Wikipedia talk:Contents/Portals/Archive 2

message: This page is intended as a portal to portals, which then act as portals to articles. The continued creation of a philosophy section with the sole intent of linking to articles defeats the purpose of this page. There are some links to articles on this portal for classificatory purposes, not simply to promote content. Please stop creating a separate section for philosophy unless you intend to create (or rather, have created) sub-philosophy portals, which I would strongly advise against. You may wish to utilise the Religion and Spirituality section to link the philosophy portal more prominently, if absolutely necessary. Thanks, --cj | talk 03:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is thematically oriented.  Themes are conceptual.  There are some major conceptual categories missing, and the categories presented are weighted inappropriately.  Being a directory to knowledge, the piece needs to reflect the nature of the knowledge of the world.  When it is without the proper representation of topical themes presented according to their corresponding significance in the real world, the list becomes highly classificatorily SKEWED.  So, for the sake of proper classifcatory presentation of general knowledge, philosophy must be presented on the same level as Science.  Religion is actually a sub-classification of philosophy, but it is presented here as a top-tier category.  So please, quit trying to reduce philosophy's role as a major category in the knowledge of the world.  Thank you.  Go for it! 03:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy section

message: This browser is trying to accomplish a three-level hierarchy in a tightly compact manner.  The reason is because we are trying to track the spontaneous activity of portal-creators drilling down to that third leve (e.g. specific TV show of Simpsons for a portal).  Categories change more slowly.
The only problem I have is that we are using W's "colon" prefix for indenting.  That may be the correct way, but it forces a lot onto a single line, which I dislike.  We could just do the HTML, but I am still trying to figure out if there is a better way.  It would be nice if we could change to the notation in Overview and Cat Browse so that we can manage things one-per-line. -- Fplay 22:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "single line"? Are you suggesting that we should have a dot-point type list? That wouldn't work (æsthetically and ergonomically), I don't think.--cj | talk 03:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm with CJ on this one.  Bulleted lists, with one item per line, don't seem appropriate for the browse triumvirate. Go for it! 08:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tight hierarchy 

message: If we ever get portals for the other math topics, we can also put a math sectoin back on the portal browser too.  The users can live with the lack of symmetery for now. -- Fplay 17:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I put the math sections back on cat and overview browsers 

message: I made a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability, and so the browsebar on the main page is almost identical to our browsebar now.  It was completely identical, but there's one POV'er who reverted specficially the Art and Philosophy portals from it, citing the discussion on Template talk:MainPageIntro#portal:art and portal:philosophy.  However, that discussion was tied 2 to 2.  Please go there and support Art and Philosophy. Go for it! 07:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  We're almost completely adopted on the Main Page!

message: I think it might help to either clean up the main page and delete dead portals or add a section that links exclusively to actively-maintained portals.  As it is the list is long but most of the portals it links to are dead and haven't been updated in months.  That's very discouraging for the average browser.  We need to somehow highlight the active portals.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 14:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actively maintained portals 

message: The lists of sub portals in each category should be kept in alphabetical order.  I fixed up a couple sections, but in the future, try to put new entries where they belong in the English alphabet. :)
:Matt 08:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things need to stay alphabetised 

message: Is there a list somewhere of the less active or substandard portals?  Just for reference, these are the ones I ran across:
*Muppets
*Community
*International relations
*Scientific method
I ran across these while redirecting Wikipedia:List of portals here, but didn't add them to the main page because it looked like others had taken them off for one reason or another.  --Interiot 21:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only decent portals may be listed here - I've personally removed Portal:International relations and Portal:Scientific method. However, we haven't a page to note sub-standard portals. I'll set something up.--cj | talk 03:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less active / substandard portals 

message: At one per week, this whole page will fill up with stars in about a year.  That's silly.  I've ditched the stars.  --Go for it! 21:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I wasn't sure myself. I just noticed it on Portal:Accueil is all.--cj | talk 02:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's with the stars?

message: I tried to change some of the aesthetics, and it looked much better, but now someone has rv-ed the changes.
I would say:
*Lose the vertical bars; dots (·) are much more appealing and less intrusive.
*Move the icons (which aren't even necessary, but I think they have been sufficiently discussed on Wikipedia's Main Page draft talk page) to the right of each category name.
*Don't include links to actual articles – like "Americas" because this is a page for portals.
*Make Sports and games the same size as the others, and don't indent it; it is not enough a part of culture to require the indentation.
*People aren't stupid, and if we're going to label Sports and Games twice, they should be separate categories.
*Even though I understand the logic behind capitalizing "Culture" and such, when "games" is not capitalized, it is aesthetically displeasing and should be standardized.
Overall, the page looks horrible as it stands, but it definitely has potential. - ElAmericano | talk 19:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with your first point, ambivalent on your second, third and sixth points, and opposed to your fourth and fifth points. Sports and games cannot be a separate heading as it does not form part of the hierarchy (see WPT:P). A compromise could be to merge it back into Art and Culture. --cj | talk 04:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Go For It!, El Americano did make his changes - they were modified by me and reverted by you. For the record, I disagree with much of you above statement. In particular, I find the following comment concerning: "Everyone is allowed 3 reverts per day, on any given page, so don't be afraid to use them." This is a risky misinterpretation of the policy that could land you in trouble if you followed it literally. Edit warring is almost always counter-productive and always disruptive.--cj | talk 18:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he wasn't so much encouraging edit wars as he was showing exactly what the "be bold" policy means and giving good advice to a relative noob. - ElAmericano | talk 19:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aesthetics 

message: There is discussion going on now regarding the Main page redesign and linking portals (more prominently) from the main page to allow users to more easily browse Wikipedia.  
:Feel free to comment at either Wikipedia talk:Portal and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page redesign 

message: I don't think it legitimate to link to articles from a page dedicated to browsing portals. That's just confusing and seems to lack a point. Further, italicizing these article links isn't visually appealing. - ElAmericano | talk 04:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, articles are linked for the sake of topical organization. Makes it less confusing than a random soup of portals, I think. :) Lucidish 17:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a good idea either; since some of the supercategories are portals, the ones that link to articles are misleading.  I'm going to delink them.--ragesoss 04:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article links from portal page 

message: Should cuisine be listed under culture & art?  I don't see a subcategory that would work better. Jake 09:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 15:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuisine

message: why?  When I look at most of the portals there is text introducing the portal and space left for the portal image, but no portal image.  The pages are coded for a portal image, but they don't show up.  Who is hiding them?  Thanks Hmains 00:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why missing the little portal images?  

message: I think there should be a spellcheck function in the writing or editing part of Wikipedia.  This would really help with typos and make Wikipedia a better, more spell-safe, site.  Let me know if this is in the wrong section.  I wasn't sure where to post it.  I was going to post it in My Talk, but not many people would see it.--Existential Thinker 03:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Village Pump or Help:Contents.--cj | talk 09:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling check, please

message: I think atheism should be included as a portal in the Religion and Philosophy section. Atheism, together with agnostism, is the biggest belief in the world today, and although not a religion, it can be considered a philosophy. Dilbert 16:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion and Philosophy section

message: My portal was taken off the list (Austria-Hungary) why? Was it deleted? If so, bye, if not, I stay/ -- — [Unsigned .]
* It would appear that it was removed from the list as it was unfinished at the time of submission. It appears to be done now so I have re-added it. --GW_SimulationsTalk | Contribs | E-mail 19:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My portal 

message: There is no rotation of portal displays week by week, which is what the current title suggests, and most of the portals displayed in that section are shown for well over several weeks. In order to address this, I suggest that we change this to "Portal of the Month", and rotate the display accordingly. What are your thoughts? Brisvegas 09:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Portal of the week" is misleading 

message: I sincerely apologize for putting this here... but don't know where to put this.  I coined a new word today and a colleague suggested I post to Wikipedia.  This is a fantastic forum, and I wondered if there is some place to create new words with new definitions.  If so, please let me know and I will place it there.
Here is my entry:
bloggling  v.  Strange feeling Netizens get when attempting to view a blog or webpage only to find that it is filtered by administrators or government officials for inexplicable reasons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbcoops (talk • contribs) .
:replied at user's talk page. -Quiddity 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Words 

message: I think the way we have the portals listed is very messy.  We should list them with bullet points instead.  Tobyk777 18:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing Portals With bullet points

message: Now it became featured. I'd like to get this portal the portal of the month. How can I do it? Thanks. NCurse work 17:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no system in place for selecting "portal of the month", and they aren't exactly on a monthly schedule.  Preferably the portal selected has earned featured status.  Though, Association football is up there now, because it's related to current events.  I suggest leaving football up there through July 9th.  After that, I suggest going in order of promotion to Featured status, which means Tropical Cyclones, Christianity, Aviation, History of Science, and Medicine.  Though, if someone gives me a good reason for deviating from the order, I might buy it.  -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had changed the portal, but since today is the World Cup final, I guess we can leave it to today (which is why I reverted myself). Brisvegas 05:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medicine portal 

message: i'm new so i dont even really no what i'm doing or if i'm posting this in the right place? so i hope this is ok?  I just have a few questions. What would you lable these as? ...ppl. seeing through other ppl./creature's eyes;  Or if a person walks pass you and you automaitically can feel how that person feels; If you look deep into a person's eye's and can see there deepest thoughts;
dreaming bits and pieces of something and then you find that there coming true; visioning and feeling something that's happening but has not yet occured. — [Unsigned .]
:The appropriate place to ask questions unrelated to Wikipedia or any specific article is at one of the Wikipedia:Reference desks. I suggest the Miscellaneous Ref Desk for this one.-gadfium 04:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this considered precog?