
• Oh, yeah. Since "Organized labour" has a lowercase "l", I'd have thought the portal should have the same...if you don't want to move every subpage (trust me, it's a pain!), you might want to play around with some hacks to change the wording on the main page ({{lowercase}} or something like that).
  • Doing... This might be tricky, but I'll see what I can come up with...
  • Question. As far as I can tell, hacking this is impossible after MediaWiki 1.11, due to a change in how the DISPLAYTITLE magic word works explained here. I'd like to hold off on moving 684 pages until I get some more input on this one...
    • Sorry, wrong template. Done and added comments so you can copy paste the templates to other pages and use them as you wish. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Would an in the news section be asking for too much? See also User:Wikinews Importer Bot, in use on Portal:Wales
  • Question. I looked into this a while back and ended up on the fence. n:Category:Labor only has 9 articles, and only 4 of these are from 2008. I'd be happy to plug it in, I just wasn't convinced it would be a net positive.
  • Y Done I went ahead and did this -- it looks better than I would have thought.

Again, sorry to oppose. I'll be watching this nomination to see what you do...who knows, I may be able to support at some stage. Good luck, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing so many good ideas! I took a quick pass and addressed what I could right away. Like I said above, I came into this understanding that understanding it's possible that "A portal that uses daily articles cannot be a featured portal" or that "A portal that transcludes selected articles cannot be a featured portal." I appreciate that you took a step back and gave the idea a fair shake. In any case, the portal has already gained a great deal from going through the process. Back in a bit for another pass. Haus^Talk 11:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! IMO, a portal that transcludes articles shouldn't be a featured portal, but I won't complain if this has consensus for promotion. In any case, it's a good portal! Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tranclusions of articles in portals? 10 out of 10 for creativity. But I admit that's too long. Portals are supposed to be entry points, not presenting the whole article. But on the bright side, at least you take suggestions to improve the portal from those who opposes, unlike some people who chose to bite back instead of improving. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not promoted. Haus^Talk 13:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • BUT it is an amazing portal. MUCH better than the static, unchanging, unWikified portals that have reached FA status. Every single ounce of credit is due to you, Haus, for your impressive efforts in improving our Portal and making it a superb example of the very best kind of content on Wikipedia. The rules for FA Portals create static, stodgy, unmaintained portals. You have helped make our Portal dynamic and information as well as aesthetically appealing. Three cheers and a tiger for you! - Tim1965 (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.